Christian Doctrine is correct

== Definitions == "Correct" means "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth." [1] Thus, "correct" means having zero errors or internal inconsistencies and being in accordance with fact, as opposed to fiction. Truth coincides with the "best explanation" for something. [2] If the better explanation for anything is that Christian Doctrine is wrong, then I win. == My Case in Chief == (1) The Trinity makes no sense The basic Christian belief is that God created Adam and Eve and put them in paradise, but Adam sinned by eating an apple from the Tree of Knowledge when God specifically told him not to. God was really mad at Adam for a long time and blamed all of humanity for this. But he finally sent his son down to Earth -- which was really just him the whole time -- and let his son be murdered by a bunch of Romans. Because God"s son (i.e. God) died, God chose to forgive us all. We are supposed to be thankful to Jesus (i.e. God) for helping us to get God (i.e. Jesus) to forgive us. This interpretation is internally inconsistent because Jesus preached love and forgiveness (implying that he, i.e. God had already forgiven humanity), but God was still mad until Jesus died. It does not make sense that one part of an entity needed to die in order for another part of the same entity to forgive us. A more plausible explanation for the Trinity is that one of the Ten Commandments forbids praying to idols, so to avoid being construed as a polytheistic religion, Christians said, "we pray to Jesus, but he is also God, so it"s okay." "The Lord your God is One Lord [not three]." -- The Old Testament (Deuteronomy 6:4) (2) A rigid belief that you must accept Christ as Lord to get into Heaven is absurd Such a belief would mean that all people prior to Christ's birth automatically went to Hell because Christ did not exist yet for them to believe in. Even for people who lived after Christ"s birth, the Bible was not consolidated until hundreds of years later, so they would have had no way of learning about Christ. So they all went to Hell. Jews and Muslims all go to Hell for non-belief in Jesus' divinity, even though they believe in God (which seems impossible to square with the Trinity, which holds that "God" and "Jesus" are equivalencies). Infants go to Hell because they lack the cognitive ability to accept Jesus as Lord. (3) The Bible cannot be the true and inerrant word of God //A// Young Earth Creation is false The Bible traces a genealogy from Genesis to 1 Kings that estimates the age of the Earth at about 6000 years. However, using various radioactive dating methods to test sedimentary Earth rocks and meteorites, scientists have estimated the age of our solar system at 4.5 billion years. [3] In addition, the Universe is 13.7 billion years old -- which is established by measuring how fast other galaxies are moving away from us and is confirmed by the redshifting of light from the Big Bang. [4] Humans have existed more than 6,000 years. The oldest human fossil has been dated as being 195,000 years old. [5] Evolution is the most plausible explanation because we have found intermediate species (between us and our common ancestor with apes). We know these species were human-like because they walked upright on two feet (unlike modern chimps) and had bigger brains than chimps -- but we know they weren't Homo sapiens because their brow ridges were much bigger than ours and their brains were much smaller than ours. //B// Conflicting genealogies Both the gospel of Luke and that of Matthew claim to trace the ancestry of Jesus with absolute certainty, yet the Gospel of Luke says there were 54 generations of people between Abraham and Jesus and the Gospel of Matthew says there were only 39 generations of people between Abraham and Jesus. [6] Not only does Matthew contain more generations, but it also claims Jesus is descended from entirely different people. [6] The most plausible explanation is that Luke and Matthew were fabricating these genealogies (without consulting each other) to prove that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (who would have needed to be descended from Abraham and King David). //C// Mythical creatures The people who wrote the Bible thought that mythical creatures existed. They said that there was a fire-breathing leviathan in the ocean and unicorns that came out of Egypt. [7] These creatures do not and have never existed, so the Bible is wrong. //D// Non-adoption of canon The King James Bible cannot be inerrant because Revelations was nearly not included in it. [8] Its inclusion was extremely controversial. [8] And Martin Luther essentially un-canonized Revelations because it "portrays God as inflicting horrendous punishments on humanity." [8] Therefore, the Bible cannot be inerrant because it is disputable which books should be included as canon. //E// Archaeologists have disproved the Exodus Hundreds of archaeological digs have proven that the Jews never were in Egypt and that 600,000 Jews never trekked through the Egyptian desert for 40 years. [10] Such a large event would have left telltale signs and would have been recorded in Egyptian history books, but it wasn't. [10] You would also think the Egyptians would have recorded evidence of the 10 Plagues of Egypt, especially all the first borns simultaneously dropping dead. But they didn't. (3) The Contradiction of free will If God is omniscient, then he has infallible foreknowledge of all things that will happen. That means all events that will occur are already fixed. All decisions you will ever make are already pre-ordained because God has seen them. You have no power to do something that God has not foreseen. Therefore, free will and God"s omniscience cannot co-exist. (4) The problem of evil God is omnibenevolent. -Psalm 145:17 An omnibenevolent being must always do the most benevolent act possible. It is possible for God to end all suffering because he is omnipotent. Yet suffering exists in the world. Therefore, either God is not omnibenevolent or he is not omnipotent. In addition, the Holy Spirit (in Exodus) murdered the first son of every Egyptian. This cannot possible be construed as an omnibenevolent act. (5) Abortion is morally permissible Rule consequentialism holds that any rule that we establish that creates more good than harm is an ethical and good rule. A rule permitting abortion is morally preferable to a rule outlawing it. A comprehensive global study found that abortion rates were *identical* in countries that outlawed it and allowed it; the only difference was that in countries where it was illegal, the back-alley abortions performed were really unsafe. [9] When abortions were illegal in the U.S., 15,000 women died each year seeking illegal abortions. Since women won't stop seeking abortions regardless of whether it is permitted, a rule outlawing abortion is nothing but counterproductive. In contrast, Christian Doctrine would mandate banning abortion. Such a rule is immoral under rule consequentialism because it would not actually prevent any abortions but *would* result in many deaths from unsafe abortions, thus proving how blind faith is counterproductive. Additionally, the Christian belief that abortion is immoral is internally inconsistent. Christians believe that aborted fetuses go to Heaven, not Hell, because they were never given a chance at life. So the fetus should be happy -- it gets eternal bliss. The woman is happy because her bodily autonomy is upheld. Win-win. In contrast, forcing a woman (e.g. who has been raped) to take the baby to term is a lose-lose: the woman loses her bodily autonomy and the baby is given a chance to be tricked by Satan into non-belief, thus risking eternal damnation. [1] Google's dictionary [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com...