Criticism of Evangelical Christianity

Introduction

The following criticisms particularly aim Evangelic Christianity rather than Catholicism. The first reason is that I know best Evangelic Christianity, for I was among them. They had interested me for the fact that they have a definite doctrines they put the stress on, and I was in search of precise truths. The catholics, on the other hand, rather have some practices which forget almost the subjacent doctrines, and which are thus less "refutable" in a strict sense. Though, for those interested in it, Catholics have a rather complex and hardlier criticizable doctrine, thus more moderate and intelligent (if one makes the effort to seek it, which I had not the chance to be aware of in my youth when I had however been to cathechism). Not being anymore Christian, I finally find Catholicism preferable insofar as precisely, as it insists less on its doctrines it leaves also a better freedom of thought, a better opening, and thus gives access to a certain rudimentary but free, simple and purer (but often more boring !) spiritual life. In particular, recognising that the faith in Jesus is not necessary for salvation, according to the Thomist doctrines... though, it depends: while claiming the unity of the Church, the catholics have various more or less sectarian or fundamentalist ways of thinging, of living their faith and interpreting it, so, how can one discuss such a variable and imperceptible doctrines? However, the little I know of Catholicism is enough me to conclude that it will not convince me either, for reasons which I may possibly develop another time. (Something worth noticing: so many arguments proving the absurdity of Evangical Christianity do not apply anymore to Catholicism, for the single reason that Catholics do not consider faith as a necessary condition for salvation)

I have been Evangelical Christian for a number of years but, I was then (in that period, and more and more to its end) crushed under the resulting nonsense of that sort of life and of the conception of life that I was in. But at the same time I hopelessly tried to deny this feeling of nonsense. I did not realize that this nonsense was partly a consequence of these doctrines, which seemed to me rather solid in theory, but which was not coherent with my experience (my depression to which Christianity did not bring any true answer but only claimed to answer it by rejecting on me the fault of its own failure) and with some questions I was asking myself. But when all became intolerable and that finally I accepted the fact that it was useless to pretend to stay in it, I allowed myself to think freely and put my thoughts in order, still believing in a God but finally leaving the constraint, then seen as arbitrary, of the biblical assumptions: I gave up trying to see a finality in everything, and finally recognized honestly and clearly the reality of life's defects. Then, working to put my thoughts in order, in pure care of a search of the truth and of a coherent understanding of things, the nonsenses of life vanished at the conceptual level, even if they still remained big at the factual level, and things came clear: my observations and understandings of the errors, perversities and nonsenses of the Christian doctrine multiplied, so much that I now happen to shake my head: but how could I ever bear to follow such nonsenses?

Statement of the problem

Christianity is first the assertion that we were created by God, who knows all, loves us and wants our good. Up to that point, it is clear, no problem. Then, that he wants to reveal himself to us and to guide us in our life, for the good of us all. It is quite nice. Conceptually it is very plausible, and it is hard to see well the reasons which prevent him, and it would be so good that it was true! Moreover, I always recognize that there is much truth in it: God knows better than us what we need, and wishes that the good be achieved. But then, the question comes of knowing why this knowledge and this will do not appear in our world. I would even say, this absence constitutes an obviously incongruous situation from the point of view of what should be, according to the metaphysical nature of all things; and it is natural to think that it is an exception compared to the universal creation, I mean the creation of the spiritual universes, beyond our particular universe and mode of incarnation; moreover, the NDE seem to confirm that by showing as soon as after death a possibility of quasi infinite knowledge and a God much nearer to our heart than what appears in our terrestrial life.

Then, why this darkness, this obstacle to the knowledge and will of God, to which we are confronted? Christianity answers: man is ignorant and does not do the will of God because he is deaf and rebellious to God. It looks like a possible answer, which a priori would deserve examination. Let us reformulate it: after admitted that the will of God exists, and that it is indeed interested in our decisions (this is not easily avoidable from a metaphysical point of view), is added the assumption here that these these knowledge and will are expressed and somehow present directly in front of our decisions, and that it is our will which is opposed to it by refusing to hear it.
Then, Christianity calls to repentance from this rebellion, and to accept to do from now on the will of God. There still, a priori, such a call would be eminently respectable: ifever there was an available means to manage to know and to follow the will of God, if God wanted that we listen to him and to follow his will and that that is essential to the achievement of significant objectives, then refusing to do it would be a most terrible and catastrophic, condemnable thing. Far from me any attempt to escape according to my whims, the mission that God would address to me, ifever such was the case !

