(5251) Why Christianity deserves no respect
Christianity, taken at face value, presents themes and judgments that do not coincide with the best virtues of humanity. Its principal selling card is fear- fear of being tortured for eternity. As a philosophy, this deserves no respect. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1m57zg0/why_i_dont_respect_christianity/
My thesis is I do not respect Christianity as a belief system because it promotes doctrines that rely on fear over reason, enforces moral guilt through inherited sin, and justifies eternal punishment for finite beings all while demanding unquestioning faith over critical thought.
Respecting human dignity does not require respecting harmful or incoherent ideas, and belief systems that threaten, divide, or suppress inquiry are not above moral scrutiny. I hate being expected to respect a belief system built on contradictions, fear, and silence. Christianity, like many religions, asks you to call surrender a virtue. To call not knowing, “faith.” To call eternal punishment, “love.” Saying the world began with two humans eating a fruit, and now all of us deserve to suffer for it. That’s not deep. That’s not divine. That’s inherited punishment disguised as moral clarity. And when people spread this story, not as myth or metaphor, but as truth and use it to threaten others with hell, that’s not harmless. That’s spiritual coercion. I’m not obligated to respect ideas that dismiss reason or deny science, especially when those ideas justify condemnation, indoctrination, or bigotry.
Was there a man named Jesus? Maybe. Was he kind, insightful, inspiring? Maybe. Did he rise from the dead, witnessed by 500 people? There’s no contemporary evidence. The claim comes decades later, from Paul, who never met Jesus alive. Not a single historian during Jesus’s life mentioned him. Not Josephus, not Tacitus, no one. And the gospels contradict each other. Was Jesus crucified before or after Passover? Was Joseph’s father Jacob or Eli? Did the disciples take a staff or not? Apologists twist themselves into knots trying to “harmonize” these contradictions but why force harmony where conflict exists? Even early Christians burned rival texts gnostic gospels, alternative teachings Not for truth, but for control. Christianity didn’t gently blossom from truth. It was forged in empire, war, and erasure. That’s not divine revelation that’s politics.
People say, “god allows suffering so we can grow.” But do babies grow from being born with terminal cancer? Do animals grow who suffer and don’t even understand what is or why this is happening to them? And free will doesn’t explain this because an animal suffering in the wild or a baby born with a terminal illness cannot have free will. Did cancer cells get free will? If God is all-powerful, why make a world where innocent children starve, where parasites blind the innocent, where some never even hear the “truth” before dying? Is virtue only real if it’s forged in pain? I don’t reject God because I hate morality. I reject the idea of a loving god who built a system where most people suffer now, and then burn later forever for being born in the “wrong” culture, asking the wrong questions. If you need the threat of eternal torture to be good, you aren’t good you’re afraid. I’m not afraid of hell. I’m afraid of people who are because when you believe in divine punishment, you start to think it’s okay to threaten others “for their own good.”
It would seem that a universal god communicating with humankind would deliver a message that would transcend human ethos and empathy. But Christianity fails that test in the extreme. Yahweh is not a figure that deserves respect much less worship. A real god would have established a religion exponentially better.
(5252) Religious belief is not rationally grounded
Religious belief has a different pedigree than other beliefs, because it requires less evidence for support. People surrender their mental faculties much more willingly when it comes to their faith in unseen magical entities. It is a matter of willing self-delusion to feed an existential need to evaporate the unknown and to assuage an assortment of fears. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1m4dpxz/belief_and_religion_are_just_delusion/
Belief and Religion are just Delusion.
And I don’t mean that insultingly. I’m not trying to provoke, but to explore.
I think that religious belief is often not rationally grounded. It’s a psychological construct, something that gives people emotional safety against death, uncertainty, and the limits of human understanding.
A few points that led me to this conclusion:
Most people defend their faith emotionally, not logically. When I ask questions, it’s often treated as an attack. That, to me, is a red flag. If belief can’t be questioned, can it really be true?
Belief is geographically determined. Had we been born in different countries or at different times, we’d worship different gods. That undermines the idea of any one religion being universally true.
I can say: “I don’t know what came before the Big Bang.” But I don’t invent a god to fill that gap. I can handle the unknown. Many believers can’t – and fill that space with God. That’s not knowledge. That’s compensation.
I’ve also noticed:
Belief functions like a placebo. It can soothe, motivate, even heal emotionally – but that says nothing about its truth.
If religion makes people act morally, but only due to fear of punishment or hope of reward, is that really morality?
I recently had a conversation that made me realize how hard it is to find someone who can actually debate these ideas without getting defensive. I want to change that.
1. What is rationality to me?
Rationality means forming beliefs and taking actions based on evidence, logic, and consistent reasoning — not on emotion, tradition, or social pressure. A rational belief is one that can be supported through argument and evidence, and that you’re willing to revise if better evidence arises.
2. What evidentiary standard do I require?
That depends on the claim. But as a general rule:
For extraordinary claims (like the existence of supernatural beings, life after death, divine revelation), I expect extraordinary evidence — meaning testable, falsifiable, or at least highly corroborated data.
For mundane or everyday claims, personal testimony and common experience might be enough.
For a belief system to be rationally justified, it should:
Be internally consistent
Be open to falsification or revision
Be based on independently verifiable observations or well-justified reasoning
So I’m not saying someone’s irrational just because they believe something I don’t — but I do think beliefs should be proportionate to the evidence available. The more impactful or supernatural a claim, the stronger the standard should be.
Beliefs should be supported by sufficient and proportional evidence. Humans hate uncertainty but intellectual honesty demands that saying ‘I don’t know’ is OK. Christianity attempts to subvert this fact by creating an artificial sense of certainty- to the demise of both a healthy exercise of curiosity and a harmonious and deferential relationship with those of different faiths.
(5253) Jesus, as the Old Testament god, is highly compromised
Christians have an idealistic image of Jesus as the sinless god-man who lived an exemplary life- a picture of perfection. But, at the same time, standard Christian theology touts Jesus as God himself or at least 1/3 of the godhead. This implies that Jesus oversaw, approved, and therefore was responsible for the atrocities documented in the Old Testament. By any current definition of perfection, Jesus cannot be assigned that honor. The following was taken from:
The claim that Jesus is sinless and a perfect role model overlooks his role as the Old Testament God, who commanded violence, rape, genocide, and slavery through prophets before shifting to a message of love and spirituality.
Before I start my argument, I want to clarify a few things. I am talking about the co-equal, co-eternal Jesus as understood by mainstream Trinitarian Christians, not the subordinate Jesus, not the unitarian Jesus, and not the Islamic or Ebionite Jesus.
In Trinitarian doctrine Jesus is the incarnate form of Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament. In their doctrine that is confirmed by verses such as John 1:1, 8:58, 14;9, 10:30, 17:5. That is also the view of the Church fathers.
Iraneus writes:
Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God. For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God – both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father… this God, the Creator, who formed the world, is the only God, and that there is no other God besides Him.
Hippolytus writes:
The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.
Justin Martyr writes:
Although the Jews were always of the opinion that it was the Father of all who had spoken to Moses, it was in fact the Son of God… who spoke to him …What was said out of the bush to Moses, ‘I am He who is, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’… was an indication that they though dead still existed and were Christ’s own men.
Now that we’ve established that Jesus is seen as Yahweh, we can move on to my argument.
Christians claim that Jesus is the only worthy human or god to be followed in the wake of other religions. For Jesus was sinless, perfect, loving, and moral, unlike the gods of other religions like Shiva, Vishnu, or Ahura Mazda, and unlike other prophets such as Muhammad and Moses.
What is often proudly mentioned are things like how Jesus never had a wife, never had slaves, was never racist, was never involved in a war or fight, never raped anybody and how he didn’t judge the sinner, and so on.
I say, that is completely wrong because he is the God in the Old Testament, who ordered the Prophets to do all these things in the first place. That in order to ensure the “survival” of the Israelites, if that can be believed. All the dirty work for the Prophets, all the praise for Jesus.
