Common Objections to Christianity That Don’t Hold Up
- Ashneil
- Oct 22
- 9 min read
“If God is real, why is there so much suffering?”
“The Bible is full of contradictions.”
“All religions are basically the same — why should Christianity be special?”
You’ve heard these objections. Maybe you’ve asked them yourself. They sound intelligent, well-reasoned, like they’ve thoroughly dismantled Christianity.
But here’s what I’ve discovered: Most objections to Christianity fall into two categories:
Legitimate hard questions that deserve honest engagement.
Surface-level arguments that sound profound but collapse when you actually think them through.
The first category? Those are the questions that make faith deeper. Wrestling is part of the relationship with God.
The second category? Those are the ones we need to talk about. Because too many people abandon Christianity over arguments that don’t actually hold up to scrutiny.
Let me be clear: I’m not saying faith is easy or that all questions have neat answers. I’m saying some of the most popular objections to Christianity are built on misunderstandings, false premises, or logical fallacies.
And if you’re going to reject Christianity, you should at least reject it for the right reasons.
Objection 1: “If God Is Good, Why Is There Evil and Suffering?”
This is the big one. The problem of evil. And honestly? It’s a legitimate question that deserves serious engagement.
But here’s where the objection usually goes wrong: It assumes that a good God would create a world without the possibility of evil.
Think about what that would actually require:
Option A: God creates robots with no free will. You can’t choose to love. You can’t choose to do good. You’re programmed to be “perfect.” But is that actually good? Is forced love even love?
Option B: God creates beings with free will. Which means they can choose love or hate. Good or evil. Selflessness or selfishness. And when people choose evil, suffering results. (Cough, Adam & Eve, cough)
The objection assumes Option A is better. But most people, when they think about it, don’t actually want to be robots. They value freedom, choice, and agency.
So the real question isn’t “Why does evil exist?” The real question is “Can love exist without the possibility of its opposite?”
What About Natural Evil?
“Okay, but what about earthquakes? Cancer? Tsunamis? Those aren’t caused by human choice.”
Fair point. Here’s where it gets complex:
1. We live in a fallen world. Christian theology teaches that sin didn’t just corrupt human hearts — it corrupted creation itself. (Romans 8:22: “The whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth until now” & Genesis 1:29–30 when animals started to eat each other, aka the food chain)
2. Natural disasters create opportunities for sacrificial love. When tragedy strikes, humans have the choice to respond with compassion, generosity, and courage. Evil becomes the context where the highest forms of good can emerge.
3. God doesn’t promise comfort — He promises presence. The Christian claim isn’t “believe in God and nothing bad will happen.” It’s “God is with you in the suffering.”
Does this answer every question about suffering? No. Does it make it easier when you’re in the middle of a tragedy? Not really.
But it does show that the objection “evil disproves God” is built on a false premise — that a good God must prevent all suffering. That’s not what Christianity claims.
Objection 2: “The Bible Is Full of Contradictions”
This one always gets thrown around. Usually by people who haven’t actually read the Bible.
Here’s the reality: Most “contradictions” are either:
Different perspectives on the same event (not contradictions, just different angles)
Translation issues
Cultural context that’s misunderstood
Intentional literary devices that modern readers miss
Example: “How many angels were at Jesus’ tomb?”
Matthew mentions one angel. John mentions two. CONTRADICTION!
Except… no. If John saw two angels and Matthew focused on the one who spoke, they’re both accurate. It’s like two witnesses to a car accident — one says “a red car ran the light,” the other says “two cars were in the intersection.” Not contradictory. Different focus.
Example: “God is love vs. God commands genocide in the Old Testament”
This is a legitimate hard question about God’s character and the Canaanite conquest passages. But here’s what’s not legitimate: acting like these passages are hiding in obscurity and Christians just ignore them.
Christians have wrestled with these texts for thousands of years. There are serious theological frameworks for understanding them:
The judgment-on-systemic-evil interpretation
The ancient Near Eastern warfare hyperbole interpretation
The progressive revelation framework
You can look these up and disagree with these interpretations. But you can’t claim Christians are just ignoring the problem. Ultimately, who you want God to be vs who He actually is is what this question wrestles with.