Yes but there is a problem: however one makes the resolution to listening to God, that is not enough to receive from God a direct, clear and sufficient inspiration, to know if he calls us, to what he calls us, and how to listen to him. Well, is that enough? From experience we see that not. Moreover, Christians are also partly of this opinion, since they find the need to propose a book to us and say: here is the Word of God, written in exceptional circumstances where God had better succeeded in expressing himself, and makes use of it as a substitute to a more fluid communication with us, to tell us once and for all what he had to say to us. Believe it and apply it, it is there you will know all that you need to know and what you have to do to respect the will of God. And even, while doing this, you will come to communion with God, to being filled of His Spirit, to be guided by Him. This aims to fill the vacuum of our ignorance with respect to God and our difficulty of seeing Him and of hearing Him.

Does that satisfy our metaphysical aspiration, and does it solve the oddness of our ignorance and our distance of God? Not really, for several reasons:

Obviously, the question a priori requires an in-depth study, on the one hand not to miss a mission that God would like to put on us, on the other hand to check whether that is or not the case.

I initially believed that it was true, I desired to believe in it, in order to commit to follow the will of God the best I can... until finally being embanked by the obviousness of reality, that all that was false. On the other hand, I did not choose this observation, it forced itself to me, and through reflexion, it proves to be of a luminous clearness. Not of a light "of God" of course, but a presently obvious experience, impossible to circumvent. Bringing also with it the realization of the almost forgotten fact that, to be followed accurately and honestly, the truth should not be chosen but discovered, far from the calls to the act of faith of Christianity in "favour" of its God.

But will you say, how to claim that, whereas Christianity has been existing for 20 centuries, and everyone does not yet agree for saying whether it is true or false? Some adhere to it, others don't, therefore isn't everyone free to choose his camp? Indeed, if the ones had really good reasons to believe what they believe, it would be strange that the others did not recognize them. So what happened ? Are all the arguments of the ones and the others too weak to be able to impose themselves ? Christians, going in this direction, think of having reasons, but that they do not impose themselves to all as "God lets us free". Admittedly, at such a level of abstraction and superficiality, not considering anything else about the core of the problems, such an approach of the disagreement appears almost plausible.

But I am not there any more: I found various reasons to conclude that the Bible is false, reasons which I see as solid and clear, and which everyone should recognize... provided some small effort of careful thought is made, admittedly. But how is this sustainable ? Are these reasons quite valid? Had nobody thought of them before ? If one had thought of them, had the Christians examined them, and are they such morons to not have recognized them ? Or do they have contrary reasons to believe quite as valid?

Quite strange mystery, you will say. For me too. Then what? Already, of what I knew of the Christian positions, it appeared to me that if the Christians had valid reasons to hold their position vis-a-vis such criticisms as those I had just discovered, they hide it well, missing the core of the problems in all their claims ! They seem totally unaware of the true reasons to disagree with them. Then, to solve the question with certainty, just try to present these reasons to Christians, to see how they answer. It is what I did. Why, after all, to wonder how they answer up to be reduced to make the experience, whereas I was theirs, I knew them well and thus I should know how they think and react ? In an somehow astonishing way, the result of this experience surprised me quite well. Christians thus globally appeared in a very different way from what I believed to know when I was theirs, and who on the other hand assured me in a way still much clearer and accentuated the subtle critical analyses that I just managed to put in clear.

And here is this subtle, strange observation, with an undoubtedly absurd and incredible appearance for the first interested ones, but now for me among the obviousnesses which are undeniable as any obviousness by the strong coherence of their meaning and the multiplicity of their direct or quasi-direct checks which does not leave room to any seriously possible alternative: it is that beyond some metaphysical truths easily confirmed by the intuition of our spirit (thus, for which one would have no need for revelation by a book !) but carefully exploited and musused here, the biblical doctrines are just essentially a mere vast, malicious and humanly well explainable strategy of blindness and intellectual dishonesty, disguised under the names of divine revelation, spiritual teaching and life with God, with objective to bring and preserve the adhesion to this same doctrine without valid reason. (this concept of objective refers here primarily much less to some conscious will than with the effect of some darwinian selection of human doctrines.)

Indeed, to my serious and subtle discoveries and observations that I tried to discuss, the few Christians I solicited, the same people as those I formerly regarded as my brothers in Christ dedicated like me and with me on the way to the truth, did not have generally anything to answer, than their silliness, their contempt and their foolish charges against me, and they remained on their positions without taking the trouble to touch the bottom of the problem. Admittedly there can be exceptions, but the few relatively judicious and honest Christians generally trusting those which are less so, to exempt themselves from all questioning without realizing of the problem, propagate the error.