I am now here, to apply the same standard that Christians apply to other Prophets, to Jesus as well. No more special pleading.
The Sins of Jesus
The Midianites: Jesus, instead of turning the other cheek, ordered Moses to take revenge on the Midianites for killing Israelites. Moses was further commanded to slay every man and every male among the little ones, and to kill every woman who was not a virgin. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:1–18)
In the Septuagint, the word “young girls” does not even appear in this verse. The Greek uses the word ἀπαρτία (apartia), which can be translated as “female children.”.
Genocide and Deceit: Jesus ordered Saul, the king of Israel, to genocide the Amalekites for attacking Moses a few hundred years earlier. He commanded Saul to kill every man, woman, child, infant, and animal. When Saul failed to properly carry out the genocide, Jesus was angry and told Samuel to proclaim David as king.
Because Samuel feared for his life, Jesus instructed him to lie to Saul, so that he could annoint David without any problem. (1 Samuel 15/16)
Marry your rapist, for he has humbled you: Jesus “punishes” the rapist of a virgin who was not yet betrothed, by making him pay her father fifty shekels of silver. The raped women, then has to become the wife of the rapist. As further “punishment.” or rather, reward, the rapist may not divorce her. (Deut 22:28-29)
Jesus tells us, that this is just because the rapist has humbled that virgin girl.
Racism. A believing gentile is a dog: A woman comes to Jesus, begging and crying on her knees. Jesus ignores her until his sinning, less perfect apostles finally urge him to act. Jesus refuses to help the woman because… “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” The woman then agrees that she is a dog, and Jesus heals her daughter. (Matthew 15:21–28)
Now, why did Jesus call her a dog? Christians offer many excuses, such as claiming the original word meant “puppy” rather than dog, as if that matters. Or they say Jesus only meant to provoke her, to test whether her faith was genuine.
However, if one understands Jewish theology of that time, it becomes clear that he called her a dog because she was a believing Gentile. Jews were “the children of God.” Believing Gentiles were analogous to dogs, and unbelieving Gentiles were considered worse than dogs.
Conclusion: As we see above, Jesus ordered His prophets to commit every crime under the sun, crimes for which his followers criticize other religions. And these are just a few examples; there are many more. Most Christians will excuse this by saying that it was the old law, and I agree it was. However, this doesn’t change the fact that Jesus, the perfect moral example, ordered all these things.
If Jesus is who Christians think he is, then he was alongside the Father when he ordered the execution and raping of people- and therefore by any definition of culpability, he is guilty of these offenses. Therefore, Jesus cannot be considered perfect.
(5254) Squeezing new information from ancient texts
It was a common practice in early Christianity for scholars to mine the Old Testament for anything remotely suggesting the truth of their conviction (or concoction) that Jesus was the promised Jewish messiah. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1m6ydwo/the_messiah_question/
The vast majority of “prophecies” that Christians are familiar with are not just straightforward statements with flashing neon lights that say “this is a prophecy about the messiah”. It was very common in Judaism to engage with the scripture in a way that allowed for new interpretations and new information to be squeezed out of texts that are very clearly about something else on the surface level. Just because a source text “isn’t really about” something or “doesn’t really say” something in a technical or literary sense, doesn’t mean that Jews or Christians couldn’t still interpret that God buried latent information and prophecies within the text that required wisdom and faith to uncover.
We see this in places like Acts 1 where Peter tries to argue that they need to appoint a new disciple to replace Judas and that the scriptures already foretold their replacement of Judas. “…the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas”, and then Peter gives 2 verses as proof which are stretched extremely thin out of context to try and make them relevant to the situation at hand. It would be useless to say “Silly Peter, those verses aren’t about Judas”, because it is plain to anyone that they aren’t about Judas. But Peter, like most Jews and Christians of the time, believed the words still spoke to their own time and place if you just squinted at it the right way.
So, the source material for the virgin birth prophecy is obviously not a direct prophecy about the messiah, nor is it explicitly prophesying a virgin birth. The context of the prophecy is an entirely different situation contained within Isaiah’s narrative. But that doesn’t stop later Jewish readers from reading new information into it, intended to be deployed in a different context.
So, this kind of debate about whether texts are “actually” about this instead of that, are slightly misunderstanding how scripture was utilized and deployed for the purposes of prophecy in 2nd temple Judaism.
Good books on the subject would be “Scripture and Tradition in Judaism” by Géza Vermes and “The Bible As It Was” by James Kugal.
If God was playing fair there would be a scripture in the Old Testament similar to this:
And the Lord spoke, “I will send my son to live among you and teach you many things. He will be the lamb of God who will die and take upon himself your sins so that you may live forever.”
If this or something similar was in the Old Testament, we would be having a different conversation. It would not necessarily imply that Christianity is true, as purposeful fulfillment is a known scheme, but at least it would provide a more legitimate tie between the Old and New testaments.
(5255) Christian moral dilemma
Christians have to walk a narrow path when they read about God’s atrocities in the Bible while holding similar acts today as being evil. The following explains why there is no easy way out of this dilemma:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1m8n0gq/the_christian_moral_dilemma/
The Old Testament and its moral content creates an unavoidable crisis for any Christian who takes the Bible seriously. In many OT passages, God directly commands or endorses things like genocide, slavery, rape (especially in the form of forced marriage) and ethnic cleansing. These aren’t symbolic, metaphorical, or misunderstood, they are framed with phrases like “Thus says the LORD” or “The LORD commanded. Atrocities we would consider war crimes today.
And here’s the unavoidable problem:
Any Christian who believes the OT is the inspired, authoritative word of God must accept these actions as morally good because they are commanded by God Himself.
But then, what happens when that same Christian sees modern atrocities? War crimes, human trafficking, massacres in the news, in fiction, in history? The moral instinct is to condemn them as evil.
Yet these actions are nearly identical to what God commanded in the OT.
So the Christian faces a stark dilemma:
Either condemn modern atrocities AND those in the OT and risk accusing God of evil.
Or justify the OT actions as good and then struggle to call modern atrocities evil without being a hypocrite.
Or compartmentalize and ignore the contradiction entirely which is intellectually and morally dishonest.
Or completely reject the OT which leads to what the early fathers described as the heresy of Marcion.
There’s no morally consistent way out. Any attempt to say “God had a different standard back then” undermines His unchanging nature. Saying “God can do what we can’t” opens the door to divine moral relativism, which is deeply dangerous. And can make a terrorist in waiting. And we’ve seen some of them recently. Last one being Adam Sheafe.
This isn’t just a theological debate. It’s a spiritual and psychological crisis. I know many people, some still in the faith, some who left, who couldn’t reconcile a God of love with a God who kills infants and sanctions rape. And I can’t blame them.
Worth noting that I absolutely despise Christians who are extremely insecure and ashamed of their religion that instead of facing this issue seriously they go criticize and mock other religions for having similar molar issues. This whataboutism is so childish and exposes their insecurity and lack of critical thinking and they are easily refuted by simply pointing out the problems they themselves try to avoid.
It can be certain that if a universal god existed and who interacted with human affairs, there would be nothing remotely about this god similar to the evil acts ascribed to the fictional figure Yahweh. That said, if Christianity was true, it would have a very different god and it would not be suffering a moral dilemma.
(5256) Religion thrives on bubbles of ignorance
What sustains religion in a modern world is the persistence of ignorance about emerging knowledge. By suppressing awareness of uncomfortable facts, pastors can keep their congregants in the pews. The following was taken from:
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2025/07/religion-survives-because-humans-live.html#more
It’s inevitable actually: when we are born, we know nothing about the cosmos, and as we grow up, we get so many signals from adults around us about what to believe: about what is true. Religion especially relies on massive ignorance to maintain its position and status in the world. Christianity probably deserves a Gold Medal for its Bubble of Ignorance.
