Why I Am Not A Christian

A guest blog I wrote for Prayson Daniel explaining why I am not a Christian. My reasons are: it doesn’t make sense, God’s lack of revelation plus general lack of evidence, the problem of evil and the general disgrace that is the Catholic Church. Check it, its worth a read if I say so myself.

With All I Am


As an Irishman I am surrounded by Christianity and Catholicism in particular. My family is Catholic as are my friends, relatives, neighbours and pretty much everyone I come across. In fact, throughout our history being Irish and being Catholic were considered the same. The Church traditionally had a major influence on the country and still exerts control over schools and hospitals. I was raised Catholic, was an altar boy and even used to say a decade of the rosary every night.  So why I am no longer a Christian?

The first and most obvious point is that Christianity doesn’t make any sense. This is a point that most Catholics will admit and try not to think about. How exactly is Communion the same as eating the literal flesh of Jesus and why would you want to do it? Can anyone truly state with a straight face that the Pope is…

View original post 936 more words

28 thoughts on “Why I Am Not A Christian”

  1. Distortion of the original Christian message:

    Christians, before becoming the Roman Catholic Church after the schism, were simply men and “women” who followed the teachings of Christ. Many women were evangelists, as well as the men. They had a majority married priesthood and held most services in follower’s homes.

    Then enter Rome with their culture of grandiose art, huge gold filled buildings and garments Christ himself would never have worn. Also, enter Rome’s extremely political and patriarchal society that merged its political philosophies into doctrine including the concepts of hierarchical clergy and the establishment of Popes who were deemed “infallible”. When did Christ ever mention the idea of “a man” being infallibility?

    I believe knowing this history, one can separate his or her spirituality from the established bureaucratic church and still remain a simple follower of Christ.

    1. Thank you very much. I’ll admit that this guest blog proved to be even more productive than I thought. Thank you again for risking to have me blog unedited. I’m glad its work out so well.

      1. You are welcome any time Robert. I am glad to have two guest posts from you. I hope, in the future, you will still be kind to contribute more.

        Your articles provoked some of my Christians followers, and some stop following my blog. I do careless. I do not want followers who only agree. I want thinking followers. Thank you for providing clear thinking in both articles.

        I am sorry about some mean Christians responses. Thank you for showing them civility and gentleness.

  2. The problem of evil is honestly incredibly easy when semi-pelagianism and Arminianism are not poisoning one’s thinking.


    “If God loves everyone why is there so much evil in the world.’

    Most people will cop out and say “free will.” Its a cop out. Its a cop out because God ultimately fashioned his creatures, and he could have created them without any evil. He could have never put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place. Or he could have created an Adam with more willpower.

    But, God chose to create this world. Thus, in absolute terms, this world is better, objectively, than any other. And why is this? Because God is most glorified in this world than in any other. God is glorified in guaranteeing the salvation of elect sinners who put their faith and trust in Christ alone to save them. God can only be so glorified if there is evil in the world. Evil also has a cause in causing God’s people (Christians) to grow closer to their creator and to trust in Him more. Thus, evil exists because God has a good reason for permitting it to exist. Furthermore, God will ultimately confine evil to Hell, and evil people (All who do not trust in Christ’s finished work on the cross alone to replace their natural sinfulness) will ultimately go there. God will eventually destroy evil.

    What argument can anyone possibly present against this? There is no possible argument that could be presented without presuming to know better than God. To which I simply reply with Romans 9:19-22.

    As for the Catholic Church, stay far away from it. Catholicism has not the gospel, thus it is dead (Galatians 1:8-9.) All who add works of any kind to God’s finished work are lost. Only those who trust in him alone will be saved. Catholics add baptism, sacraments, and good works to the list of requirements. They confuse justification with sanctification, because they are not saved. The evil works of the Catholic Church, wherever they may be found, are simply the proof that they do not have the gospel. To be clear, all who believe the gospel are moral, but not all who are moral believe the gospel.

    To clarify, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe it (Romans 1:16-17.) All who believe this message are saved, all who do not are lost. This gospel is defined Biblically as his death for his people on the cross (John 10:15.) Anyone who believes has been purchased by Christ (John 10:26-27) and he will not cast out a single person who believes in him (John 6:37.)

    1. What an incredible cop out of an answer. Rather than engaging with the question, you simply dodge it. You solve the problem of evil by assuming (without reason) that God is good, therefore there must be a good reason for evil. So famine, war, genocide, murder etc are all necessary in order to glorify God. How can you possibly think that is a convincing argument?

      1. Define “convincing.”

        I believe my argument is “convincing” in the sense that it is logically consistent and that it is true. I do not think this argument will convince many people though, its far easier to create a weak god in one’s own image than to bow down before the sovereign creator.

        You say I assume, without reason, that God is good. I could just as easily accuse you of assuming, without reason, that famine, war, genocide, and murder are evil. Why do you assume this? Some people think some of those things are good. Why is your standard better than theirs? After all, you are a non-divine human being, and so are these other people. You are equal. The murderer is a human with a mind just like you are.