So here, in the texts below, are some critical analysis and refutations of the various bases of the Christian faith. In other words, a review of the motivations by which evangelic Christians believe what they believe, which they regard as the basis of the truth, according to what I could feel for myself or observe in others, and arguments that they present in support of their convictions; and why all that does not hold.

(to be continued)

List of details and arguments

A small list of logical refutations of the Christian doctrines
Answer to so-called proofs of "Authority of the Bible"
Similarities between Marxism and Christianity
Meeting with God
God's promises
God's will
God's characters and holiness
An inspiration, not a theory !
Why Christianity is Evil
What do they actually think:
Receiving the gifts from the Holy Spirit
Other non-translated parts:
The good news of the Gospel
Christianity as only alternative to nihilism, miraculous conversions and consistency of the Bible
Salvation by faith
Rational logic vs Christian logic
The 10 commandments for the Christian

Questions to Christians

See also the text on religion with its many subsections.

Summary of my position

to put in short many essential arguments developed in linked texts:

God exists, yes but...

The "faith in God" is not God, and does not inform us on the truths and wills of God, but lets man follow any selected or imposed, biblical or different orientation. On the other hand, the faith in a particular doctrine like the Bible, as a belief adopted by choice and treated as a certainty without valid reason, is nothing but an act of dishonesty. If it were established that a word is from God, the faith in the veracity of its contents would be a rational need and a duty; on the other hand, the faith without proof that a word is from God as others believe that another word is from God, is arbitrary and no way more hononable than anything else. This turns into corruption when believing and proclaiming things without reason is done for an advantage ("to be saved "or to have the favours of God). But, ifever God felt insults, what would be an insult to God would rather be this belief and claim of Him as reflected in this biblical portrait of a stunned, sectarian and corrupted God that asks us to believe in twaddles and to unconciously follow this strategy of blindness and intellectual dishonesty called spiritual growth and life with God, as the only way out of an eternal punishment. Testimonys of people who really saw God in Near Death Experiences refute in particular the doctrine of the redemption, showing that salvation does not depend on such stupid criteria as religious opinions or preliminary metaphysics, since God loves unconditionnally.
If there were a handle of really enlightened servants of God, they would have known how, or been guided, to establish on Earth a much better world more quickly than one can ever imagine. Devotion is not enough there: experience shows that "trying to obey God", especially in Christian ways, and following Biblical doctrine, does no way help us in informing us on, or following, the true will of God, any better than by simple non-religious good will, however Christians may get the illusion to succeed in this direction. So, how could God be perverse enough to demand us for not going to hell, to play this hopeless, vain and crazy game to search for Him in vain and persuade ourselves to have succeeded, as Christians claim we must do ? So, faith in God is not necessarily helpful to do His will - and in many aspects it can often turn out as a handicap or a trap as it leads us to focus on a help that does not exist, or on an irrelevant reference that distracts us from the understanding of the real problems we must cope with, understanding which is (unfortunately) the only means we have to find the good.
A book really revealed by God to guide our life and to give it a direction, would have had the wisdom to collectively impel humanity on the way to a reliable and balanced progress, by letting us aware in particular of the methodology and the fundamental importance of the sense of responsibilities (towards oneself and others), of faculties of organization, understanding and progress of various adequate human knowledge, which, beyond their simple moral and spiritual value as reflections of divine wisdom, would be highly necessary to the collective salvation of mankind in its terrestrial destiny and the safeguarding of its environment.
(This includes of course the learning of the necessary understanding of the differences of gifts and chances to which humans can be confronted in their terrestrial destiny on the individual level, in order to ensure the methods of social integration, human valorization as well as the acknowledging and responsible management of the individual difficulties of the ones and others as far as possible. It would thus in particular lead us to develop and promote the exercise of each faculty useful for humanity on the practical level for the collective good while integrating those which would be provided with less of such or such of these faculties, while insisting on the fact that (here as in so many other problems) any moralist consideration must be put to background to focus on a long work of understanding and thorough and persevering search for an adequate organization.)
It would be far more interesting than this poor Bible which has nothing superior over what man can do, except for its arbitrary claims of superiority, and which only seduces our thirst for truth and our desire to do good, for better wasting them for the profit of the ill-considered praise of its own hollow doctrines and its vain wrongfully spiritual promises, substitutes of God only suitable to plug us. There exists varied and serious criticisms against it, could they just be paid attention to !
For the better or the worse, God left the Earth between our hands without instruction. Let us think: working there seriously, we could do much better in the understanding of life and others, and the construction of a better world.