Major features of the Christian Bubble
Number 1: Devout Christians don’t know the origins of their faith.
They tend to believe what they’re taught in Sunday School or catechism. I recall vividly what an elderly Catholic woman told me not too long ago: “The priests told us not to think about what we learned in catechism.” Nor are they willing to research exactly how belief in Jesus arose in the first century. What was the context? What were the beliefs of other religions and cults at the time? So many of them promised eternal life, and embraced the idea of dying-and-rising savior gods. Why were the gospels—those now included in the New Testament—written decades after the death of Jesus? How were they composed? What sources did the authors use to create their accounts of Jesus, indeed just how did they come up with the Jesus-script we find in the gospels? —so much of which (even Christians would acknowledge) is bad, mediocre, and alarming.
Moreover, the gospel authors had differing theologies: the gospel of John presents a Jesus who is very different from the one found in the gospel of Mark. The authors of Matthew and Luke also set out to correct the deficiencies of Mark. Mark has little ethical teaching, so Matthew created the Sermon on the Mount; apparently Luke wasn’t satisfied with it, so he shortened it and changed the wording.
This is also a part of the vast bubble of ignorance of Christian laity: they have no clue that many thousands of books, journals, articles, and doctoral dissertations have been written trying to make sense of the confusion that the New Testament presents. The laity are naïve: “What our clergy tell us must be true!” To escape this bubble of ignorance they would have to be willing, indeed, determined, to dig much deeper than that. But alas, that could mean a major disruption of the faith in Jesus they hold so dear. Not grasping that their faith in Jesus is delusional. “I feel Jesus in my heart” is evidence for what they’re feeling—nothing more.
Number 2: Devout Christians don’t seem to grasp our place in the cosmos.
So many of the faithful continue to settle for the view of the cosmos presented in the Bible. Their god resides in the sky above, and the Bible authors had no clue that earth is a planet, let alone a planet among billions of others in the Milky Way galaxy. Thus it is no surprise that Jesus was presented as ascending to heaven by simply defying gravity to disappear above the clouds, and take his place beside god’s throne way up above.
Most humans I suspect—and not just Christians—are not aware of the cosmos as revealed by astronomers in the last couple of hundred years. What percentage of humans—1 percent, 2 percent? —could explain Edwin Hubble’s 1923 discovery? This was one of the most important discoveries in all of human history. Hubble proved that the swirl of stars, now known as the Andromeda Galaxy, is indeed a galaxy far beyond our own, some 2.5 million light years away. At the time, many astronomers believed that our galaxy was the whole universe, and that the Andromeda swirl of stars was part of our galaxy. We now know that there are billions, maybe even trillions, of galaxies.
So the Bible concept of the cosmos has been obliterated, and—along with it—the confident belief that there is a god who pays close attention to everything that every human on our planet does and thinks. It would take a lot of evidence to show that such a god knows that the human race is even here. But there is plenty of evidence that he/she/it doesn’t know. Indeed, was there a creator focused on creating a cosmos brimming with life?
Richard Carrier has pointed out that this doesn’t seem to be the case—at all:
“Almost the entire universe is lethal to life—in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with lethal radiation into an area the size of a house, we would never find the submicroscopic speck of area that sustains life. It would be smaller than a single proton. Would you conclude that the house was built to serve and benefit that subatomic speck? Hardly. Yet that is the house we live in. The Christian theory completely fails to predict this. But atheism predicts precisely this.” (p. 66, Why I Am Not a Christian)
When I was in seminary—on my way, ironically enough, to becoming an atheist—I was stunned that Christian theologians, totally isolated on our small planet, were so confident in their “knowledge” of god. Might there be thinking beings elsewhere in the cosmos who have been investigating reality far longer than humans have been? What had they discovered about gods? Without access to such knowledge, Christian theology—based as it is on ancient superstitions and magical thinking—cannot be taken seriously at all.
Even if there are other civilizations out there, scattered across the light years, Carrier’s point about “that subatomic speck” still holds. In our own solar system, there are 293 moons orbiting the planets, yet so far life has not been detected on any of them. There may be life on many other planets in other galaxies—but it may be at the microbiology level. Humans have fantasies about alien creatures visiting earth, which means that our imaginations have run wild (and thus countless religions have been invented as well).
It’s unlikely that the universe was created to sustain life—and on our own planet, life and wellbeing are in constant jeopardy.
Number 3: Devout Christians don’t realize that horrendous human and animal suffering cancels their concept of god.
A few weeks ago here I mentioned the favorite hymn, He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands. It has proved to be a sentimental favorite—no doubt because it reinforces Jesus-script about his god knowing everything about us, including the number of hairs on our heads. But He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands is banal, sentimental nonsense; it encourages people not to think about the realities of our world, which include suffering and brutalities that should not exist if a caring, loving, all-powerful god is in charge and watching over us. The real world, as we experience it every day, would suggest such a god does not exist, and in any case, is not in control of anything.
How can it be claimed that a god has humanity in his hands when there is so much ongoing suffering? Here are a few examples, starting with afflictions, shall we say, on the personal level:
· School shooting, in which dozens of young lives are destroyed.
· On 10 June 1944, 445 women and children were murdered by German soldiers inside the church at Oradour-sur-Glane, a village in rural France. The victims had been forced into the church by the soldiers, then fire-bombed and machine-gunned.
· On 17 September 1940, the British steamship, SS City of Benares, carrying 123 children, was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-Boat. Most of the children were being sent to Canada, to be safely away from the war. Of the 123 children, 98 lost their lives.
Then we can move on to massive numbers of deaths:
· 1965-1966: Genocide in Indonesia, resulting in more than 500,000 people killed.
· The December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed 225,000 people.
· The Holocaust during World War II: the intentional murder by the Nazis of millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, as well as those deemed physically or mentally deformed.
· In 1945, at least 90,000 people were incinerated when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima; at least 60,000 died when Nagasaki was bombed a few days later.
· The 1918 pandemic that killed more than fifty million people worldwide.
· The Black Plague in the 14th century killed a quarter to a third of the human population between India and England; it was a horrible way to die. The church claimed it was punishment for sin. Truly, if a god has the whole world in his hands, he/she/it could have whispered in a few thousand ears, “It’s the fleas!”
For people who are aware of these tragedies—and the list could go on and on—the vast Christian Bubble of Ignorance, which thrives on unawareness of so much human suffering, is itself an enormous, inexcusable scandal. I saw this quote recently on Facebook: “Many believers doubt their faith deep down—but fear, habit, and identity keep them from facing it.”
Facing and dismantling the vast Christian Bubble of Ignorance requires the faithful to summon and maintain determined curiosity and courage.
What should be understood, at least by anyone whose mind has not been raped by forced indoctrination, is that popping one’s bubbles of ignorance should bring them closer to Christianity- if it was true. But because the reverse is true, we can comfortably assume it to be false.
(5257) Christianity teaches that women are property
An omnipotent god would know that society would eventually evolve to provide equal status to both men and women. That being said, the Yahweh figure in the Bible seems to have been ignorant of this fact, leading any sensible person to conclude that he is a fictional god. The following was taken from:
Christianity teaches that women are property.
Throughout the whole bible in both the OT and the NT, many passages and verses teach that women are property and way inferior to men.
Exodus 20:17 (The Tenth Commandment)
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
The wife is listed among a man’s possessions, alongside servants and animals. This ordering implies that a woman was considered part of a man’s property in ancient Israelite society.
Exodus 22:16–17
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.”
The father is seen as having the right to “give” his daughter or not, and compensation is due to him, not the woman. This suggests she is under the father’s ownership until marriage.
Deuteronomy 22:28–29
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife.”
The penalty involves paying the father, again implying the daughter is his property. The woman has no say in this arrangement.
Genesis 29 & 31
“Are we not regarded by him as foreigners? For he has sold us, and he has indeed devoured our money.”
