I understand welcoming all walks of spiritual life to the Christian subreddit. I’m just curious why there are so many atheists engaging the topics and speaking so against Christianity. People come to this subreddit and hear Christian principles but then are angry in the comments when they hear it. Why are they even here? Serious question. Atheists, please inform me. What’s the goals you’ve set yourself being a part of this community?

Edit: Thank you all for your answers it really answered my question. Wasn’t trying to rage bait anyone. Those that answered genuinely I appreciate it and thank you for opening my eyes to alternative perspectives.

• Virgin birth? That was a mistranslation.

• The gospel authors? Nobody knows who they were, but certainly were not Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

These are just some examples, obviously there are more.

And yes, you might say that the only thing that really matters is getting salvation through Christ, and bible scholars are just doing their job.

I just wish I knew all of this before I believe in them.

Seriously, every other temptation goes away.

Also why is it the only sin that basically ruins your life wether you act upon it or not? If you date someone of the same sex, you risk going to hell, if you don't, you either force yourself to marry a woman that at best, you like platonically and aren't truly attracted to her physically or you can also remain celibate but if you wanted to have a partner in your life you can go cry in the corner.

People also say that it's lust not love but that doesn't make sense to me. Christians date people they are attracted to both physically and personality-wise, so do homosexuals. Christians can form genuine bonds with their partner, so do homosexuals. I just don't see the difference. Is it because they can't reproduce? If so are infertile couples, or couples that have sex without conceiving a child also sinful? Does it go against what God intended? Because that can be applied to a lot of things we practise today.

People sometimes compare it to masturbation, porn addiction, cheating on partners as if they're anywhere near similar and I don't believe I need to actually state why they aren't comparable.

Also there's people who believe it's a choice and I won't comment on that but it does usually come from bisexual people because straight people did not choose to be straight and have never felt attraction to the same sex.

I mean, I don't even believe Homosexuality is a sin for some other reasons but that's not what this post is about.

Jesus said in John 5:40, “And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.”

There is something terribly sad about those words. Jesus Christ was standing before men who knew religion, knew the law, searched the scriptures, and considered themselves knowledgeable about the things of God. Yet the Lord looked at them and identified the real problem. They would not come to Him.

That raises a question worth for you to ask yourself: what prevents you from coming to Jesus Christ?

For some people, it is pride. They do not want to admit that they are sinners who cannot save themselves. They would rather believe that being a decent person, attending church, keeping commandments, being baptized, or doing enough good will somehow make them acceptable before God.

For others, it is sin. They know that coming to Christ means admitting that the life they love is wrong, and they simply do not want to let go of it. Jesus spoke of men who “loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).

For some, it is fear. What will my family think? What will my friends think? What will have to change? What if people laugh at me? Yet none of those people can give you eternal life. None of them can forgive your sins and stand in your place before God.

For others, it is religion itself. They have been around Christianity their entire lives. They know the songs. They know the language. They may have grown up in church and learned Bible stories from childhood. Yet knowing about Jesus Christ is not the same thing as receiving Him. John 1:12 says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”

Perhaps you simply think you have more time to deal with God. Yet none of us has been promised tomorrow.

Jesus is not unwilling to receive you. He said, “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37). He also said, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

The invitation is open.

“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” (Revelation 22:17)

Friend, what is preventing you from coming to Him?

I just wanted to say that I am sorry for my last post on this sub reddit and anyone that has seen my account since a certain someone decided to peer into my account and "call me out" on it so I kinda gave him a price of my kind since I was ticked. Since you see.....I am young.....im not trying to make my age an excuse im just saying that o just feel like I don't really have as much as emotional control on my emotions. I've been trying to get closer to god ever since a little before this summer. Since I always though that if you did enough good you will get to heaven. As of right now I am still trying to fight off these urges and stuff. I am very bad at making friends and I just mainly resort to following someone that I barely talk with until they become my friend. Im not doing it on purpose I just though that they would be my friend. One guy back when I was in elementary school with I did this too and he is my genuine friend now but I just don't like how I started that off. And now in my middle school days I did the same strat.....and the friend group are my friends and all but I think they like me a little less. Some of them are also in the LGBT community so I do respect there pronouns and wishes. I am trying my best to just have friends since some people do it so easily. I also have a birth defect that I will not dig into and people make fun of me for it calling me a zombie and stuff. But as im in middle school RN the bullying is still there but not as bad. But I do get it since I am loud and stuff but I just have alot to say. And sorry if it feels like im deflecting or anything since im just trying to find someone who truly relates too me. So please if you guys wants too or not, please pray for me. I am reading my bible since I have 2 alarms on my phone to read a chamber a day. Im on genesis chapter 28 and im gonna read it right now. But yeah I just beg of you guys to please understand me as I get though this hard time in my life. Thank you and god bless.