        God is good because that is God’s nature. Without a knowledge of God’s nature, terms like “good” and “evil” are simply buzzwords used for emotional effect that don’t actually mean anything.

        God is both merciful and just. God gives good things to all men because he is merciful. Furthermore, God gives salvation to some men because he is merciful. But God is also just. Sin, even if God has a good purpose for permitting it, must be punished. Joseph’s brothers sold Joseph into slavery. God used this wicked action to save a large number of people from famine. God decreed that he would permit this evil in order to bring about his plan. Nonetheless, Joseph’s brothers were wicked for their actions and deserved punishment. They were fully responsible for their actions. Why? Because God said “thou shall not” and they did anyway. Who is the pot to say to the potter “why did you make me this way” or “why does God blame us?”

        You can mock me for standing for God’s truth if you want. I do not care in the slightest. Just don’t pretend like you actually know what you’re talking about. God will separate the sheep from the goats in the end. I pray that you are one of his sheep. God promises to save any who believe in him, he will not turn any away. Repent and trust in Christ’s perfect., substitutionary sacrifice and imputed righteousness alone to save you, before it is too late.

        1. That’s not an argument, that’s just making stuff up. You’re just making statements, not actually proving a point. If I just said the state by definition now means justice and good, would you accept that as an argument? If I just proclaimed that the state is good, therefore everything it does is good, checkmate libertarians, would that convince you? Of course not, so why would your comment convince anyone except the already converted?

          For someone who elsewhere claims to always oppose coercion, why do you end your comment with a threat?

          1. I’m not trying to prove anything, Robert. I will not put God on trial for your benefit. Consider: if the God I believe in exists, who would you be to talk back to him? What’s your real objection, is it that you don’t believe God (as defined in the Bible) is good, or is it that you don’t believe he exists?

            Regarding your argument about the State, I am not surprised you would use this argument. In your mind, the State is God. But, you are not consistent about this. You do not really believe that everything the State does is good. You don’t believe Hitler and Stalin were good men. You also lack any consistent reason why your standards of right and wrong are better than theirs.

            I would reject your argument about the State for several reasons:

            First of all, the State is a gang made up of humans. These humans have no more rights than I do. How do I know this? Because God tells me so (Deuteronomy 17:14-20.) Scripture is the starting axiom.

            Second of all, I reject your argument because God is my starting point for morality, not the State. You trying to use the State just tells me that the State is your God. The State is not my God, so I do not accept its statements regarding right and wrong. Nor should you. The State is not an eternal being. God is (and no, I’m not going to prove this, Romans 1 says you already know.)

            And finally, as for my supposed “threat” I am not making a threat. I oppose coercion. I know that only God can open anyone’s eyes to the glories of the gospel. I have no desire to use force to compel anyone to believe. As far as I am concerned, you have every right not to believe. but, since you are a sinner, you will be judged for your refusal by God himself after you die (Revelation 21:8.) Have you committed any of the sins on that list? If you have, God is going to hold you accountable, and your refusal to accept God’s justice will not help you. I am not threatening you by quoting scripture. If anything, it is God who is threatening you, which he has the right to do, being your creator (Romans 9:19-22.) I can promise you this though, Christ will not leave behind any who comes to him (John 6:37.)

  3. Just posting so I can get notified by email if anyone is brave enough to try to debate me on this subject.

      1. I am not sure how this would help. The Biblical view of God (one eternal being, three persons making up that one eternal God, God being omniscient, omnipotent, absolutely good, absolutely merciful, absolutely just and so forth) was already implicit in Nielsen’s objection.

        Here’s the thing, I do not think Nielsen would object, hypothetically, that an all-powerful evil God could exist. He might not worship it, but that would not mean it could not exist. He does, however, object that a good God could allow so much evil and suffering.

        On the other hand, I cannot conceive of an all-powerful and eternal yet evil God. I cannot even conceive of such a thing, and I would consider the very idea of such a thing existing to be logically contradictory. Really, the term that needs to be defined here is “evil”. Says who? As a Christian, I know that murder, rape, theft, etc. are evil because God says so. I also know that God decreeing these actions and permitting them to occur in order to fulfill his eternally good plan is not evil, because God says so. How does God speak? Through his word.

        There is no logical contradiction in this system. God ordains evil, but he always has a good reason to do so. This does not make God that author of sin, because God is not sinning, rather, God is creating sinful creatures who choose to sin by their own wills. And God, in his mercy, chooses to save some of these evil creatures, namely, any who believe in him.

        How is God defined? Based on what scripture says. Same with the terms “good” “evil” or any other terms we may need for this discussion.

        1. Firstly you have to be able to demonstrate the veracity of scripture to use this as a source for your definition, as this is the only/first place where Yahweh is mentioned.
          So…let’s see you show the veracity of scripture. Start with Genesis and work forward.

          1. I’d rather start with Romans chapter 1.

            You know the Bible is true, whether you will admit to it or not. Simply looking around you tells you so, the same way looking at a painting tells you there is a painter.