Here Rachel and Leah themselves acknowledge that their father “sold” them, implying they were treated as commodities in marital transactions.
Judges 19:24
“Look, here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish.”
Women are offered as properties, treating them as expendable. This reflects a cultural view where women were not regarded as individuals with rights.
2 Samuel 12:11
“This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you.”
Wives are portrayed as things that can be taken and given as punishment or reward.
1 Timothy 2:11–12
“Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man.”
Restricting women from teaching or leading over men.
1 Corinthians 14:34–35
“Women should remain silent in the churches… it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
Women please stfu.
Ephesians 5:22–24
“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.”
Emphasizes a hierarchical marital relationship.
Titus 2:3–5
“Older women are to teach what is good, to urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home.”
Reinforces traditional domestic roles.
Worth mentioning quotes of early fathers:
Tertullian “Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway.”
Augustine of Hippo “Woman was not made in the image of God in the same way as man.”
Jerome “Woman is the root of all evil.”
John Chrysostom “The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account, let her not teach.”
What is astounding is the amount of brainwashing that must be accomplished before any woman can accept a status of inferiority as promoted by the scriptures. This screams to the fact that Christianity is a concoction dreamed up by men who felt that they deserved to be the rulers of women.
(5258) Cosmic history is incommodious for Christianity
If we consider the conventional view of God that most Christians possess, this deity is primarily focused on creating humans for the purpose of putting them to the test, to see if they will bend to his will, and then to reward or punish them accordingly. But the process and time-scale of cosmic history brings this theory into severe question, as discussed below:
The Big Bang and Evolution are unexpected from an Islamic and Christian perspective. God in both religions is all-powerful and could have effortlessly established a universe immediately. If the universe was indeed created for humans (even typing this phrase felt absurd to me), it makes no sense to let the universe form for billions of years before humans even existed.
In addition, evolution is also extremely unexpected (to the point many religious people deny it). God could have instantaneously established humans. It is extremely odd that God would have us evolve for millions of years when he could have just instantly put us here without causing billions animals to unnecessarily suffer.
Obviously, this by itself doesn’t disprove Abrahamic religions, but it does raise many questions and makes it less likely that they are true.
A smaller, younger universe, bereft of evidence for biological evolution would be a much more suitable backdrop for Christian theology. As is, this faith struggles for relevance in the wake of the emerging knowledge of where we are in the universe and how we got here.
(5259) Religious faith is groundless
No religious person in the world can point to any objective evidence that would prove to a random bystander that their particular brand of faith is the one and only true one. We often use the world faith in substitution of the word religion because of that fact. The following essay discusses this observation as well as it implications:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1mcb8xt/humanity_is_sad/
I’ve been reflecting on the nature of many religions and the ways in which their followers engage with them. It seems to me that they often lack what I’d consider empirical grounding or readily available proof for their foundational claims.
My observation is that these systems are frequently built upon human-authored texts that, from my perspective, read more like imaginative narratives, yet they profoundly shape people’s entire lives. I find it personally quite poignant that individuals dedicate their whole existence to principles derived from such sources. I often hear the idea that people inherently “need a moral guide,” but this perspective makes me wonder. Does that truly imply a default state of immorality? Are we, as humans, genuinely incapable of discerning right from wrong on our own? It strikes me as a significant challenge if individuals feel they require an external, unverified “handbook” to navigate their ethical landscape.
I also find it thought-provoking that humans, often considered the most intelligent species, might rely on such guides, especially when other animals, without comparable frameworks, appear to cause considerably less harm and disruption. It’s an interesting paradox to consider how each religion often asserts its unique claim to truth. For me, this brings a certain irony when viewed objectively. I want to be clear that I don’t claim to possess all knowledge; in fact, I genuinely welcome being challenged on my views. This very openness is why I identify as agnostic, choosing not to align with any specific religion that proclaims itself as the singular path. I strive to remain open to possibilities, yet I also aim not to be easily misled. The vastness and mystery of the universe may well remain unexplained, perhaps indefinitely. To me, this doesn’t grant us permission to simply impose our preferred explanation upon it, defend it fiercely, and commit our own and our children’s beliefs to it.
My personal observation leads me to conclude that, on balance, religion has been a source of more harm than good. When I look at situations like the one in Israel, for instance, it’s difficult for me to reconcile any positive values with the immense suffering—the killing, starvation, and torture—that has occurred throughout history and continues today. It makes me question whether humanity is so inherently flawed that we cannot distinguish right from wrong without religious decree. The existence of millions of atheists and agnostics seems to support the idea that we can. It can be frustrating that expressing these thoughts freely in conversation often feels constrained by societal norms around religion.
While religious individuals are often comfortable openly sharing their beliefs, I’ve found that expressing a differing perspective can sometimes lead to being perceived as hateful, perhaps because disagreement can be unwelcome. This dynamic sometimes feels like a societal paradox. It’s also something I’ve noted that there appears to be a correlation between higher levels of education and a decrease in religious affiliation.
No religion has a sufficient amount of evidence of its truth to be conclusive, much less persuasive. It is all based on faith, or better yet- wishful thinking. This should be troubling to any person of faith. If an omni-god who directly interacts with humans actually existed, don’t you think we would all collective know this? That it would be a known fact of our existence? On the other hand, what would we expect if all religions are false- EXACTLY WHAT WE OBSERVE!
(5260) Eight ways Christianity harms followers
Christians believe that Christianity was a gift from God so that humans could be at their best and live in harmony, love, forgiveness, and charity. Some of those things exist, but there are many counter-examples revealing how, instead, this religion has damaged peoples’ lives. The following was taken from:
https://new.exchristian.net/2025/07/symptoms-of-being-caught-up-in.html
1) Jesus fetish. Those afflicted with Christianity develop an obsessive fixation on a man known as Jesus Christ, an ancient cult leader who they say ‘loves’ them and whose corpse, after he was executed, they believe climbed out of his tomb and ate some food and then went on a space trip into heaven. This man apparently ‘saved’ them from their ‘sins’ when he came back from the dead.
2) Intellectual suicide. Sufferers completely close down their brain and ignore science, logic and reason. Christians, having abandoned their brains, rely on a book, the “Bible”, for answers to everything – including how to handle their sex lives.
3) Anti-social behavior. Christians often retreat from, or condemn the rest of society which they believe is full of “sinners.”
4) Paranoia and psychotic delusions. Christians believe that a fearsome monster, which they call ‘Satan’, is at large in the world ‘tempting’ them and trying to drag people off and burn them in his den, know as ‘hell’. This monster, ‘Satan’, is alleged to be red with horns and often carries a pitch fork.
5) Anti-family attitudes. Christianity is very anti-family. Anyone who believes in family values should be appalled at this cult. For instance, the mythical leader of Christianity, Jesus Christ, says the following in the Bible: “If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and his mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” – Luke 14:26 “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” – Matthew 10:35-6 It is clear that the radical Christian agenda is to destroy the sacred institution of the family and therefore it must not be tolerated.
6) Violence. Christians have been responsible for some of the most horrific acts of violence, murders and genocide in history. The Crusades, where thousands of Muslims were slaughtered, the genocide of South Americans conducted by the Spanish Conquistadors, the murder of MILLIONS of men and women accused of being ‘heretics’ and ‘witches’ in the 16th and 17th century are only a few examples of countless acts of cold blooded sadism conducted in the name of this cult. While the Christians have cut back on their murders in recent years, they still very successfully drive countless numbers of gay youth to suicide.
7) Sexual hang-ups. Christians often suffer from very severe sexual hang-ups, where perfectly natural and enjoyable human feelings are interpreted as ‘evil’ and therefore dangerously repressed. This can lead to very unhealthy inner turmoil and psychological trauma.