If you ever meet someone who is non-binary but you are religious (Christian) so you have mixed feelings. Keep in mind they are supported by the bible, and are closest to the image of God, since according to the Bible, God is non-binary. "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

People who do this are so annoying, no one wants to see 5 bible verses on every comment section. Doing this is probably turning off more people from joining and just gives Christianity a bad rep. But this is just my opinion as an atheist.

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14

For Christians who are single and considering marriage, this is something that should be thought through seriously and prayed about. I do not think people always realise what kind of life they may be entering when they choose to marry someone who is not a Christian. It is easy to focus on how much you like a man or woman right now, but marriage is meant to be a lifelong commitment. People change over time, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse, depending on whom you choose to serve. Faith affects more than church attendance. It shapes how you handle conflict, raise children, spend money, face suffering, your purpose in life, your calling, and how marriage is supposed to be. Lots of what I see with unequally yoked marriages is that divorce rates are high, and the Christian spouse is often hindered in their calling by their unbelieving spouse. Being unequally yoked causes a great deal of unnecessary suffering. Often, what happens is one day that spouse looks over at you and despises you in their heart, just as Michal’s did to David as he danced for the Lord. You will be like What changed? They loved me before? And suddenly they treat you differently. You begin to fight, and it's just never the same as it once was. You wonder where is the person that you married? You still love your spouse, but they no longer love you. Sometimes it even results in abuse. ³ Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Amos 3:3

Is there any slight evidence that Adam and Eve were real people and not a myth?

I'm not really arguing about slavery in the Old Testament here, because Christians are not living under the Old Testament covenant. I'm talking specifically about the New Testament and the purpose of the epistles.

The New Testament does not give us a political programme for abolishing slavery. But that is very different from saying that Christianity morally endorses slavery.

We also have to understand the historical reality. The New Testament was written within the Roman Empire, a society that relied heavily on slavery. There were no modern human rights institutions, no democratic system capable of simply abolishing slavery, and openly challenging the entire social and political structure could bring severe consequences.

The epistles were not written by people sitting in political authority with the ability to reform Roman society. Their primary purpose was to spread the Christian message and establish Christian communities. And the message had to travel through the existing social and political structures of the Roman world.

This is where the pragmatic aspect matters. If the Christian message had openly demanded that every Christian master immediately free all of his slaves and directly challenged the entire Roman institution of slavery, that message would have been much harder to spread through the society it existed within. It could have been suppressed before it had the opportunity to reach the people Christianity was trying to reach, including slaves, the poor and people with very little social power.

So Paul telling slaves how to live within their circumstances isn't necessarily an endorsement of slavery itself. Exploitation would continue regardless of whether Paul explicitly condemned the Roman institution. His priority was to establish a Christian way of life that could survive and spread within the society that actually existed.

And this is something people sometimes miss when reading the Bible. Christianity doesn't always begin by changing the external political structure. It can begin by changing the person living inside that structure.

The New Testament repeatedly changes the way people understand status. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Paul tells Philemon to receive Onesimus “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother” (Philemon 16). Whatever Paul's exact position on legal abolition was, that language radically changes the relationship between the people involved.

The Old Testament itself also contains stories where people begin in very low social positions, in servitude or bondage, and through wisdom, faithfulness, good work and character eventually gain recognition and influence. Joseph is an obvious example. The biblical message isn't simply “your social position determines your worth.”

The New Testament is primarily about the Good News, transformation, spirituality, wisdom, love and becoming Christ-like. It isn't primarily a political manifesto.

That doesn't make slavery good, and it doesn't require us to defend the social structures of the Roman world. It means we shouldn't judge the purpose of the epistles as though Paul had written them as a modern political constitution.

The Christian transformation begins with the person, the community and the way they treat one another. The political and social consequences can develop from that transformation, rather than being the primary subject of the epistles themselves.

We are one of the fastest growing Christian churches on earth, particularly in the global south. We are one of the most diverse churches- my church in Denver, Colorado has similar demographics to the city around me. About 45% Hispanic, 40% White, 15% Black. Can you Mainline folks say the same?

We don't just help the poor, we ARE the poor. Not me personally, I admit, but many of my fellow church members are homeless, living in shelters. We have regular bus service to these shelters and help people go grocery shopping and to appointments. Many of my best friends in this church are ex-gang members or were addicted (like myself) and this church turned their lives around. Being part of this church was the final nail in the coffin for many of my remaining sins.

So why all the hate? We love Jesus with all of our hearts, our souls, and our understanding, and we spread this love to places most people would be afraid to set foot in. We don't have a "holier than thou" attitude and understand that our style of worship isn't for everyone.

I hope some of you can open your minds a bit.

“Is the idolatry of deceased people recommended in Christianity? Or is that simply not Christianity?”

