My aunt is going through a crisis right now. She is having a lot of health problems and is suffering from depression. I have encouraged her to get in touch with her innate spiritual nature through mindfulness, meditation, and eastern wisdom such as Buddhism, yet she just doesn't seem interested and instead has told me she feels drawn towards Christianity. I have told her this is because she was raised Christian and, through her depression and subsequent identity-loss, is clinging to her only way of being "spiritual" which unfortunately is her Christian upbringing.

Now, I know I can't force her in another direction but I feel that if I present her with good reasons to NOT choose Christianity she might find alternative spiritual paths more appealing. (such as the Eastern and esoteric paths that are less fear-based, more inwardly focused, and more empowering.)

Can you guys provide some good reasons to not become Christian, and maybe some links to sites that I could send her that might steer her away from this evil, viral religion?

I would really appreciate it.

The history of Christianity is nothing short of repulsive - but that doesn't take away from the countless GOOD Christians and the comfort the thought of Heaven provides to the sick and dying. I grew up Christian in a Christian family but found it was not for me. However, many millions of people over the ages receive spiritual nutrition from these faiths. The reason I left was dogma. It's not my thing.

A wise man once told me, "There are many paths up the mountain." Why not let her find her own durring these hard times?

I would not call it spiritual nutrition. It may provide temporary comfort, but I've seen it do more harm than good. It encourages a victim mentality, sub-conscious fear and guilt, and discourages alternate ways of personal growth and perception such as meditation and psychedelic exploration.



But she's not "finding her own", she's just reverting to her programed Christian conditioning.

Have you thought about simply meditating together to clear the mind? This alone can be all the spirituality one needs.

..Jesus was a Rabbi (to be permitted to enter the Temple) and did not advocate a new religion to judaism, although everything he is reported to have said was written by other people 70-120 years later..
..judaism is exclusive, usually requiring birth right, plus the old testament is totally barbaric (allowing for the enslavement of philistines)
..what is now called Christianity stems from the dodgy ex-tax collector Paul's mission to start a lucrative franchise in Rome..
.
ps. Buddha (Sidharta) didn't write anything down either..

No spiritual path can be proved to be the right one. I am not a fan of christianity whatsoever, but if your aunt finds more solace in christian spirituality than anything else, I would let her be...

I have the same thing with my parents... can't stand their religion/faith, but it's what keeps them going, so I accept it...

If you want an appeal to logic:

Full Book: "Against the Gods?" - from Freedomain Radio (with captions)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1boMRKWDj1I

I think you should leave your Aunt to her Christianity. It's rather pointless trying to change her beliefs at her age. If she wants to Change she can then ask you.

-My mother is Catholic, and was recently ill. She prayed and prayed but nothing got better. I told her my thoughts on Religion, but i was wasting my time. live and let live.

> To help her out of her crisis suggest she joins a gym and works out regularly, eats well, and gets lots of good sleep, and generally keeps busy doing things she enjoys, and "loses herself". Religion is rather a waste of time activity that will only lead to introspection which is not something to do especially when you are in a low mood. Praying to God will not give the benefits of exercise, fresh air, good diet, and refreshing sleep. In fact tell your mother to do what she thinks God would want her to do. Perhaps that is all she needs to do/ask. God will reply that she needs to do the things that work for her, and if she finds better activities than prayer and going to church, then she should do those better activities. Remember that if there is a God out there that he wants each person to do what's right for THEM, and not the masses-like organised religion dictates.

I think it's a bit harsh to rail on Christianity as a whole. I mean, a lot of nasty stuff has been done in its name, but like most religions I don't see how Christian philosophy is any less valid (or significantly different) than other spiritual beliefs.

It's its own set of terminology, just one way of coding the great mystery of existence. If you want to discuss different ways of looking at the universe with your aunt, I suggest becoming literate in Christian metaphor-- it's all the same.

There were periods of time when Buddhist and Hindu monks/officials took part in their own corrupt hierarchies, just as there were periods of time (and large ones, too) wherein Christian monks lived lives and built cultures near-identical to the more harmonious nature you glorify for being in eastern religions.

Talking about which god you believe in is irrelevant, what's important is how.

I would tell your Aunt that if she wishs to be a Christian then she should start by reading the Bible, all of it, from cover to cover.
If she can read it and not see the disgusting treatment of women and children at the hands of the men who claim to spread the word of the devine then i would fear there is nothing you can do to help her.

I have never met a Christian who has actually read the Bible for themselves.

I think you should try your hardest to teach your Aunt that any group or religion that states you can only comune with your God through them in there special building, or any group which condems you to hell for doing things which hurt no one else is not to be followed, no matter how much shiney wrapping paper it is wraped up in.

-I agree with this comment. I also think that all that religions ATTEMPT to do is convey onto those who havent't had a psychadelic experience what they have learnt from it, having had one. Trouble is they do it badly when they try to cater for the masses, since we are all different, and the psychadelic experience is a true 1-1 experience with the divine that is tailored to ones personal needs. Also, these religions decided to keep this secret to themselves so that they had power over the unenlightened.