8) Hatred and bigotry. Although not surfacing in all cases, symptoms of pathological hatred and bigotry often surface in Christians. It is no coincidence that hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan are fanatical Christians. Although not all Christians are like this, the point is that many are, so therefore the potential for such dangerous and insidious mentalities is inherent in the cult. It is interesting to note that a religion such as Buddhism, which for it’s widespread influence is the Eastern equivalent of Christianity, although being extremely widespread and diversified has never harbored any hate groups.
Walk out of the Christian lifestyle today! Remember, no one has to be a Christian. You were not ‘born that way’. There is hope. You can leave your destructive lifestyle.
If Christianity was true, followers would be exhibiting exemplary behaviors that would exceed those of non-Christians. Not only is this not true, but the case can be made that the reverse is true- Christians seem to under-perform non-Christians when it comes to the virtues of tolerance, forgiveness, and love.
(5261) Darts and Fairies
An experiment was conducted to detect the honesty of children when they were being told that a fictional being was watching them versus others who were not so told. The results illuminate the utility of making people believe that an invisible being is watching them. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1mc7vne/religion_is_primitive/
Religion has convinced people that an invisible being in the sky is constantly surveilling you and if you don’t do what the being says you’ll be punished. Researchers put children in rooms where they were told to throw darts at a target while facing away from it. They were told to be honest and not cheat. Some children were told a fictional being (“Princess Alice” or a “fairy”) was in the room watching them, even though she was invisible. Other children weren’t told anything about an invisible presence. The results? The children told that “Princess Alice” was watching were significantly less likely to cheat. They even looked nervously at an empty chair where they were told the invisible being was sitting as if someone really was watching. Some made comments like, “I think she saw me” even though they were alone.
This experiment proves how easily the human mind can be primed to believe in and modify behavior based on unseen agents, even if they are completely fictional. If a made-up fairy can change a child’s behavior just from a suggestion, imagine the lifelong impact of a divine being (God, angels, etc.) being drilled into a child from birth. Religion was created by ancient humans to explain existence, control behavior, and soothe psychological needs. I think if we collectively move past religion, humanity will improve and we’ll have less division.
Whenever something is useful to humans, whether it is based in truth or not, it will likely be used for the advantage of some people. Religion has been a tremendously useful and profitable mechanism for control and financial gain of a select few. Imagine the amount of money that is sacrificed by a middle income church-going family over the span of a full lifetime. These people are like the children in the experiment who are told that a fairy is watching them.
(5262) Christianity’s growth was more about power than faith
Over the two thousand year history of Christianity, it can be seen that its growth was fueled much more by a desire to attain power than a quest for spiritual discovery. The following was taken from:
https://medium.com/illumination/your-religion-was-a-power-play-fef027796b5f
People do not turn to religion because they have found some ultimate truth. They do it for power, unity, or to survive, and then call it faith to feel virtuous.
Frankish king, did not convert for God. He did it to gain control.
Clovis I, the Frankish king, converted to Christianity around 496 AD. But it was not some deep spiritual awakening or a moment of divine clarity. It was entirely a power move.
The Western Roman Empire had collapsed. What remained was a fractured landscape of tribal warlords and shifting allegiances. But not everything Roman had vanished. The Church remained, bishops controlled land, commanded respect, and offered something no one else could: continuity. They preserved the administrative infrastructure that the Empire had left behind. In a world without emperors, the Church became the state.
Clovis saw the opportunity. By converting, he was not merely getting baptised; he was gaining access to a powerful network. Roman Catholic bishops could legitimise him in the eyes of the Christian population, especially the Gallo-Roman elite who still viewed the Franks as uncivilised. It gave him an advantage over rival kings, most of whom were still pagan or followed Arian Christianity, which the Roman Church considered heretical. Clovis chose Catholicism deliberately. It was not just faith; it was alignment with the dominant ideology of the remnants of the Empire. He was not joining a religion. He was entering a power structure.
But he did not convert from a place of strength. He did it because he needed leverage. His kingdom was unstable, surrounded by threats, and internally divided. Paganism offered no unifying identity. Christianity provided one banner to rally his people and to frame his rule as divinely sanctioned. It was not simply about pleasing bishops; it was about survival.
Viking kings used religion to win allies and crush rivals, not to find salvation
Skip forward a few hundred years to Scandinavia, and it was the same story. Viking rulers did not suddenly fall in love with Christ. They saw the writing on the wall. Pagan kings were being pushed and if you wanted trade, alliances, or recognition from the rising Christian powers of Europe, conversion was the price of entry.
Olaf Tryggvason of Norway. He spent years as a raider and mercenary across Europe, witnessing firsthand the reach and influence of Christian kingdoms. When he returned to Norway in the late 900s, he came not just as a king but as a convert. He was baptised, then immediately turned crusader on his people. He burned temples, smashed idols, and executed those who refused baptism. This was not spiritual leadership. It was strategic domination — faith as a weapon.
Olaf did not adopt Christianity to be saved. He used it to erase resistance, centralise his rule, and make himself palatable to foreign powers. It was less a conversion than a calculated performance.
First Christian ruler of Kievan Rus, did not pick Christianity for truth. He picked it for booze.
Over in Eastern Europe, Vladimir of Kievan Rus was weighing up his options between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. He was not just choosing a religion. He was deciding which civilisation to align with: the Islamic Caliphate, the Byzantine Empire, or the Jewish Khazar state.
He ended up picking Christianity. Not because of spiritual conviction, but because Islam banned alcohol, and that, apparently, was a dealbreaker. According to The Primary Chronicle, a legendary account from the twelfth century, he even said:
“Drinking is the joy of the Rus.”
So yes, the religious foundation of what would become Russia may have come down to the fact that the ruler wanted to keep drinking.
Kings used faith to rule, not to pray. Their people had no say.
Christianity, and religion in general, spread far more because of politics than because people were spiritually moved. Most of the time, it was kings and rulers choosing whichever religion gave them more control, better alliances, or helped unify their territory. It was not some deep personal conviction; it was just strategic.
And once a ruler chose a faith, that was it. The people did not get a say. If you did, you were executed. How dare you go against our god? You were branded a child of the devil. You were simply born into it, and that became your truth, no matter what you actually believed. No open debate. No freedom of choice. Just centuries-old political decisions presented as timeless truths.
The whole idea that faith spread purely because people were inspired by some divine message? That is a bit of a myth. It was not prayers that spread religion; it was power structures.
From Putin to PR stunts, faith today is often more strategy than soul.
In modern politics, faith is still being used as a tool, only now it is all wrapped up in patriotism and “tradition”. When American politicians end their speeches with “God bless America”, it rarely feels like a heartfelt moment. It is more like a rehearsed signal, a way to show they are part of this bigger, almost sacred identity that sits above policy or criticism. It is not about actual belief, it is about aligning with something old and unquestioned.
Same could be with Vladimir Putin. He is always showing up at Orthodox churches, talking about “spiritual values”, making the church part of Russia’s national image. Is he actually religious? Who knows. That line is blurry on purpose. Because once you fuse faith with power, it gets much harder to push back. People do not want to question what looks like “tradition” or “belief”.
You see it in much of the Islamic world too. Leaders quoting scripture not just to inspire people, but to control them, drawing the boundaries of what you are allowed to think or say. It is not that belief is absent, it is that it has merged so tightly with authority that following the law starts to feel like religious duty. And that is a powerful mix.
Even in the West, you see this strange overlap between faith and image. Celebrities posting Bible verses in the middle of PR disasters, CEOs hosting prayer breakfasts, influencers mixing scripture with product promotions. I am not saying it is all phoney, but it does make you wonder how much of it is real reverence, and how much is just a performance. For followers, for voters, or even just to feel better about yourself.
When belief starts getting rewarded with power or protection, you can bet people will start performing it.
Whenever apologists point to Christianity’s notable growth and worldwide spread as an indicator of its truth, they are overlooking the growth aspect associated with its adaptation by world leaders, most of whom had little spiritual motivation, but saw it as a valuable asset for securing worldly gains. This fact tends to nullify the concept of marrying the success of Christianity with its truth.