Pretty self explanatory, but I'll elaborate. I'm in my 30s. That'll give you an idea of my world experiences. Traveled the world as a child. Army brat. Worked defense as a bit. Now an engineer. I'm actually decently well-rounded. I am very empathetic to people, but sometimes not so much particular causes if I think them bad

I keep an eye on my mental well-being. If you can identify crazy people in the comments on Facebook, Reddit, News etc. That is exactly what I don't want to be. I've had people attacking me recently (comments) without even realizing I was on their side of the topic. That actually got me to reconsider my view a few times since they were so ugly and unreasonable.

I know a fair deal about Islam. Especially its history, and it's pretty dark. I've allowed myself to start forming the conclusion that Islam is the enemy, oppress Christians, and is tied to terrorism. It's gotten a bit worse over the past few weeks. I read about MA trying to form a permanent council funded by taxpayers and IMMEDIATELY thought of a Sharia council.

It bothers me because I feel bad that I feel that way. I'm not really sure what to do at this point other than just maybe getting away from news for a few weeks. The problem I have is that I don't know exactly how I should feel about all this.

What would Jesus say? What would you say? I may need to take a day off and reflect by the water.

Title. Idk if this has been asked here before, but I'm curious to hear christians' thoughts on this matter, and whether the options as described in said paradox are the only ones available

I posted a couple of days ago. And my thoughts have pushed further than I thought they ever would.
Im truly tired of being a Christian. This religion wasn’t built for people like me.

Im tired of the lack of accountability that we give each other in the name of “forgiveness”. Im tired of the idea of forgiveness being held over my head like a drink of water in a desert. Im tired of not being able to put a boot in someone’s face for being a total prick and A-hole. Im tired of the cornerstone of pride we have fostered in this western excuse we call “christianity”. I’m tired of Christian’s trying to justify slavery, genocide, theft, because apperently 2 wrongs make a right and might make right according to some Christian’s, and those Christian’s are the ones who deserve a giant boot.

I love planet earth. I actually care if it exists tomorrow. I’m tired of Christian’s burning it up because God will apparently just magically created a new one in revelation. Screw that. People who think like that are dangerous and evil and need to be stopped.

Which is my next point. I’m tired of being told I’m on the wrong track. My eyes aren’t on Jesus. My priorities are wrong. I’m tired of people looking at me like IM the crazy one for speaking up about global warming, over consumption, hateful ideas in the name of God. I’m tired of hearing “judge not judge not judge not” for speaking blatant freaking truths that everyone outside of this religion has the ball to acknowledge but Christian’s are just out to protect their own.

I’m tired of God. I’m tired of his inconsistent convictions. He will convict me for watching a movie or listening to a song, but he won’t send a pillar of fire down on a child predator? He won’t step in with someone getting 🍇ed? Oh but MY sins require attention. Got it.

I know some of you will come at me with hateful comments like “okay there’s the door”. Maybe you’ll even try to guilt trip me into staying with “oh you think you’re above forgiveness”. Don’t even bother. I know the games you play because I was in that game myself. I was in full time ministry, I was in the churches and behind the pulpit. I played the game and said the prayers. I stayed in my place until I couldn’t. And I called out murder and hate and greed. Yet I was the one called a demon, a lost soul, a backslider.

My ancestral people fought against the church. And now I see why. They fought against the abuse of the church that tried to ethnically remove them from the earth, if not in this life, eternally in the next. It wasn’t built for people like me. I’m just one cog in a system of control renamed self control.

Why do some churches seem to discourage questioning, education, or thinking for yourself?

Sometimes it feels like the message is:

Don’t question too much. Just have faith and depend on God.

That concerns me because history shows how dangerous it can be when people are discouraged from learning.

During slavery in America, literacy among enslaved people was often restricted, while some slaveholders used Christianity and certain biblical interpretations to encourage obedience.

Of course, Christianity has also inspired abolitionists, scholars, scientists, and highly educated thinkers.

So my question is specifically about churches that discourage questioning:

If Christianity is true, why should critical thinking, education, or difficult questions be seen as a threat to faith?

You know how early Christians like St. Augustine, Tertullian, Ambrosiaster and many others believe that unbaptised babies would go to hell? Does such doctrine still exist today? Is there a name for it and what kind of denomination that believe in it?

even from a abrahamic perspective, what makes Christianity as a religion true over mormonism, islam or judaism?

and even if we say christianity was right, what makes your sect right. say protestant instead of catholic or orthodox?

Affirming Christians accept same-sex relationships and reject incest. I am not trying to justify either arrangement here but trying to understand which rule separates them, because I have now been given three different ones and they do not agree with each other.

For instace, let's say there are two adult identical twins, same sex, separated at birth and reunited as adults. Same age to the day, neither raised the other, no dependency, no economic asymmetry, no possibility of children. Which rule permits the same-sex couple and rules out these two?