O Christians who see my misleading far from Christ, will you pray for me so that the Holy Spirit enlights me again of the light of the Gospel and the faith in Jesus ?

How nice! To thank you, I also will pray for you, so that you believe that there are little green men on the Moon who will come and invite you to have a party with them in orbit in their flying saucer: because if you do not believe in it, they will not come.
A Christian asked a wise man: Master, what should I do to be an authentic man? The wise man answered him: You know the principles: Be sincere in any circumstance, act according to what you think, do not cheat, do not lie, do not make a false testimony, seek the impartiality and justice in your judgements, check your suspicions before spreading them, do not impose any obligation on others which you would not be ready to support yourself. The Christian answered: I observed all these things from my youth. The wise man, hearing that, understood it, and said to him: You still miss one thing: If you want to be perfect, give up all that you believe and put it on doubt, you will reach the beginning of wisdom; then, come and discuss together with me each concept which constituted your vision of life and let us analyze them patiently to see whether they resist. But, puzzled by these words, he from went away disappointed, thinking of having asked a wrong adviser, because he had a great faith. The wise, seeing that, said: how difficult it is for a believer carried by the heat of his convictions, to follow the way of the truth with the necessary patience !

How many evangelic Christians are necessary to pull a man from the shit ?

Answer: Zero, it suffices to recall that man is a sinner and that thus it is normal and right that he is in the shit, for God does not owe us anything. Anyway, God knows better than us what this man needs: in His infinite wisdom which overcomes all intelligence, He decided to send him this trial and will get him out of it in His time. Who would we think we are, to try disagreeing with our Creator, so accusing Him to not have made all things coincide for the good of this man ?

Also, anyway one should not criticize the inaction of Christians in this regard, for they have no responsibility here. To try to criticize them, would mean to dishonestly forget that the perfection is not of this world and thus cannot be required (since we are always sinners), it would be the enquiry and the disunion among Christians, something of unworthy of Christ. The best one can do is rather to pray so that the spirit of God reveals to this man that the most important thing for him should be repentance and to praise the Lord who is faithful and will provide for the forgiveness of his sins.

An argument of Pantheism

I like this one : "In response to one of them saying that he was god I tried using the Law of non contradiction against his statement. I said its at contradiction to be necessary/ contingent, eternal/ temporal, infinite/finite, uncreated/created etc. His response was that Jesus was."

A few reasons why I'm angry at Christianity

I am angry at how it hijacked my precious creative mind and my good will for that awful nonsense for so many years until all became clear.
How it took my time and contributed to reduce my chance to find love by neglecting to run after it and, instead, expecting God to care, as, if there was anything worth meant by all that fuss : if God was really there and caring, it would have had consequences, so that tries to give Him my life would not have driven me to hell on Earth as it happened, and this not just for my own interest but also for the interest of the many people who would benefit my work; but the consequences I faced were those of an absolute absence of God while I expected something else.

I am angry at all the Christians who are not even sorry for the awful damage that their lovely shit (their bible and creed) did to my life, but instead, keep proudly blaming me, accusing me of having "chosen" to reject God in any unserious move, and dismissing the conclusions of my so lengthy and so dramatic research, by putting forward their divine faith that I'd be just and idiot basing my conclusions on the stupidest logical mistakes from their imagination. A list that systematically includes the idea I'd be throwing the baby with the   bathwater and of course abusively extrapolating from an unfortunate experience with the wrong Christians, an explanation they are always so confident in no matter that I didn't even start explaining what kind of trouble I was dealing with, whose specification would make such an "explanation" ridiculously out of subject.... if only they took the time to hear about it, which they don't.... hum hum so they blame me for the hopeless ridicule of not having understood earlier that I should of course have blamed them stronger (more precisely "who they think I should blame" refers not to themselves of course but to the previous Christians I met, no matter that they are in fact the same, yes it would feel so nice to insult people who do not participate in the debate, without naming them), are they serious ?

I'm angry that, moreover, in their "nice" and "polite" message they write awful wrong accusations against me, which they kindly address to the dirty shit which their Jesus told them I was (as they have of course no decently expectable way to go figure out anything else about me), and for the misery of which they would of course have to dedicate a lot of careful prayers, and at the same time dismissing me as a monster of insults and arrogance for the crime of not thanking them for this love they want to give to the dirty shit they think I am ; thus seeing me not a decent debater and not worthy of being heard nor understood because I dare to focus on truth issues rather than being a champion of "politeness" as measured from the viewpoint of their fucked up feelings.