(5263) Three reasons to dismiss the Sermon on the Mount
The Sermon on the Mount is extolled by Christians to be the highest display of godly insight and wisdom, but a more objective analysis reveals some problems. The following was taken from:
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2025/08/the-best-cure-for-christianity-is.html#more
Matthew 5 is the first chapter of the Sermon on the Mount, followed by chapters 6 and 7. The Sermon on the Mount is commonly considered by the devout as the pinnacle of wisdom—Jesus at his best. But there are good reasons not to take this idea seriously.
Reason Number 1:
If this sermon is based on eyewitness accounts and/or reliable oral tradition, why did the author of Mark’s gospel leave it out? How could such an important sermon not have been brought to his attention? It is missing as well from John’s gospel. When Luke—again, the author is anonymous—created his gospel, he wasn’t satisfied with this sermon as presented in Matthew. Luke left out much of Matthew 5, and changed the wording. More on this later.
Some scholars, for a long time, have admitted that the gospels were written—so long after the death of Jesus—to advance the cult agendas of their authors. They cannot be classified as history, since they contain so many superstitions and so much magical thinking. Hence we can accept that they are literary constructs.
Richard Carrier has stated this reality bluntly. He notes that the Sermon on the Mount…
“…is a well-crafted literary work that cannot have come from some illiterate Galilean. In fact, we know it originated in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic, because it relies on the Septuagint text of the Bible for all its features and allusions…These are not the words of Jesus. This famous sermon as a whole also has a complex literary structure that can only have come from a writer, not an everyday speaker.” (On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, pp. 465-466)
So the devout need to consider the possibility that the Sermon on the Mount is, in fact, Jesus-script created decades after Jesus died—by someone who had no way at all of knowing what Jesus actually taught.
Reason Number 2:
Any devout Christian who reads chapter 5 carefully, critically, knows very well that so much of it doesn’t make sense, is bad advice, and qualifies as cult extremism.
After the opening sections of chapter 5, that is, the Beatitudes (which will be considered in Reason No. 3), we find examples of cult fanaticism. It would appear that the author of Matthew’s gospel firmly believed that the Jesus-religion that he championed was still very much a part of Judaism. So in 5:17-20 we find his stark warning that not a single rule mentioned in what we call the Old Testament can be dismissed or ignored. This is awkward for many Christians who want to distance themselves from so much of the brutality they find when they read the Old Testament: “Well, that’s the old law that Jesus replaces.” It’s hard to make the case for that in view of this text in the Sermon on the Mount, which concludes with the warning: “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (5:20)
When I was a Methodist pastor—for nine years, in two parishes—I became painfully aware of the folks in the pews who were bitter rivals. They couldn’t stand each other. Moreover, there are now more than 30,000 different, quarrelling brands of Christianity. How could things be this way when the Jesus-script in chapter 5 condemns such behavior?
“So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift.” (5:23-24)
One of the most brutal sections in this chapter is 5:27-30. Matthew seems to have had little understanding of human sexuality. For him, sexual arousal = lust. Getting horny is one of the things that drives human reproduction; it’s built into us. Yet Matthew would have none of it:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (5:27-28)
Of course, we can look on this as just plain silliness, but then comes the brutality:
“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.” (5:29-30)
It has been common to treat this as metaphor, but that’s a pathetic way of excusing brutality. Do the devout really want to continue to claim that the Sermon on the Mount as a pinnacle of wisdom? Tear out your eye, cut off your hand? Who would want to follow a fanatic who said such deranged things? How does this not qualify as cult extremism? It belongs in the same category of crazy as “drink the Kool-Aid.”
The last time I checked, most Christians I know are not pacificists. So they must ignore this text from their famous sermon:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you: Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also, and if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, give your coat as well, and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.” (5:38-42)
Is there any other Bible text that is ignored as much as this one? Moreover, Matthew contradicts himself here. His Jesus-script earlier in this chapter was a proclamation that no Old Testament laws can be ignored, yet here he explicitly overrules the rule stated in Exodus 21:23-25 about eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth.
The Jesus-script in 5:31-32, on divorce, and in 5:33-37 on oaths is also largely ignored by the devout.
Reason Number 3:
The author of Matthew added the Sermon on the Mount to correct what he felt was a deficiency of Mark’s gospel, that is, it has little ethical teaching. But it would seem that the author of Luke’s gospel wasn’t all that pleased with this extensive Jesus-script created by Matthew. He even relocated it to a level place, as opposed to a mountain (Luke 6:17). He abbreviated it in places, for example, Matthew’s nine beatitudes become four in Luke, and Luke changed the wording. Matthew’s “blessed are the poor in spirit” becomes “blessed are the poor” in Luke. Matthew’s “blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” becomes “blessed are you that hunger now” in Luke.
For those who want Jesus-script to be the true words of Jesus, how is it that Matthew and Luke didn’t agree on what exactly Jesus said?
Matthew ended chapter 5 with a little burst of cult fanaticism, verse 48, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Loyalty to the cult was a supreme value—and behaving as perfectly as their god was also a clear expectation.
The Sermon on the Mount does not at all deserve the high praise that is often heaped upon it…by folks who have not bothered to read it carefully, thoughtfully, critically.
So, in the end, when the dust settles, and we refine our view of the Sermon on the Mount, it is revealed to be a flawed human attempt to reveal the mind of a god. As a philosophical treatise, it contains some good but also a lot of bad advice. Christians would do well to take off their rose-colored glasses and take a second look.
(5264) Christian support for Israel mirrors God worship
Suffice to say, evangelical Christians bend over backward when it comes to supporting Israel NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, including foisting a genocide on the people of Gaza. Is this a sign that they have been brainwashed? Duh! The following is taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1mgdhpi/the_evangelical_urge_to_justify_literally/
The evangelical urge to justify literally everything Israel does…
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD (irony noted) my largely evangelical community will come up with any and every excuse to cover up the atrocities committed in Gaza.
Just another example of how religion (particularly this one) is an absolute sham. All of that nonsense about “without god how will you know how to be a moral person?” Well, how about we recognize a genocide and oppose the government carrying it out…? No?
They need Israel to win and conquer all of the “Holy land” so that the end times can begin and they can finally be raptured, because that is definitely happening during their lifetime.
So they will excuse anything Israel does, it’s all moral to them. And in the US they will vote for chaos because that will speed up the apocalypse and therefore the rapture.
This is why they are the pro-war, anti-international cooperation (except Israel), anti-environmental, anti-social programs party. After all, anything that makes people’s lives better could delay the apocalypse and therefore must go.
This is analogous to the line of apologetic nonsense that essentially says that whatever God does is moral by default, even if he drowns innocent children and puppies in a flood. That same ridiculous meme is being used by contemporary Christians when they rally to defend the atrocities committed by Israel against the people Gaza. In a similar vein, these evangelicals agree with U.S. President Trump in whatever he says or does. This seems to indicate that their moral compass is broken, or is stuck in one position, being absent of any real value. This results in the following trilemma- Either God has lost control of his most fervent followers, or he is evil, or he simply doesn’t exist.
(5265) Biblical god is a sadist
The definition of a sadist is a person who derives pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting humiliation, pain, injury, or death on others. Based on a verse in the Book of Deuteronomy, the biblical god, Yahweh, is a sadist. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1mh8fho/deuteronomy_2863_just_a_friendly_reminder_that/
Deuteronomy 28:63 – Just a friendly reminder that the Biblical God is a sadist.