This is as good a reason as any:



The guy just looks like he is made of pure evil...

hahahahahaha

I will suggest it, thanks a1pha.



I don't think it's harsh at all. It's not just another way of seeing things, it's a spiritually destructive dead end and I've already said how christianity is fear based and doesn't lead to any sort of enlightenment or genuine spiritual growth so I won't go into it again but this isn't really what the topic is about. I'm only concerned with reasons to not become christian or links showing this.



I wasn't just referring to christianity's evil history, I'm talking about how it's currently interpreted and practiced, but again, off topic. But thanks anyways.

Everyone else- thank you for your replies, I appreciate all of your input.

Keep 'em coming!

AAAAAAAAAAA!

Geeze, Purges, warn a guy next time!

Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you need to ask others for reasoning on why your aunt should avoid Christianity, then perhaps you aren't in such a position to try to sway her religious/spiritual orientation. It is my impression that you actually dislike Christendom rather than Jesus Christ or even true followers of Jesus; for, Jesus Christ is in the same boat as Siddhartha (in my opinion), as they both attained a sort of cosmic consciousness. Christianity can, indeed, be spiritual, as many Christian mystics have corroborated this.

There are many reasons not to be a Christian, or for that matter belonging to Islam or Judaism as well. First, let us make a quick review of some the logical arguments against the main tenet of Christianity, namely God. These logical arguments, or disproofs, seems impossible to escape unless one changes the rules of the game or, more commonly, changes the definitions of the words being used in the argument.

An all virtuous being cannot exist:

1. God is by definition a being which no greater being can be thought.
2. Greatness includes the greatness of virtue.
3. Therefore, God is a being that which no being could be more virtuous.
4. But virtue involves overcoming pains and danger.
5. Indeed, a being can only be properly virtuous if it can suffer pain or be destroyed.
6. A God that can suffer pain or is destructible is not one that which no greater being can be thought.
7. For you can think of a greater being, one that is nonsuffering and indestructible
8. Therefore, God does not exist

The problem of evil:

1. If God exists, then He is perfect
2. If God exists, then He is the creator of the universe.
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must also be perfect.
4. But the universe is not perfect.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist

A transcendent being cannot be omnipresent:

1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e, outside space and time)
2. If God exists, he is omnipresent.
3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space-
5. Hence it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent.
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist.

These are just a few examples of the many logical disproofs for the existence of God, but it gives some taste to the sheer formal absurdities of Gods existence. These arguments may not be considered very strong by some, but nevertheless they are there and perfectly valid, and they alone actually constitutes some nice arguments against one of the most central things in Christianity.

But lets not end our discourse with these simple formalities, but look at other aspects of Christianity as well. One of the attributes of God is that he has created the universe, thus the universe is designed. This is quite a common argument, and is a form of the "The God of the Gaps"-argument; the universe, and in particular living things, are simply too complex to have arisen by any conceivable natural mechanisms. This is, however, a huge fallacy. The theory of evolution renders this argument meaningless for many reasons. Biological data, as well as the whole realm of scientific observations lead to the conclusion that the universe is not at all designed. Indeed, Earth and life looks just as they can be expected to in the absence of a designer God - thus the hypothesis "God does not exist" is supported thouroughly by evidence.

For example, the discovery of human ancestors, DNA and anatomical connections between humans and other animals (even plants, too) falsify the hypothesis of a God who created humans as a distinct lifeform. The fossil record, the existence of transitional species, and the actual observation of evolutionary processes in the laboratory falsify the hypothesis of a God who created separate kinds or species of life at one time in history, while leaving them unchanged ever since. This is a strong and indisputable argument against the existence of the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. This God is simply absurd and falls under the weight of objective evidence and accumulated knowledge over the last few hundred years.

I could go on about how science actually shows how unlikely the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is, going into the depths of the arguments more thoroughly. But since a book would be needed to write it, lets just sum it all up:

1. A God who created the complex structure of the universe, especially that of life, fails to agree with the empirical fact that this structure can be understood to arise from simple natural mechanisms. As I've already said, everything we see is to be expected if no such creator God existed. Thus, it is highly unlikely that such a God exists.

2. A God who has given humans immortal souls fails to agree with the empirical fact that our memories and personalities are determined by physical processes in the brain (for example, damages to the brain can cause changes in personality), that no nonphysical or extraphysical powers of the mind can be found, and that no evidence for an afterlife exists. Thus, such a God is highly unlikely.

3. A God whose interaction with humans and the universe, including miraculous intervention, that is reported in scripture as well as elsewhere is simply contradicted by the lack of independent evidence that these events took place, and the fact that physical evidence now demonstrates convincingly that some of the most important biblical narratives, such as the Exodus, never took place.

4. A God who miraculously and supernaturally created the universe fails to agree with the fact that no violation of physical laws were needed to produce the universe, its laws, or its existence rather than its nonexistence.

5. A God who fine-tuned the laws and constants of physics for life, in particular human life, fails to agree with the fact that the universe is not congenial to human life, being tremendously wasteful of time, space and matter from our perspective. It also fails to agree with the fact that the universe is largely composed of particles in random motion, with complex structure such as galaxies forming less than 4 percent of the mass.

6. A God who communicates directly with humans through revelation fails to agree with the fact that no claimed revelation has ever been confirmed, while many have been falsified; no claimed revelation has contained information that could not have already been in the head of the person making the claim.

7. A God who is the source of morality and human values need not exist, because evidence clearly shows that humans define moral values themselves. Nonbelievers behave no less morally than believers.

8. The existence of evil is logically inconsistent with an omniscient, omnibenovelent, omnipotent God as shown earlier.

If a Judeo-Christian-Islamic God were to exist, at least some of these points shouldn't be contradicted by empirical observations and facts. But since all of these points fall under the weight of scientific observations, there is no reason to believe in such a fairy-tale God.

But there is more to argue against this God. For example he is, in fact, thoroughly evil because he deliberately encourages and commands his followers to kill, torture and abuse. Let us a look at a few passages from scripture:

- Deutoronomy 13;12-16

- Deutoronomy 13;7-11

More nice passages can be found everywhere in the Bible, and for your amusement you may also take a look at New Testament Cruelty. For a taste, Jesus has this to say about Jews;

- Matthew 8;12

Jesus is not such a nice guy after all, is he now? Not at all:

- Matthew 10;34-36

Is it really a nice thing to worship such a God and such a man? When they want you to kill, to spread suffering, to torture and abuse, why would you want to believe in them? It's insane. Passages like this can be and have been used to kill and torture in the name of God and Jesus - for example the Inquisition, the hunting of witches and the Anti-Semitism inherent in Christianity. Christianity is repulsive and barbarian, totally stripped from reason and critical thinking, and is simply primitive. It is also currently a great obstacle to scientific research in the United States (stem cell research in particular), and an opponent of gay-marriage among other things. Furthermore, under the influence of Christian notions of the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage, the U.S. government has earlier required that one-third of its AIDS prevention funds allocated in Africa be squandered on teaching abstinence rather than condom use. Millions could die as a direct result of this stupid religiuos dogmatism. The list goes on of these repulsive actions where reason is abandoned.

I’m not going to argue for or against Christianity or any other belief system. That’s a personal choice.

But I did want to comment on your “logical” arguments. You say that these arguments can be denied only if we change definitions. I would say that’s true, but I’d also say that the definitions required to make the arguments logical stretch many terms beyond their breaking point.

I used the quote above as an example, but all of your “logical” arguments have similar flaws.

1. If God exists, then He is perfect.
Who says that God “exists” in a way that we understand? And why must God be perfect? What does it mean to be “perfect”? Who decides what perfection is and isn’t?

2. If God exists, then He is the creator of the universe.
Why? Maybe God IS the universe. Maybe the “universe” has always existed, and was therefore never created.

3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must also be perfect.
This statement is itself a logical contradiction. It claims that there are limitations on a perfect being. Yet a being with limitations is not a perfect being.

4. But the universe is not perfect.
This is just an opinion. My opinion is that the universe IS perfect. Everything happening everywhere is happening exactly as it must. It is pure perfection.

5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
How does this follow from what I’ve expressed?

6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.
Ha!

I like to point out one VERY important aspect for this thread: There is no such thing as just ONE Christianity!

Christianity has many faces, from the major groupings like Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Protestants to subgroups like anglicans, baptists, lutherans, evangelicals, etc.

Also the horizon on the interpretation of the scriptures ranges from 'hardliners' like creationists to Christians who see their religion as more Buddhist-like and interpret the scripture as such by not taking it literally but looking at the essence of it, leaving much room for enlightenment.

So I think the polarization I see in this thread to put Christianity in a bad light is actually a false one since there is no such thing as "THE Christian", please keep that in mind when having this discussion.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

Gibran2, I knew you would come in (are you just coming in for the sake of arguing with me? ). But you have to note that I am arguing against the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic God with the attributes he is generally assigned. You are basically changing some of the definitions (for example God being the universe instead of creating it), and I agree that these arguments will then not hold. There are of course certain problems with these arguments as you rightly point out, and the definitions need be discussed more properly. For that, I refer you to the detailed individual essays in the compilation by philosophers Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier; The Impossibility of God

Anyway, I was just trying to give a sense of the philosophical debate here, and that it is possible to logically contradict Gods existence on certain defined premises, but this discussion could go on and on in a semantic circle wank. The more important arguments of my post is however not these arguments (in retrospect, I wish I hadn't included them, lol).