I have my reasons and my own explanation, but others may not agree. If you’re taking Christianity seriously, then it's a question that God will help you with understanding through prayer.
The Real Test
Here’s how to tell if something is actually a contradiction:
Can both statements be true at the same time from different perspectives or contexts?
“Jesus wept” and “Jesus is God” — Both true. God incarnate experienced human emotion.
“Faith alone saves” and “Faith without works is dead” — Both true. Saving faith produces works. Works don’t produce salvation.
“God is love” and “God is just” — Both true. Love without justice isn’t actually loving. Justice without love isn’t actually just.
If you can’t reconcile two statements without assuming one is false, THAT’S a contradiction.
Most “Bible contradictions” fail this test. They’re reconcilable with context, cultural understanding, or basic reading comprehension.
Objection 3: “All Religions Are Basically the Same / Many Paths to God”
This sounds inclusive and tolerant. It’s actually deeply insulting to every religion.
Because it requires you to ignore what each religion actually teaches about itself.
Buddhism: There is no personal God. Enlightenment comes through eliminating desire. Salvation is escape from the cycle of rebirth.
Hinduism: Multiple gods exist. Salvation is reincarnation until you achieve moksha (liberation from the cycle).
Islam: One God (Allah). Salvation through submission and following the Five Pillars. Jesus was a prophet, not God.
Christianity: One God in three persons. Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. Jesus is God incarnate.
These aren’t different paths up the same mountain. They’re completely different mountains.
You can’t say “all religions teach the same thing” without either:
Being ignorant of what religions actually teach
Deciding that what religions say about themselves doesn’t matter (which is condescending)
The Coexist Problem
The popular objection is: “Can’t we all just coexist? Why does Christianity have to claim it’s the only way?”
First: Christians absolutely should treat people of other faiths with respect and love.
Religious disagreement doesn’t require hostility.
Second: Every religion makes exclusive truth claims. Buddhism claims Hinduism is wrong about God. Islam claims Christianity is wrong about Jesus. They all think the others are mistaken about fundamental reality.
Christianity isn’t uniquely arrogant for claiming to be true. It’s doing what every coherent worldview does — making claims about reality and standing by them.
Objection 4: “Science Has Disproven Christianity”
This one’s interesting because it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what science actually does.
Science answers “how” questions. Religion answers “why” questions.
Science: How did the universe begin? (Big Bang, physical laws, cosmic evolution)
Christianity: Why does the universe exist? (God created it for a purpose)
These aren’t contradictory. They’re answering different questions.
Evolution vs. Creation?
The supposed conflict here is overblown by both sides.
What science claims: Life on Earth has developed over billions of years through natural selection and genetic mutation.
What Christianity actually claims: God created the universe and everything in it.
These can both be true. Many Christians (including respected theologians and scientists) believe God used evolutionary processes as His method of creation. The Bible says God created — it doesn’t specify the mechanism.
Now, Young Earth Creationists like myself disagree with this. That’s our right. But my interpretation of Genesis isn’t the only Christian interpretation, and it never has been….and it won’t define whether you go to heaven or hell because of it (in my opinion).
Miracles vs. Natural Law?
“Science shows the universe operates by natural laws. Miracles violate natural laws.
Therefore, miracles are impossible.”
The problem: This assumes natural laws are prescriptive (what MUST happen) rather than descriptive (what USUALLY happens).
If God exists and created natural laws, He can obviously work outside them. That’s what makes miracles miraculous — they’re exceptions, not the rule.
The objection is actually circular reasoning:
Miracles can’t happen
Why? Because natural laws can’t be violated
Why can’t they be violated? Because miracles can’t happen
You’re free to not believe in miracles. But you can’t use science to disprove them — science can only describe regular patterns, not rule out exceptions. Plus, doctors witness miracle healings all the time, if you just look it up.
Objection 5: “Christians Are Hypocrites”
This is less an objection to Christianity and more an observation about Christians.