“Just as it pleased the Lord to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you.” (NIV)
“And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you;” (Revised Standard Version)
“Just as the Lord was glad to cause you to prosper and to multiply you, so he will also be glad to cause you to perish and to destroy you.” (Christian Standard Bible)
An empathetic and all-loving God just wouldn’t talk like this. Even if that was what had to be done to punish his people, no loving Creator would use such phrasing “I’ll be glad/pleased/delighted to cause you to perish”. Just the fact that the scribes decided to write it this way, belies the fact that they saw a sadistic streak in Yahweh. No matter how you slice it, how you try to wriggle out of this one, that’s what Moses (was allegedly written to have) said about Yahweh.
Christians, this is the biblical God that is claimed to be all-loving.
These are actual words written about how the deity gets delight by punishing. There’s just no getting around it, sorry.
Christians will need to blot out this verse from their bibles if they wish to continue to view their god as a being who deserves adoration or worship.
(5266) Christianity lost the war with modernity
Contemporary Christians, if they have not studied history, likely have no idea that for centuries Christianity was a major force retarding human progress. The war between modernity (science, humanism, equity) and Christianity was fought and won decisively by modernity. What remains of Christianity today is a watered-down version, subjected to forces that required concessions necessary to ensure its very survival. The following was taken from:
People often say that Christianity evolved or softened over time as if it simply “grew out” of its violent, intolerant past. But the truth is much harsher. Christianity didn’t willingly adapt to modern values it was forced to, through centuries of bloody conflict.
This wasn’t just a theological or philosophical debate. It was an existential battle between a deeply entrenched religious system and rising forces of secularism, science, and humanism. And it was fought with actual blood.
The Inquisition burned and tortured dissenters.
The Protestant Reformation led to the Thirty Years’ War, killing millions in Europe.
Scientists and philosophers were silenced, imprisoned, or executed.
The French Revolution violently overthrew the Church’s power, establishing secular alternatives like the Cult of Reason.
Revolutions across Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries dismantled monarchies that ruled by “divine right,” backed by Christian doctrine.
Even modern science had to claw its way out of Church suppression, from Darwin to higher biblical criticism.
Christianity directly clashed with modernity and lost…miserablly. The “tolerant” Christianity you see today is not a result of divine wisdom or internal reform. It’s a survival strategy after a long and violent defeat.
Modern values like religious freedom, secular government, and human rights were not born from Christianity they were victories against it.
A common argument you hear from Christian apologists is that that Christianity “planted the seeds” for the values that shape the West today and the Enlightenment just helped them grow.
But if we look at history seriously, that claim falls apart fast. Here’s why:
1) The Church fought these values tooth and nail.
If Christianity was the source of modern freedoms, why did it:
Justify slavery for centuries even citing the Bible to defend it?
Burn heretics and scientists alive or imprison them?
Lead or bless wars, crusades, inquisitions and colonial conquests?
Oppose democracy, freedom of religion and freedom of speech until it lost political power?
You don’t get credit for planting “seeds” when you actively kill anyone who tries to water them!
2) The Bible doesn’t teach modern human rights.
There’s no biblical command for:
Freedom of religion
Equality of all people before the law
Abolition of slavery
Democracy or secular government
In fact, the Bible (both Testaments) includes slavery, stoning, patriarchy, divine monarchy, and genocide. Its chaotic, contradictory and inconsistent message and content make it so easy to interpret it the way you want (and mostly for the worse). The exclusivity of its message and the condemnation of all those who don’t believe in Jesus and the message of Hell, by default plant the seeds of hatred towards non Christians. Let it be pagans, Jews, Muslims etc. Those were the true seeds Christianity planted and their fruits quickly grew and persisted for centuries.
3) Other cultures had these “seeds” too and often earlier.
The Greeks taught about rationality, ethics, and the dignity of man long before Christianity.
Buddhism emphasized compassion and nonviolence.
Confucianism promoted ethics, justice, and benevolent rule.
Let’s stop pretending Christianity was the only philosophy to recognize human value. The difference is, Christianity was the only one that came up with a fear and exclusivity factor in the shape of hell and judgement.
4) Christianity only became “tolerant” after it lost.
It didn’t voluntarily modernize. It adapted to survive once it lost dominance:
Religious freedom? Came after bloody wars and revolutions against Christian powers.
Science and critical thinking? Won only after being persecuted.
Modern liberal Christianity? A post enlightenment product, not an ancient teaching. Most liberal Christians today would be considered heretics by pre enlightenment Christians.
Modern values didn’t grow naturally from Christian theology, they were forced into it after centuries of opposition.
If Christianity “planted the seeds” of modern freedom, it also spent 1800 years stomping them out. The real growth began only after secular, humanist, and rationalist thinkers broke Christianity’s monopoly on truth and power, often at the cost of their lives.
The return of Middle Ages Christianity is very plausible if secular governments ever fall in the future. As long as the Bible is around, it can used to justify theocracy and authority over everything and I’ll leave what would follow this to your imaginations. Just this time violence won’t be practiced with swords and horses but with weapons and tanks.
This can be considered certain: If Christianity was true, there would have been no war against secular forces. Christianity would have been leading the progress of civilization all the way though history, often being the most effective impetus for progress (gender equity, abolishing slavery, legal protections, etc). But given that the opposite happened, we can consider it evidence that Christianity is nothing more than a flawed, retrogressive, human-created ideology.
(5267) Killing versus eternal torture
It is universally agreed that being tortured is worse than being straightaway killed. So because Christianity endorses the concept that disbelievers will be tortured in hell (and eternally at that), it follows that killing apostates is also justified. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1megtwd/eternal_torture_is_worse_than_being_killed/
Eternal torture is worse than being killed. Individuals following Abrahamic myths are often adamant that their religion doesn’t persecute, or advocate for the killing of disbelievers. This has struck me as an odd because while on the one hand, Abahamists will try to show their religions are tolerant of other beliefs by virtue of not killing disbelievers, but will also claim that disbelievers deserve to be tortured forever.
The fact Abrahamic myths believe that this torture will occur in the afterlife, or that God will be the one doing the torturing is irrelevant. Believing someone deserves to be tortured for their beliefs shows that they actually aren’t tolerant of other beliefs. And since eternal torture is the worst fate imaginable, it logically follows that disbelievers deserve to be killed, raped, starved or any other punishment you can think of. The only reason it’s not done is because God doesn’t (usually) command it.
They’ll often highlight instances where other groups like Hindus, Buddhists, or atheists—have harmed Abrahamists, using it to deflect criticism and portray themselves as the ones being persecuted. But one can’t claim to have moral superiority or victimhood while upholding a worldview that condemns others to eternal suffering simply for not sharing their beliefs.
To close, Abrahamic theology believes disbelievers deserve to be tortured, and it follows that it believes disbelievers deserve to be killed.
Much of the killing done by Christians in the past was justified by the fact that these people were allegedly going to hell anyway, so why not just send them there right away? Nothing stinks more about Christianity than the concept of hell- either hell doesn’t exist, or the God that invented it deserves hatred, not worship.
(5268) Loving god, brutal world
The following quote from Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899), The Gods and Other Lectures, highlights the stark inconsistency of an alleged benevolent god and the brutal world of evolution:
Would an infinitely wise, good and powerful God, intending to produce man, commence with the lowest possible forms of life; with the simplest organism that can be imagined, and during immeasurable periods of time, slowly and almost imperceptibly improve upon the rude beginning, until man was evolved? Would countless ages thus be wasted in the production of awkward forms, afterwards abandoned?
Can the intelligence of man discover the least wisdom in covering the earth with crawling, creeping horrors, that live only upon the agonies and pangs of others? Can we see the propriety of so constructing the earth, that only an insignificant portion of its surface is capable of producing an intelligent man? Who can appreciate the mercy of so making the world that all animals devour animals; so that every mouth is a slaughterhouse, and every stomach a tomb? Is it possible to discover infinite intelligence and love in universal and eternal carnage?
