u/stakidi

A girl Im with a very Christian and I was having a conversation with a stranger at dinner and it got very theological. She got so irritated she left the table. Another time I was telling her about conversions I had and she was clearly disinterested and I asked why and she said I don’t like talking about this. You believe in all this and live your life by it but won’t talk about it?Similar experiences with friends and family since I became an atheist. No one seems to want to talk about whether all of this is true. Just the feel good and virtue signaling verses and stories.

I’m a Bible nerd. It fascinates me what people believe and the history, psychology, philosophy and theology behind it. Since I’ve become an atheist I’ve learnt more about the bible, God and faith than when I was a believer. I know some than most Christians I have conversations with.

Like people treat Jesus like Santa Claus. The story is too good for me to ruin it by thinking critically?

I’ve been to a couple Bible studies, in one right now and I’ve talked to a lot of Christians. When the god questions comes up I share my views, I love a good conversation with people but most seem uninterested in the questions I have, is the creation flood exodus story even true, what about the genocides and slavery, are the gospels even historical, what about Hell, all this seems to matter very little to modern Christians. People seem to be in it for the virtue signaling and feel good vibes. I’m a good person and I’m loved et all. Have you experienced familiar attitudes?

I find myself in a lot of open discussions about this. What shook my faith most is the clear and evident corruption of the church from there historicity of the old testament then the problem of evil, slavery, genocide, and finally even Jesus broke down under scrutiny

When I bring up the problem of evil in its many forms, suffering of animals, divine hiddenness etc it often works. At least you can see their shaken and do consider its gravity but it’s an issue that they have been conditioned to respond to by saying have faith

Criticizing the church or doctrines like hell, original sin etc doesn’t seem to register either. Most impact ive noticed comes from informing believers who 9/10 times aren’t aware about the genocides slavery rape and misogyny. A lot them just say well New Testament, but slavery doesn’t hide well behind that one

What have you noticed shakes someone who’s a firm believer up the most?

Is it unfair to ask for several consistent independent eye witness testimony written sufficiently close enough to the events taking place to believe in a RESURRECTION.

The best arguments I ever hear rely on martyrdom of the apostles.

Conveniently we don’t have several consistent independent eye witness testimony written sufficiently close enough to the events taking place for this either.

For everything else in antiquity mundane enough to believe with less evidence I’ll concede but,

Virgin birth,
Resurrection,
Ascension to heaven,

Whether it’s Caesar, Alexandre the great, Jesus, Muhammad or Apollonius the standard has to be several consistent independent eye witness testimony written sufficiently close enough to the events taking place.

We already forfeit empirical evidence that can be scientifically analyzed.

Is it unfair to ask for several consistent independent eye witness testimony written sufficiently close enough to the events taking place to believe in a RESURRECTION.

The best arguments I ever hear rely on martyrdom of the apostles.

Conveniently we don’t have several consistent independent eye witness testimony written sufficiently close enough to the events taking place for this either.

For everything else in antiquity mundane enough to believe with less evidence I’ll concede but,

Virgin birth,
Resurrection,
Ascension to heaven,

Whether it’s Caesar, Alexandre the great, Jesus, Muhammad or Apollonius the standard has to be several consistent independent eye witness testimony written sufficiently close enough to the events taking place.

We already forfeit empirical evidence that can be scientifically analyzed.

The Old Testament is written in Hebrew and a little Aramaic. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic. The New Testament is written in Greek as it was the language of the Roman Empire.

In Acts 15:16–17, James says:

“After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent… that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name…”

But the Hebrew version of Amos 9:12, it reads:

“…that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations…”

It likely comes down to similar looking Hebrew words such as:

Edom (אֱדוֹם / edom) and

Mankind (אָדָם / adam)

Possess (יִירְשׁוּ / yirshu) and

seek (יִדְרְשׁוּ / yidrshu)

Context applied, Amos 9 is talking about the restoration of the kingdom of David/Nation of Israel. Edom now a enemy nation according to their tradition was one of the nations that should have been part of Israel

This was at the Council of Jerusalem where the big issue was:

Do Gentiles need to follow Jewish law to be part of God’s people?

James uses Amos via the Greek translation of the original Hebrew script (the Septuagint) to argue:

God’s plan always included Gentiles, not as conquered peoples, but as those who “seek the Lord”.

Therefore, they don’t need full conversion to Judaism

Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, it’s fair to assume James, his brother and Peter his disciple alongside the other disciples, Pharisees, and members of Jerusalem present spoke Aramaic and had a descent to deep understanding of the original Hebrew scriptures.

When James quotes the mistranslation of Amos 9:12, likely he, Peter, the disciples, the Pharisees or people of Jerusalem present would have pointed out that the prophecy was a mistranslation.

What happened? Why was the issue settled on such a vague and misguided translation when the original scripture and context would have been known by many in the room?

The Old Testament is written in Hebrew and a little Aramaic. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic. The New Testament is written in Greek as it was the language of the Roman Empire.

