Why christianity is wrong

Isn't frankness about sex ordinary nowadays — and doesn't today's writer go much further? Yes, but such frankness tends to be rather conformist — and compartmentalised.

Rousseau still stands out for his determination to relate his love life which is mostly romantic yearning to his moral and psychological development, for his attempt at a holistic frankness. What makes this book compelling is not just its frankness, but the spirit of defiance in which it is presented. Do you condemn me for these moral errors I have committed? Do you claim to be my moral superior?

If you condemn me, are you not condemning the honesty with which I present myself? This remains a key motivation in autobiography: look at my faults, my embarrassing past errors, my lost years as a junkie or whatever, and agree that I am not defined by them, but rather by my good-heartedness, my striving to be myself.

Agree, in fact, that my past faults are just proof of the fullness of my humanity. Judge me, says every memoirist — and affirm my humanity. Nothing wrong with affirming each other's humanity, surely? Well, maybe secular confessionalism is subtly dishonest, in its habit of locating moral mistakes in the past and claiming to have learned from them. This deflects attention from the ongoing, ineradicable aspect of one's fallibility. Perhaps only a full-blooded, religious worldview can bear to keep that firmly in sight.

The values of Leonidas, whose people had practised a peculiarly murderous form of eugenics, and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night, were nothing that I recognised as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls and enslaved a million more.

It was not just the extremes of callousness that I came to find shocking, but the lack of a sense that the poor or the weak might have any intrinsic value. As such, the founding conviction of the Enlightenment — that it owed nothing to the faith into which most of its greatest figures had been born — increasingly came to seem to me unsustainable. His defiance of the Christian God, in a paradox that was certainly not unique to him, drew on motivations that were, in part at least, recognisably Christian.

The notion that a god might have suffered torture and death on a cross was so shocking as to appear repulsive. Familiarity with the biblical narrative of the Crucifixion has dulled our sense of just how completely novel a deity Christ was. In the ancient world, it was the role of gods who laid claim to ruling the universe to uphold its order by inflicting punishment — not to suffer it themselves.

Today, even as belief in God fades across the West, the countries that were once collectively known as Christendom continue to bear the stamp of the two-millennia-old revolution that Christianity represents. It is the principal reason why, by and large, most of us who live in post-Christian societies still take for granted that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering.

It is why we generally assume that every human life is of equal value. In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian.

But the Bible does not intend to teach us about cosmology, and the faulty cosmology that it assumes does not affect its intended message. Others believe that the Bible is primitive in its understanding of the supernatural. Dying people are miraculously healed, the dead are brought to life, and the sea opens up to allow the Israelites to escape the Egyptians.

But perhaps the modern view of the cosmos as materialistic here is the mistaken one. Jews and Christians value the Bible much more than any other literature, ancient or modern, since we recognize that God speaks to us through the human authors of the Bible the Hebrew part to the Jews and the Old and New Testaments to Christians.

In other words, while the books of the Bible were not written to us, they were written for us and have continuing relevance for us today. Christians often come to different conclusions on what the Bible teaches on a whole host of subjects.

Christians disagree on many things, such as as how to interpret Genesis , how to understand the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of humans, what happens during communion, when someone should be baptized, how the gifts of the Spirit manifest themselves in us, when Christ is going to return, and on and on.

But such a conclusion misses a very critical point. In the midst of all the disagreements on secondary matters that some Christians unfortunately treat as more important than they are , nearly all Christians actually agree on the most important matters. What are these matters? I have asked them myself over the years, but they have driven me to a deeper study of the Bible.

As I have studied further, I have come to a deeper respect for the Bible as the Word of God and my study continues. My hope for others would be that these questions could be catalysts to more interaction with the Bible and not become an excuse for dismissing the Bible. Join us to receive the latest articles, podcasts, videos, and more, and help us show how science and faith work hand in hand.

Instead of rejecting his faith or turning away from science, Garrett kept digging into science and the Word. People on all sides of the creation debate are convinced the other sides are doing it all wrong.

After taking part in many conversations where people talk past one another, BioLogos forum moderator Christy has noticed a few recurring themes. In the final part of his four-part series, J. In this excerpt from their new book, geologist Gregg Davidson and theologian Ken Turner shine a spotlight on Genesis One as theologically rich literature first and foremost. When Sy Garte started studying science he found some things that started him wondering about the idea that science can answer every question.

His wondering opened the doorway that eventually led to Jesus Christ. I can think of five common objections that I have heard over the years: The Bible is full of contradictions and discrepancies.

The Bible was written by ancient and primitive people, and has no value to modern people anymore. Its descriptions of nature and natural history are hopelessly at odds with science The Bible is not at odds with science in its descriptions of nature and natural history. It was written by ancient and primitive people, and has no value to modern people anymore The Bible was written by ancient people, to be sure.

What is BioLogos? Subscribe Now What is BioLogos? About the Author Tremper Longman Dr. Ohio Wesleyan University; M. Westminster Theological Seminary; M. His books have been translated into seventeen different languages.