Critiques of Christianity, Christian Claims, Beliefs, Theology

Both religious and political conservatives in America are frequently accused of being anti-intellectual, but such accusations would carry more weight if we understood why such anti-intellectualism would exist and what form it would take. That, in turn, requires understanding what being an intellectual means and why intellectuals would be feared or hated by religious and political conservatives. There are good reasons why American conservatives would develop a tradition of anti-intellectualism.

Christians' Seven Deadly Sins fail to provide useful guidelines of behavior in both theory and practice. In practice, religious authorities rarely apply the seven deadly sins against the behaviors of the rich and powerful; instead, they have been more useful in keeping the poor in their place and thus maintaining the status quo. The theory isn't...

Sending missionaries to foreign countries is a common function in American churches. In the past, missionaries were heavily prepared and spent long periods of time abroad. Today such a commitment is too much for most Americans, so they prefer to combine vacations with missionary work: they travel for a couple of weeks, do the "missionary thing," and jet home. They do more harm than good.

Although some Christians through history have believed in universal salvation, most have held strongly to the idea that the only possible path to salvation is through being a Christian %u2014 usually, only their sort of Christian. Given the fact that most people through history have not been Christian, most people have not been saved. If this is true, Christianity is an immoral ideology.

It can be argued that some of the hostility which Christians exhibit towards atheists, agnostics, and skepticism is due to their own fear %u2014 a fear that contact with such people, not to mention serious engagement with them, may encourage their own doubts and questioning. In a religion which places such a high premium on faith, it's perhaps natural that doubt will be regarded with fear.

When it comes to practical policy issues, the differences between liberal and fundamentalist Christians is usually pretty obvious. More interesting and important, however, are the differences that exist in the background: how do liberal and fundamentalist Christians differ when it comes to deciding what is a necessary part of their religion?

It's common to hear that religion generally, or Christianity in particular, are vital foundations for leading a moral life. Without them, it's just not possible to be truly moral because God is the author of morality and Christianity, as the only True Religion, transmits God's wishes to us. If we ignore what Christianity tells us, we'll inevitably act immorally. This isn't a credible position.

When criticizing Christianity, what is it that we criticize? Are we only attacking a 'false' form of Christianity, ignoring the 'True Christianity' which is immune to such comments? That is certainly what many Christian apologists believe, basing their arguments upon subtle but often question-begging assumptions about what qualifies as 'real' Christianity.

Critical exploration of the "essence" of Christianity.

Matthew J. Eason explains why he thinks it is a bad idea to be a Christian.