20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity

Then throughout the rest of the bible, god instucts the men of perfect faith to kill millions of people for the slightest infraction.

Attempting to corrupt the worship of the ancient Israelites--God's chosen people who were to eventually produce his promised Seed which would serve as the salvation for all mankind--is not what I would call "the slightest infraction".

Consequently this religious orgy of violence continues unmolested to this very day, with hardly of word of resistance from the religious community.

One must remember that, unlike the ancient Israelites, Christians are not being directed by God to defend and preserve a chosen nation. There is no call to arms for Christians in the Bible. Quite the opposite. It is only by ignoring and rejecting the counsel given to Christians that so many religions claiming that faith have involved themselves in bloodshed over the centuries.

Reject all forms of religious violence, more truth, beauty and happiness will come to you.

Very true.

No one told the crusaders that....

Of cource not. When has the Catholic church ever been known for basing their dogma on the Bible?

Here is what the did take to heart:

Matthew 10:34 King James Version (KJV) ³⁴Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. ~ Jesus Christ

It's doubtful that anyone took this scripture into consideration while planning to attack foreign countries, since in this account Jesus is specifically discussing the division that would sometimes occur within families as some accepted his teachings while others would reject them:

Matthew 10:34-36 "Do not think I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man's enemies will be persons of his own household.

Luke 19:27 King James Version (KJV) ²⁷But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. ~ Jesus Christ

Although this is a popular scripture among those who use it to attack the Bible, those who have taken the time to read the context know that it is actually part of a parable, and not something that Jesus literally commanded his servants to do. Thus, to characterize it as a "quote" of Jesus Christ without referencing that context is disingenuous at best. Although it's entirely conceivable that the Catholic church could have pulled this scripture out of context and misapplied it in the interest of spurring on their crusaders, to my knowledge they never actually did so.

but Mark Twain, Sam Harris, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and every great skeptic in history didn't get it either?

By their writings, they make it evident that their understanding was indeed lacking to various degrees. Do any of these individuals give you the impression that they had diligently studied Christian teachings in the Bible and were being lead by God's Holy Spirit? As demonstrated by his quote, poor Mr. Harris generally makes the same, obvious mistake as the author of your referenced article: lacking the ability to differentiate between Catholic dogma and Christian teachings as taught in the Bible. Notice how he concerns himself with supposed "thinkers" that climbed the political hierarchy of the Catholic church, rather than with the teachings of Christ himself? A classic example of a man who doesn't "get it" when it comes to the true meaning of Christianity.

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31

Simple enough, this concept predates, and has been hijacked by Christianity.

The general concept of the 'golden rule' certainly predates Christianity. However, in nearly every other case it was presented as, essentially: Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you." Yet notice how Jesus reversed the flow of the idea when he stated it: "Do to others what you want them to do to you." Do you recognize the significance of that reversal?

Performing good deeds should be done for their own sake, not for a reward, payable after death. Surly you can think of an other reason to cause no harm to your brothers and sisters, christian or not, can you?

It's not clear how or why you've connected the two ideas, but there is nothing in Jesus' statement at Luke 6:31 that implies a reward after death for anything he mentions, let alone for simply not harming others. Jesus' take on the golden rule is very clear on the idea that you should be taking the initiative to treat others well. He mentions no promised reward, other than the hope that they might treat you nice in return. Regardless, you should be proactively good. It's just that simple.

Here is Christianity biggest moral dilemma:

Christianity's most Nefarious belief.

http://king-dave.newsvine.com/_news/2011/08/19/7411858-christianitys-most-nefarious-belief

Once again, you need to appreciate that Catholic dogma is not synonymous with Christianity and in many (if not most) cases actually conflicts with it. Catholic dogma absorbed the teachings of literal hell-fire, mother worship (veneration of Mary) and the trinity doctrine from Babylonian, Egyptian and Assyrian teachings. It borrowed dogmas such as purgatory and immortality of the soul from Greek philosophers. All of these teachings directly contradict what the Bible teaches. So it would appear you misspelled "Catholicism's" in the title of that article in the quote above, for it is actually Catholic tradition about hell-fire and what happens to young children at death which is falsely ascribed to Christianity in the article, and such ideas directly conflict with what is found in the Bible.

In order to be a Chrianstian, you must believe after starving to death, these children will be punished in an afterlife for eternity, with no chance of repeal. For the crime of not accepting Jesus as the sole saviour. This is not Catholic dogma, but main stream Christianity, straight from the bible. See the book of revelation. And John 3:16

Unfortunately, you have apparently been mislead on this point. What you describe above most certainly is a dogma, and an offensive dogma at that. Please realize that your ideas above are based in part on the Catholic dogma of infant baptism which--you guessed it--is not found in the Bible and contradicts what the Bible teaches. It first developed in about the 3rd century C.E. The reality of the matter is that God does not condemn children who die before they are old enough to reason and get a chance to learn about Christ's ransom. To help make this more clear, consider what the Bible says is needed to receive everlasting life:

John 17:3 "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."