            The Bible is not a book that is proven by external evidence. Rather, it is an axiom that should be used to prove other things.

            As such, terms like “good” and “evil” only really have meaning when viewed through a scriptural lens.

            As such, the problem of evil simply evaporates, as it was a foolish objection to begin with. Its foolish because it assumes that the clay pots (humans) have a right to ask the potter (God) why he does what he does. We do not get to look at God and tell him we think his actions are evil. Rather, God gets to look at us and tell us what he thinks about our actions. This is the essence of “good” and “evil”. Good actions are those actions which God approves of, and evil actions are those which God disproves of. Very simple, and extremely logical. Even still, most people will suppress this truth because they want to be god rather than submitting to the God that rules the universe. What will you do?

            1. No, sir. I am not interested in this. We either do this properly or not at all.With due respect, l can get apologetic anywhere, anytime, thanks, from people a lot more schooled in it than you, I should’t wonder. William Lane Craig springs immediately to mind.

              Please demonstrate the veracity of scripture/the bible and how you arrive at this conclusion and then we can move along.

              Or, simply state up front , that you rely on faith, first and foremost, and I am fine with this and we can each walk away.

                1. Thank you. Your first sentence is all I needed to read, and tells everyone else where you stand: evidence and truth is not a priority.
                  No problem.

                    1. Sorry, I have no desire to enter into a long drawn out debate with you.
                      The foundation of your belief is faith and does not require you to demand evidence. IE proof that Moses existed for instance.
                      In fact , it has only become fashionable fairly recently for believers to be encouraged to openly question the bible and thus the rise in apologetics and people schooled in this discipline to provide ( some sort of) answer.
                      Yet,faith is still the bedrock of Christianity and no further demands upon the believer are really necessary.


                    2. I’m no expert but I already know you don’t have an argument. The Biblical epistemological foundation is that we know things because the Bible teaches them. The Bible is not proven, rather, it is proof of other things. The foundation of my belief is faith, yes, but so is yours. What do you have faith in?

    1. I’m no expert but I already know you don’t have an argument. The Biblical epistemological foundation is that we know things because the Bible teaches them. The Bible is not proven, rather, it is proof of other things. The foundation of my belief is faith, yes, but so is yours. What do you have faith in?

      You want to demonstrate the veracity of the bible or are you going to continue with apologetics?
      Last opportunity to behave sensibly. Your choice.
      You invited the debate. So….?

      1. I do not want to debate the veracity of scripture. I presuppose it. I have been upfront about this from the very beginning. I will not debate the varacity of the scriptures on your terms, namely, presupposing empiricism.

        The topic I wanted to debate was the problem of evil. I claimed that my solution to the problem of evil cannot be logically refuted. So, my challenge was actually for you to refute that.

        Presuppose that God is real.

        Presuppose that God inspired the scriptures, as 2 Timothy 3:16 says.

        Derive that God is good from axioms #1 and #2.

        Derive that evil exists from axioms #1 and #2.

        Atheists like Robert Nielsen would object that the fourth statement contradicts the third, and that thus we cannot logically have the third and fourth statements even if the scripturalist presuppositional foundation is taken for granted. I posit that this is not the case, that there is no contradiction between a good God and the existence of evil. That was the topic I wanted to debate. I will not debate the axioms, since you already know they are true.

        1. To debate the problem of evil, you should have a base t work form: that which you base your own beliefs etc upon. You base your on Yahweh. Your only source for Yahweh, whatever that may be, is the bible. Therefore it is incumbent on you to demonstrate the veracity of the claim that the bible is divinely inspired.
          You would not countenance me saying that JK Rowling was divinely inspired to write Harry Potter, and rightly so, there it is wrong of you to expect me to accept your conditions of debate without you first demonstrating the veracity of your claim, especially when it can be quite clearly demonstrated that the bible , especially the Old Testament is riddled with falsehood.
          So the veracity of scripture. Your call.
          You either show how and why it is true otherwise you are merely blowing off steam and your argument will be shown the respect it deserves, in this case, namely none.

          1. JK Rowling does not claim to be divinely inspired. To evaluate a claim that has not been made is logically absurd. In fact, Rowling is still alive, and I guarantee you that if you asked her she would not claim her books were inspired. We don’t even allow for the possibility that Rowling is inspired for the same reason that we don’t allow for the possibility that Robert Nielsen is inspired, he’d never claim such…

            That is not to say that all claims of inspiration are true, of course. But, we can avoid the consideration of any source that does not even claim this.

            Let me ask you this, what’s your standard for right and wrong? I want to see if your worldview is logically consistent before I debate this.

            1. I did not say JK said she thought her work was divinely inspired, I said you would not countenance me saying it was.

              Please read carefully.
              You claim the bible is divinely inspired, and so do those of your religion. I am asking you to demonstrate the veracity of this claim and how you arrive at this belief.
              Until you are able to do this, what you espouse is merely opinion and once again, under the circumstances, can be treated with the respect it deserves, namely, none.
              Now, I am sure Robert is going to get pretty fed up quite soon with this off topic tangent. So either put up or we best push off.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: