The Failure of Christianity was Caused by the Negligence & Corruption of the Church

[ResidentHell]

There are two reasons why Christianity is a failed religion. Both reasons have to do with the conduct of the members of the Church

There is one common factor in both reasons for why Christianity failed: Negligence / Corruption


Reason 1. The Hypocrisy / Corruption of the Church and its Members

Personally I believe the Church was corrupted on the same day that it was first established

The Church was never “good”. The Church was crooked and its leaders were incompetent from the very beginning

Priests are often being exposed for sexual abuse of underage boys and sexual exploitation of other members of the Church, and other priests are sometimes exposed for their attempts to cover up for the malpractices of priests in the Church

This is a prime example of corruption in the Church, as priests are usually the most important members of the Church when it comes to status and influence

But the whistleblowing of priests and other ministers in the Church happens so often now, that I’m starting to believe this was common practice among the high-status members of the Church throughout the ages. Except that it was less noticeable in previous eras, because people were less likely to report the Church leaders for malpractice, or were forcefully silenced or dismissed when they attempted to disclose their findings to other people

Many apostates have stated that the hypocrisy of the Church is the reason they transitioned from Christian to apostate. Based on what I've researched, this might actually be the most common reason that Christians turn apostate



Reason 2. The Internal Inconsistency of the Scriptures as Canonized by the Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church

As society became more advanced, more people became literate. Consequentially, more people became able to read the Scriptures independently. The priest or leader of the local Church no longer had to read it out loud to them

Inevitably, more people were exposed to the internal inconsistency of the Scriptures

Remember that the Roman Catholic Church (previously the Orthodox Church) were responsible for creating the canon that is used not only by Catholics, but also by Protestants. Also the vast majority of Christians in the world are identified with Catholic or Protestant denominations

The only difference between Catholic canon and Protestant canon, is that the Protestant canon excludes the Apocrypha (which is about 10 to 20 books). Besides that, most of the Catholic canon incorporates the entirety of the Protestant canon (i.e. the Protestant canon is a subset of the Catholic canon)

Either way, both Catholic and Protestant canons have internal inconsistencies that cannot be reconciled

If the details of a text or literature has an internal inconsistency, this is a very significant indicator that either:

​

a) There was negligence in the process of constructing the literature, or​

​

b) There was a deliberate (and successful) attempt to add false or deceptive information to the literature​

I do not want to provide examples of internal inconsistency in the Catholic and Protestant canons. The reader can search for these examples themselves



The real question is this:

Why did Irenaeus of Lyon, Origen of Alexandria and other major figures of the Early Orthodox Church, allow their canon (which would eventually become the mainstream canon for most Christians) to include manuscripts with details that contradict each other?

Answer:

There was negligence in the process of constructing the canon, or there was a deliberate attempt to include false or deceptive information in the canon

At least some of the people responsible for constructing the mainstream canon were negligent with the process, or purposely tried to add conflicting manuscripts to the mainstream canon, with dishonest or deceptive intentions



This leads to the next question:

If “God, the Father” exists, such that He never lies, never deceives, and is careful and precise in everything that He does, then how did He allow the mainstream canon to include contradictory information, considering that the human authors of the Scriptures in the mainstream canon were supposed to be divinely inspired by Him?

Answer:

He didn’t

If it’s true that “God, the Father” has a factual AND intelligible existence (although I think he does not), such that He does not lie, does not deceive, and is precise in everything that He does, then it is not possible for Him to have divinely inspired all of the human authors of the Scriptures

At least some, if not all human authors of the Scriptures, were not divinely inspired by Him to write the manuscripts that would eventually feature in the canon used by most Christians worldwide

The end.

 

[The Babylonian]

Hey brother, I love that you gave a detailed explaination on why you claim christianity is a failure. I personally love intellegent arguments. So as fellow intellectuals I would give my responses and counter arguments.

The modern church acts like the Pharesses of the time of Jesus. They demand rules and force many believers to believe in lies as traditon. To give you comparisons the Catholic church is similar to the Pharesses. The Pharesses in the first century were divided within thier group and even joined the christian community (John 3:1-12 Nicodemus)(Acts 15:1)(Philippians 3:5 Paul). And the Orthodox church acts like the Saducces. Pharesses were considered the religion of the people. The Saducces were the religion of the state and they were known to play with Rome as they were elitist.

The early christians were highly communial. They acted as a anarchic system as they were extremly decentralised. The modern church has been corrupted during the time of Constantine the "Great". If you have notice the christian church grows when its prosecuted so in order for it to fufill its purpose it has to be pressured to not make mistakes. And if you say that after it became legal, christanity is declared dead. Take in notice of the Nestorians who were presecuted by "Churchanity" for the issue of the heretics of Alexandria.