I'm angry at their way of remaining divinely confident in their views and their way of continuously inventing more and more ridiculous mistakes that they speculate I must have made, or any other nursery school level lesson of thought they feel sure I need to learn, disregarding how I always refute these accusations one by one; always replacing the ones I refuted by new ones to and keep the bath bull of their suspicions of stupid mistakes they think I made...
and I'm angry when, after I spent 10 pages of messages refuting one by one a dozen from among the hundred or so ridiculous mistakes from them as well as their wrong suspicions of stupid mistakes they think I made, that were contained in their 2 pages or so of initial message, they still feel undisturbed and divinely confident that they were still globally right (because the most part of their stuff appears still not refuted), and that I am the bad insulting guy.
Ignoring that, if I could not refute all their hundred of foolish ideas, wrong assumptions and awful wrong accusations that their God miraculously concentrated in their 2 first pages of message, it is not because they were right but because it is not physically possible to do so, as each error would require many pages to refute, thus I would need to write some 1000 pages for refuting one by one all that awful shit from their 2 pages.

I am angry at all the Christians who accuse me of being an arrogant person that monopolizes the time of speech and that refuses to listen to the supposedly wise things they have to say, as if any other kind of "discussions" could have a chance to make any sense, because of the above problem. How awfully superficial they are by their way of measuring and comparing how much everyone's attitudes of "listening" and "caring to understand the other's view", reduced to the way it feels to them at the time and place of our meeting, ignoring the fact that the way they I seem to them has nothing to do with how I naturally am and I how I have actually been in the circumstances which are relevant to the issue (other than the circumstance when I meet them, are they the center of the world or what ?). Indeed I did spend many years of my life carefully listening to Christian preaches - and not just from person or one church but many of them - trying to agree and follow them, meditating them... and then trying many times to keep talking with Christians from diverse denominations, being spammed by their hundreds of childish lessons... while, how much time did they spend trying to understand genuine, well-thought skeptical arguments ? A few hours in their whole life, maybe... almost nothing compared both to the amount of available such arguments, and to the time they spent brainwashing themselves with their own doctrine ; and already after listening to me 5 or 10 minutes most of them already run out of patience. What's this ??? The fact is, the very reason why I can be so fast to detect and classify their bullshit now, in just minutes or even seconds, is not because I am superficial, stubborn or misjudging, but on the contrary because I already analyzed it much more deeply than they can imagine, based on a very long experience of carefully, patiently and silently listening and analyzing tons of similar bullshit from other Christians for many years in the past. Is it my fault if they commit such vertiginous amount of awful mistakes per minute, and if debunking their mistakes with enough explanations to let them understand, would be such an herculean task due to how their ideology happened to fuck up their mind and let them so mentally illiterate (almost unable to grasp any try of any explanation given to them without distorting and thus rejecting it, by lots of further misunderstandings and wrong assumptions), making it so painful and desperate to make them grasp one by one all needed concepts which, in my view, are so elementary and should be the basic requirements between participants for any discussion to make sense ?

I am angry at Christians who hijack the noble name of "freedom" to defend what is in fact a tyrannical ideology, based on the fear of being doomed to hell (hmm of course not unfairly but for the good reason that Baby Jesus cries if you don't choose to love him by having faith in His words...) for the mere crime of developing doubts and thinking by oneself rather than believing the dogmas without question. Who think that "freedom of thought" would be better respected by avoiding arguments than by facing them. Who dismiss my view as being just my "choice" and my "opinion" disregarding any details of how I might actually have come there. Who believe that the principle of freedom of thought would require that I accept to shut up and let them go as they wish ... preach their views to other young, naive, ignorant people still clueless about where the trouble may be. As if the whole issue of freedom of thought was nothing deeper than physically letting everyone stop listening and go away as they feel at every given moment. As if Christianity did not already violate my freedom of thought and my freedom of life in a much more awful way highly deserving a lot of attention and understanding, than this naive, superficial aspect of things. As if there was any decent principle of "freedom of thought" preserved by that way of going to preach further such a perverse ideology that will go hijack and take such a tyrannical control of people's thoughts, while so forcefully ignoring and thus hiding any possible awareness to the huge amount of available evidence against the claimed divine character of this teaching (and showing its possible perverse effects), an evidence which might otherwise save the listeners freedom of thought from that tyranny if reported ?


So I have many legitimate reasons to be angry at Christianity.
Other people wrote many other reasons:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html



Original French version
Back to homepage