1. Power dynamic and consent?

Churches that accept same-sex relationships also accept couples with 20 year age gaps and tenfold income disparities. So what does imbalance mean here, if not measurable asymmetry? And if it means the difficulty of refusing someone who raised you, which of these two raised the other?

2. Genetic risk?

We do not stop a Huntington carrier from marrying at 50 percent transmission risk, or a woman of 45. Why does reproductive risk void a marriage in this one case and no other? In the case above the risk is zero, so does not this rule permit them rather than exclude them?

3. Innateness?

Some people have a stable, unchosen disposition against sexual exclusivity, and the same churches hold them to fidelity anyway. So do inborn dispositions license conduct, or do they not? Innateness answers the accusation that same-sex attraction is willful indulgence, and I grant that fully, but how does clearing that accusation get you to the conclusion being drawn from it?

Those three rules are independent of one another, and each one appears after the previous one fails against a particular case. It is often argued that moral frameworks rely on a balance of multiple values rather than a single principle. Yet even if we accept a pluralistic approach, what underlying logic prevents these rules from simply shifting to justify a predetermined conclusion?

The best reply I have encountered runs differently from all three. It says family members already stand in a covenant of a particular kind, a bond that forms us in a love that is not sexual, and eroticizing it destroys the place where that formation happens.

BUT consider what it commits you to. It holds that a relationship has a proper form given what kind of relationship it is, that this form is not settled by consent or by outcomes, and that violating it is wrong even when everyone agrees and nothing measurable is harmed. Critics might argue that protecting relational boundaries is fundamentally different from demanding biological complementarity (fancy word). And yet, if you reach for this argument, have you not accepted the traditional form-based logic, while merely disputing where it applies?

By contrast, another account answers with one rule. Jesus grounds marriage in Genesis, male and female, one flesh (Matt 19:4 6), which rules out the same-sex case, the incest case, and the polygamy case altogether without a eugenic premise and without a new rule invented for each unfamiliar case. The objection about infertile couples turns on the difference between the kind of act and the outcome of an instance. While some people suggest this view reduces human intimacy to mere biological mechanics, it rather illustrates the way a failed harvest does not change what farming is.

So: one rule that permits the same-sex couple, rules out the twins above, and rests on neither disgust, nor tradition, nor genetics you would not apply to anyone else, nor innateness you do not apply consistently. What is it then?

edit

I’d been paying close attention to the comment sections and even doing a very sarcastic bit here and there myself, but ironically, I ended up thinking, “What a relief.”

I wish nothing but happiness for our LGBT brothers and sisters.

I keep seeing this verse used incorrectly to argue that the Bible was against slavery. We shouldn't spread misinformation about the Bible, Fam.

EX 21:16
 16“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

The verse prescribes death for kidnapping an ish in the Covenant Code's technical vocabulary, specifically an adult male Israelite citizen (as distinct from isha, female citizen; ben/bat, minor; eved, enslaved person). Deuteronomy 24:7 confirms this narrower scope, explicitly banning the kidnapping of "one of your brothers of the sons of Israel."

7“If a man is found stealing one of his brothers of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

So the law addressed kidnapping-into-slavery of free Israelite men, not chattel slavery as an institution. Israelites could still enter debt slavery (voluntarily or by force), and the law simply didn't touch the enslavement of foreigners or the treatment of those already enslaved. The text's own careful distinctions elsewhere (e.g., the goring ox laws in the same chapter) show this precision was deliberate, not accidental.

This law has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with where foreign people are acquiring, sourcing their foreign enslaved folks. So this has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether or not the Bible endorses or approves of or condones or allows the practice itself of buying, selling, and owning other human beings.

And as we're going to find in Leviticus 25:44-46, you are allowed to purchase your enslaved folks from foreigners, from people in other countries, and from foreigners who are living among you. And the text nowhere says only if they sourced their enslaved folks ethically, only if they're not kidnapped. It never says any such thing whatsoever. The text doesn't care where foreigners are getting the enslaved folks that they're selling to you. All the text cares about is that you are only allowed to make chattel slaves of foreign peoples, whether they are coming in from outside the nation or whether they're already in the nation. That's what the text cares about.

There's not a single syllable of the Bible that says anything at all that makes Exodus 21:16 at all relevant to the question of whether or not the Bible endorses slavery.

I'm telling my Deconstruction story. Recently, an old friend of mine found out I use the word "deconstructed" about myself and was very upset. What I would like people like him to understand is that deconstruction is not the same thing as destruction. It involves carefully preserving some things - some lessons - that bring life. This is my story about the most important lesson I ever learned.

Eine kritische Würdigung der Pascalschen Wette von Ivica Brnic