In Acts 15:16–17, James says:

“After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent… that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name…”

But the Hebrew version of Amos 9:12, it reads:

“…that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations…”

It likely comes down to similar looking Hebrew words such as:

Edom (אֱדוֹם / edom) and

Mankind (אָדָם / adam)

Possess (יִירְשׁוּ / yirshu) and

seek (יִדְרְשׁוּ / yidrshu)

Context applied, Amos 9 is talking about the restoration of the kingdom of David/Nation of Israel. Edom now a enemy nation according to their tradition was one of the nations that should have been part of Israel

This was at the Council of Jerusalem where the big issue was:

Do Gentiles need to follow Jewish law to be part of God’s people?

James uses Amos via the Greek translation of the original Hebrew script (the Septuagint) to argue:

God’s plan always included Gentiles, not as conquered peoples, but as those who “seek the Lord”.

Therefore, they don’t need full conversion to Judaism

Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, it’s fair to assume James, his brother and Peter his disciple alongside the other disciples, Pharisees, and members of Jerusalem present spoke Aramaic and had a descent to deep understanding of the original Hebrew scriptures.

When James quotes the mistranslation of Amos 9:12, likely he, Peter, the disciples, the Pharisees or people of Jerusalem present would have pointed out that the prophecy was a mistranslation.

What happened? Why was the issue settled on such a vague and misguided translation when the original scripture and context would have been known by many in the room?

Every time I bring it up Christian’s completely break down

Is there any theodicy or rationale you’ve found compelling?

Free will

Higher order goods

What would it take for the problem of evil to not be a problem

What are your thoughts about this ?

Alex: We know the tomb was empty.

Bart: No, we don’t.

Alex: Well, if it wasn’t empty, people would just go to the tomb, see the body, and not believe.

Bart: What if he was never buried in a tomb?

Alex: We know he was buried in a tomb, it says so.

Bart: Why assume that’s historical? Everything we know about crucified people is they were left on the cross to rot.

Alex: Well, the Jews wouldn’t have liked that, so they wouldn’t allow it.

Bart: The Romans crucified Jesus.

Alex: Okay, but what if they made an exception? Pilate was against crucifying Jesus.

Bart: How do we know that’s historical? Everything we know about Pilate is that he was a hard, no-nonsense ruler, not someone sitting around agonizing over executions.

Alex: Well… this was a special case.

Bart: Why?

Alex: Because it’s Jesus.

Bart: Pilate doesn’t know that.

And that’s when you realize the argument kind of runs on a loop:

“If this part is true, then that part is true… which proves the first part is true.”

What are your thoughts about this ?

Edit: I’m pretty sure Alex doesn’t believe in Jesus the way Christians do and this was him playing devils advocate

My point is how do Christians respond to this break in the narrative consistency

Alex: We know the tomb was empty.

Bart: No, we don’t.

Alex: Well, if it wasn’t empty, people would just go to the tomb, see the body, and not believe.

Bart: What if he was never buried in a tomb?

Alex: We know he was buried in a tomb, it says so.

Bart: Why assume that’s historical? Everything we know about crucified people is they were left on the cross to rot.

Alex: Well, the Jews wouldn’t have liked that, so they wouldn’t allow it.

Bart: The Romans crucified Jesus.

Alex: Okay, but what if they made an exception? Pilate was against crucifying Jesus.

Bart: How do we know that’s historical? Everything we know about Pilate is that he was a hard, no-nonsense ruler, not someone sitting around agonizing over executions.

Alex: Well… this was a special case.

Bart: Why?

Alex: Because it’s Jesus.

Bart: Pilate doesn’t know that.

And that’s when you realize the argument kind of runs on a loop:

“If this part is true, then that part is true… which proves the first part is true.”

I’m admittedly an atheist. I’ve gone through a pretty intense deconstruction over the past few months. It’s been uncomfortable and honestly painful, but it’s forced me to rethink a lot of beliefs I used to hold without questioning.

Part of that has been realizing that some of my past views, especially around LGBTQ+ people and homosexuality in particular, were harmful. I regret that and I’m trying to do better.

I’m posting here because I want to understand how Christians think about something I’ve been struggling to make sense of.

From the outside, Christian views on homosexuality seem very divided. Some Christians fully affirm same-sex relationships and see them as compatible with faith, while others believe they are clearly not compatible with Christian teaching. Both groups seem to be working from the same scriptures and the same tradition, but arriving at very different conclusions.

What I’m trying to understand is how you personally make sense of that.

If Christianity is meant to be a consistent truth, how do you understand the fact that there are such different interpretations on this issue? And if there is a “correct” interpretation, what helps you determine which one it is?

From my current perspective, traditional interpretations often involve viewing same-sex relationships as sinful or outside of Christian teaching, while affirming interpretations focus more on love, commitment, and inclusion. Those differences feel very significant, and I’m trying to understand how Christians navigate that gap.

So how do you personally work through that tension? Is it something you’ve wrestled with in your own faith, or does it feel more straightforward from your perspective?

I’m not here to argue, I’m genuinely trying to understand how you think about it.