If you know about the conflict of Antioch vs Alexandria , you would know that Antioch was where christians were first called "Christians" or also known as little christs. They valued scripture true in heart and where Nestorius has studied in. Through out history christains were in conflict with the Roman church and yet they manage to spread from Ireland to China and with the Goths. Despite making doctornal errors in a world where reading without a clercial "licence" was illegal. (Many call this "The Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll)

In Alexandria you would know of most cringe worthy events in "the church" such as reports of the romans that "christians cuting off thier dicks and balls for the cause of "virginity"". If im not wrong ,Clement of Alexandria did this. And The school of Alexandria they tended to intermix greek philosophy with scripture. They were know to change scripture to sell thier ideas. Very similar to the Talmund. Also in Alexandria , the gnostics were created there and other shitty ideas.

In your first and second reason I can say this .Long answer is the conflict between the schools of Antioch and Alexandria. Short answer is organized religion is blasphemy. Ill give you a idea who is doing thier best on following christianity the best they can. -- The Anabaptists also known as the Amish,Hutterites,Bruderhoffs and more. ---The "Jesus christians"---- and a interesting case, the chinese underground church who might of given China the blessing of God for unoffically given them the biggest christian population in the world probably.

Now on your last question, here is a easy answer .--------- Try reading it in the Hebrew and Greek originals.---------------- GO ON AND READ IT ,ALSO PLEASE GIVE ME A TRANSLATION TO UNDERSTAND IT IF WE CHRISTIANS ARE ALL IDOITS. Sorry for my rudeness . Translating a Bronze and Iron age book with differnt eras ,grammer types ,tones,contexts and other parts that somehow the translaters dont know how to read or appreciate literature on how its meant to be read. Here one translation error that not many notice.

Eve was created by a rib of Adam. This is a mistake in hebrew ,the word for rib is "Ala" where in the book of Daniel in chapter 7:5 where there is a bear with three ribs. While the original word is "tsela" where its is translated into half or side.(Exodus37) So by knowing this I can break the illusions of Chads that they can have as much ribs as they can. And demand women to stick with monogamy.

Yes I understand there can be weird contents in the bible so this is left for the scholars and by faith to fix this issue. To show you I know this problems . Go and watch this youtube channels (Darkmatter2525 and SATANSGUIDE) . They make it funny
I believe we are in Satan's little season and still I can be wrong.

I await your response or others response hopefully it can be reasonable. I do not know if yall notice , we are living like in the movie Idoicracy. I actually expect you to respond in a resonable matter. So if you have questions don´t be afraid to ask. God bless

 

[ResidentHell]

Now on your last question, here is a easy answer .--------- Try reading it in the Hebrew and Greek originals.---------------- GO ON AND READ IT ,ALSO PLEASE GIVE ME A TRANSLATION TO UNDERSTAND IT IF WE CHRISTIANS ARE ALL IDOITS.

I'm aware that translations from the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament to Latin were not accurate. Some Hebrew words were misconstrued or mistranslated in Greek and Latin versions of the Bible (e.g., words like Nephilim, Seraphim, pesach, Yahweh, Yeshua)

Most Christians worldwide read from the King James Version or the New International Version, made by William Tynedale. It’s said the King James Version was one of the earliest complete translations of the Bible in English, and this version is very popular in Protestant Church

But there was another English translation of the Bible that predated KJV and Tynedale's BIble – Wycliffe’s Bible

This version was less popular cause it was associated with the Lollards, a Christian sect who were thought to have had heretical beliefs (they believed that sacramental rites of passage, like baptism, confession, fasting, and the Eucharist, were unnecessary)

Nevertheless, Wycliffe’s Bible became the foundation for future English translations of the Bible, including Tyndale's Bible, KJV and NIV


The problem is not really about the translation of biblical words from Hebrew to Greek / Latin. It’s more to do with the internal inconsistency of the New Testament. Basically some passages in the New Testament conflict with each other in ways that I do not believe can be reconciled. For instance, Paul the Apostle strangely contradicts himself in the Books of Corinthians I and II:

Though I don’t remember exactly which verses from the Books of Corinthians I and II, there's one passage from the Corinthians where Paul says that women are unallowed to speak in church, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church, and if she wants to learn something, she should ask her husband at home. But in another passage from the Corinthians, Paul also says that a woman is allowed to prophesy in church as long as she’s wearing a veil on her head while prophesying, or something along those lines

There are other examples of internal discrepancies in the New Testament; personally I think not all of them are reconcilable

Yes I understand there can be weird contents in the bible so this is left for the scholars and by faith to fix this issue

Faith alone cannot reconcile internal inconsistencies in the contents of a book

The Law of Non-Contradiction says, “A statement and the negation of the same statement, cannot be jointly true”

No amonut of faith will change the fact that if a statement is true, the negation of that same statement cannot also be true

Logical impossibility overrides faith. The issue of internal inconsistency is unfixable for the Orthodox canon

This is why I've reached the ultimate conclusion that the Orthodox canon was either: (a) not carefully assembled by the people of the Early Church who constructed it, or (b) there was clandestine motives behind assembling the Orthodox canon

So by knowing this I can break the illusions of Chads that they can have as much ribs as they can. And demand women to stick with monogamy.

Maybe you should go outside and try this IRL, and see how well this works out. Prevent Chad from having as much "ribs" as he can, and demand women to be long-term monogamous instead of being hypergamous