Notice that it requires "taking in knowledge". It also requires accepting that knowledge:

Acts 2:41 "Therefore those who embraced his word heartily were baptized, and on that day about three thousand souls were added."

Who were baptized? "those who embraced his word heartily". Clearly, taking in such knowledge and embracing it is not something that a young child is capable of doing. Now take a closer look at John 3:16:

John 3:16 "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life."

Notice what is expected of those that will receive everlasting life: "exercising faith". Clearly a young child has no ability to do that either, just as people of all ages who have never learned about Christ have no ability to do so, since it would first require the aforementioned taking in of, and accepting, knowledge. So what happens to such individuals who have died? We learn in Revelations that such ones will be resurrected in order to have an opportunity to prove themselves based on accurate knowledge. The resurrection promised in the Bible is a fascinating subject that is all but ignored by many religions that claim to follow the Bible, primarily because many man-made dogmas about heaven and hell directly conflict with it. Below is a link that explains more about what the Bible teaches on this. Please consider it and the scriptures it references to gain a better understanding of what the Bible has to say about the resurrection. I believe it may surprise you:

Real Hope for Your Loved Ones Who Have Died

Now kindly take another look at John 3:16 and consider what it says will happen to those who knowingly decide to not exercise faith. Notice that is says they will simply "be destroyed", not "punished in an afterlife for eternity."

Mt. 5.21-22

Concerning the term Gehenna, here is another link that explains it scripturally, and how the Bible makes it clear that it has nothing to do with literal fiery torment:

Is Gehenna a Place of Fiery Torment?

I can only debate the literal word of the bible, and the morality it proposes. And imposes. It's impossible to dispute each individuals interpretation of what they wish Christianity to be.

I feel the same way. As long as you can quote it directly from the Bible, I'm more than willing to discuss it. But, as demonstrated above, man-made teachings such as infant baptism(including what supposedly happens to them if they were not baptized) do not originate from the Bible. Such "tradition" is clearly warned against in the Bible:

Matthew 15:8-9 "'This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.'"

However, if you genuinely feel that there are scriptures which support such ideas, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss them with you.

This short article says it better than I:

Briefly...

1) The preceding verse 17 makes it clear that Jesus fulfilled the Law(Matthew 5:17-19). "All was accomplished" during his ministry on earth.

2) Notice how Luke 16:17 reads in a few other translations:

Luke 16:17 (NWT) "Indeed, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one particle of a letter of the Law to go unfulfilled."

Luke 16:17 (NASB) "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail."

As noted previously, Jesus succeeded in fulfilling the Law, including all of the aspects of it that foreshadowed his propitiatory sacrifice.

3) While Jesus was alive on the earth as a Jew, he was accountable to the Mosaic Law. It was not fulfilled and superseded until the time of his death, whereupon it was replaced by the "new covenant" Jesus mentioned at Luke 22:20.

3b) It's very important to recognize this. Discerning the purpose of various laws and commandments in the Bible is also very important. The Mosaic Law served its intended purpose and was fulfilled. Christ's new covenant has been in effect since that time.

3c) Very true. Guidance by God's Holy Spirit is essential to proper understanding of the scriptures.

4) At Mark 7:9-13, Jesus was actually criticizing the Jews for using loopholes they had created in order to avoid honoring their parents. The law he was referencing (Exodus 22:17) refered to adult offspring calling down evil upon their parents, not disobedient little children.

5) These scriptures in Matthew are simply a parallel account of those from the book of Mark already discussed in #4.

6) Jesus here refers to Gehenna, which is clarified in more accurate translations from the archaic term "hell". Please refer to my reference on the topic of Gehenna back in post #2.10.

7) "Slavery" for a Jew had little in common with the modern concept, and was actually closer to what we would call "indentured servitude". For instance, Israelite slaves had rights and protections, and were normally released after serving for seven years unless they chose to continue in the service of their master.

8) Please refer to the explanation of point #3, which also applies to this.

9) In line with what Jesus stated here, the Mosaic Law was not "broken". What it foreshadowed was fulfilled and accomplished in every detail by Christ. Thus the scriptures were shown to be accurate.

These quotes clearly contradict what you just told me is the "true" teachings of Christ.

I believe my comments on those quotes, although brief and far from comprehensive, have amply demonstrated that is not the case.

The gospel of John is heretical as well as a reaching example of hearsay.

Then I must admit I find it curious that you yourself referenced it back in post #2.9. Regardless, that's an entirely different--and extensive--topic so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that for now in lieu of some future discussion on the subject.

You have given me pause to think however, your liberal and moderate form of Christianity may even be correct, but sadly with your religious brothers and sisters you are in the minority.

Very much in the minority, yes. But that just makes me all the more eager to share what I have learned with others who afford me the opportunity.

With other opportunities in the future, and my thanks Dave, please have the last word....

Very gracious of you, Dave. Thank you for the discussion.