And honestly? It’s often true. Christians are frequently hypocritical.
But here’s what that doesn’t prove: That Christianity is false.
If Christianity claimed “humans are basically good and following Jesus makes you perfect,” then Christian hypocrisy would disprove Christianity.
But Christianity claims the opposite: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
Christians being hypocritical doesn’t disprove Christianity. It confirms Christianity’s diagnosis of human nature — we’re all broken, including religious people.
The question isn’t “Are Christians perfect? “The question is, 'Is Jesus who He claimed to be?”
Judge Christianity by Christ, not by Christians. Evaluate the message, not just the messengers.
(Though yes, Christians should absolutely strive to live consistently with what they profess. The hypocrisy criticism should make us better, not defensive.)
Objection 6: “A Loving God Wouldn’t Send People to Hell”
This objection makes sense emotionally. It’s hard to reconcile “God is love” with “eternal punishment.”
But it’s based on several assumptions that might not be true:
Assumption 1: Hell is God actively torturing people.
Many theologians understand hell differently — as a separation from God that people choose. C.S. Lewis described it as “the doors of hell are locked from the inside.”
If God is the source of all goodness, love, and joy, then complete separation from God IS hell. God doesn’t send people there — they choose it by rejecting Him.
Assumption 2: Humans are basically good and don’t deserve judgment.
Christianity teaches humans are made in God’s image (valuable) but also sinful (broken). If God is perfectly just, sin can’t just be ignored. There are real consequences.
Assumption 3: A loving God wouldn’t allow anyone to reject Him forever.
But love requires the possibility of rejection. If God forced everyone to be with Him, that wouldn’t be love — it would be coercion.
Here’s the hard truth: If you believe people have genuine free will, then you have to allow for the possibility that people can use that freedom to reject God permanently.
The Real Question
The objection assumes God’s primary attribute is “niceness” — a cosmic grandfather who wants everyone comfortable.
Christianity claims God’s primary attributes are love AND justice, AND holiness. A God who is only loving but not just would be a terrible God. A God who is only just but not loving would be a tyrant.
The question isn’t “Would a nice God send people to hell?” The question is “What does a perfectly loving AND perfectly just God do with human rebellion?”
Christianity’s answer: He takes the punishment Himself (the cross) and offers rescue to everyone (grace). But He doesn’t force it on anyone (free will).
The Objections That Actually Matter
After all this, here are the questions that I think DO pose legitimate challenges to Christianity:
Why this particular revelation? Why is Christianity true and not Islam or Buddhism? (This requires positive evidence for Christianity, not just debunking objections)
How do we interpret difficult Old Testament passages? The Canaanite conquest, slavery regulations, etc., require serious engagement & not dismissal.
What about people who have never heard the gospel? This is a theological puzzle Christians wrestle with and disagree about.
How do we reconcile God’s sovereignty with human free will? This has been debated for 2,000 years, and Christians still don’t agree.
Notice what these questions have in common: They’re hard, they require thought, and Christians who take them seriously don’t have neat answers.
That’s different from the popular objections we covered, which sound smart but mostly reveal misunderstandings of what Christianity actually claims.
So, What Now?
If you’re going to reject Christianity, reject it because you’ve genuinely engaged with what it teaches and found it wanting.
Don’t reject it because of arguments that dissolve under examination.
Don’t reject it because of “contradictions” you haven’t actually researched.
Don’t reject it because Christians are flawed (we are — that’s part of the point).
Reject it, if you must, because you’ve considered the evidence and concluded Jesus wasn’t who He claimed to be.
That’s the real question Christianity rises or falls on. Not whether Christians are perfect. Not whether every question has an easy answer. Not whether the faith is “scientific.”
The question is: Did Jesus rise from the dead?
If He did, everything else is secondary. If He didn’t, Christianity is false regardless of how many objections you can debunk.
That’s where honest investigation should focus. Everything else is just a distraction.
Which of these objections have you struggled with most? What questions about Christianity do you think ARE legitimately difficult?
© Ashneil
Comments