What would we think of a father, who should give a farm to his children, and before giving them possession should plant upon it thousands of deadly shrubs and vines; should stock it with ferocious beasts, and poisonous reptiles; should take pains to put a few swamps in the neighborhood to breed malaria; should so arrange matters, that the ground would occasionally open and swallow a few of his darlings, and besides all this, should establish a few volcanoes in the immediate vicinity, that might at any moment overwhelm his children with rivers of fire? Suppose that this father neglected to tell his children which of the plants were deadly; that the reptiles were poisonous; failed to say anything about the earthquakes, and kept the volcano business a profound secret; would we pronounce him angel or fiend?
And yet this is exactly what the orthodox God has done.
According to the theologians, God prepared this globe expressly for the habitation of his loved children, and yet he filled the forests with ferocious beasts; placed serpents in every path; stuffed the world with earthquakes, and adorned its surface with mountains of flame.
Notwithstanding all this, we are told that the world is perfect; that it was created by a perfect being, and is therefore necessarily perfect. The next moment, these same persons will tell us that the world was cursed; covered with brambles, thistles and thorns, and that man was doomed to disease and death, simply because our poor, dear mother ate an apple contrary to the command of an arbitrary God.
This is one of the reasons why anti-science Christians refuse to accept the truth of biological evolution. The horrors of animals eating other animals for billions of years before humans even arrived is hardly consistent with a loving god. This history makes much more sense if all of these events happened without a designer- that is, unless that designer had a pronounced evil streak.
(5269) Unnecessary suffering in the Bible
Throughout the first two books of the Bible, and subsequently, God imparts human suffering that seems to not be necessary to achieve his goals. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1mkjpys/unnecessary_suffering_in_the_bible/
I’m doing a project collecting passages from the Bible and the Book of Mormon where suffering happens because of God’s intervention, or the lack there of. These moments raise questions—especially when it seems that stopping the pain wouldn’t have interfered with any divine plan or caused harm from God’s perspective.
“Unnecessary suffering” is suffering that appears avoidable, yet still allowed to happen. • Unethical by nature (e.g. unjustified violence, coercion, racial cursing) • Linked to divine command, permission, or silence • Meant to be taken literally in the text
I started this because I was raised religious and had always had a problem with the amount of unnecessary suffering in the texts I was reading which is one of my main problems with the religion I was raised in.
Genesis
-
-
- The Fall of Humanity (Genesis 3)
-
• Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. In response, God curses the ground, introduces pain in childbirth, and banishes them from Eden. • All future humans inherit suffering—physical, emotional, and existential—for a single act of disobedience.
2. The Global Flood (Genesis 6–9)
• God decides to destroy all life due to human wickedness, sparing only Noah’s family and select animals. • Innocent children, animals, and those unaware of wrongdoing drown. The scale of destruction is total and indiscriminate.
3. The Curse of Canaan (Genesis 9:25)
• After Ham sees Noah naked, Noah curses Ham’s son Canaan. God allows the curse to stand. • Canaan and his descendants suffer generational punishment for an act they didn’t commit.
4. Tower of Babel (Genesis 11)
• Humans build a tower to reach the heavens. God intervenes by confusing their language and scattering them. • Cooperation collapses, communities fracture, and progress halts—all without violence, but with lasting frustration and division.
5. Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19)
• God rains fire and brimstone on the cities for their wickedness. • Lot’s wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking back. Entire populations are annihilated, including children and non-participants.
6. Lot Offers His Daughters to a Mob (Genesis 19:8)
• Lot, trying to protect two angelic guests, offers his virgin daughters to a violent mob. • The daughters are nearly assaulted. God does not intervene until the angels act, allowing the threat to escalate unchecked A B.
7. Incest with Lot (Genesis 19:30–38)
• After fleeing Sodom, Lot’s daughters—believing the world has ended—get their father drunk and sleep with him to preserve humanity. • The psychological trauma of isolation, abandonment, and desperation leads to incest. God neither prevents nor addresses the aftermath A.
8. Abraham Ordered to Sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22)
• God commands Abraham to kill his son as a test of faith. • Though stopped at the last moment, the emotional torment and fear inflicted on both father and son are profound and lasting.
9. Hagar and Ishmael Cast Out (Genesis 21:8–21)
• At Sarah’s insistence, God tells Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away. • They nearly die in the desert. God only intervenes after they suffer deeply, allowing abandonment and fear to unfold first.
10. Jacob Deceives Esau (Genesis 27)
• Jacob tricks Isaac into giving him Esau’s blessing. God allows the deception and confirms the stolen blessing. • Esau pleads for justice but is denied. His suffering is ignored, and no divine correction is offered.
11. Joseph’s Betrayal and Imprisonment (Genesis 37–40)
• Joseph is sold into slavery by his brothers and later imprisoned on false charges. • God eventually elevates him, but allows years of unjust suffering without intervention.
Exodus
-
-
- Infanticide by Pharaoh (Exodus 1:22)
-
• Pharaoh orders all Hebrew male infants to be thrown into the Nile. • God remains silent during this genocide. No intervention, no protection—only suffering for countless families.
2. Moses’ Near-Death Experience (Exodus 4:24–26)
• On his way to Egypt, God seeks to kill Moses for not circumcising his son. • Zipporah performs the act to save him. The sudden threat feels arbitrary and unexplained, especially given Moses’ divine mission.
3. The Ten Plagues (Exodus 7–12)
• God sends plagues on Egypt to pressure Pharaoh, including:• Water turned to blood: people suffer thirst and disease. • Frogs, gnats, and flies: infestations disrupt daily life. • Livestock die: economic and emotional loss. • Boils: painful affliction on humans and animals. • Hail and locusts: crops destroyed, famine looms. • Darkness: psychological torment. • Death of the firstborn: every Egyptian family loses a child.
• Innocents suffer alongside Pharaoh. God hardens Pharaoh’s heart repeatedly, prolonging the agony.
4. Death of the Firstborn (Exodus 12:29–30)
• God kills every firstborn in Egypt, from Pharaoh’s heir to prisoners and livestock. • No distinction made between guilty and innocent. The grief is universal and devastating.
5. Hardening Pharaoh’s Heart (Multiple verses)
• God repeatedly hardens Pharaoh’s heart (e.g., Exodus 4:21; 9:12), preventing him from releasing the Israelites. • This prolongs the suffering of both Egyptians and Hebrews, raising questions about free will and divine manipulation.
6. The Red Sea Drowning (Exodus 14:26–28)
• God parts the Red Sea for the Israelites, then closes it on the pursuing Egyptian army. • Soldiers drown en masse. Many were likely just following orders—no chance to surrender or escape.
7. Bitter Water at Marah (Exodus 15:22–24)
• After escaping Egypt, the Israelites wander for three days without water. • God leads them to bitter water they cannot drink. Only after complaints does He make it potable. • Suffering allowed before relief is granted.
8. Manna and Quail Complaints (Exodus 16)
• The Israelites suffer hunger in the wilderness. God provides food only after they cry out. • The delay in provision causes unnecessary distress.
9. Massacre of Idolaters (Exodus 32:25–28)
• After the golden calf incident, Moses commands the Levites to kill fellow Israelites. • About 3,000 die. God endorses the violence as purification, despite the chaotic circumstances and lack of trial.
10. God’s Threat to Destroy All Israelites (Exodus 32:9–10)
• God threatens to wipe out the entire nation for idolatry and start over with Moses. • Though He relents, the threat itself reveals a willingness to enact mass suffering.
It would seem that an omnipotent, benevolent god could manage human history with much better aplomb than the coarse, vindictive, and mean god of Genesis and Exodus. It almost seems like this god is a fictional construct of humans inflicted with the same violent tendencies.
(5270) Cult weirdness
Matthew, Chapter 6, is an example of how to cultivate a cult. Rational thinking and advice is missing entirely. The following was taken from:
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2025/08/the-best-cure-for-christianity-is_8.html#more
I prefer the term Jesus-script—instead of Jesus quotes—because “the words of Jesus” were most likely invented by the anonymous gospel authors, who wrote decades after the supposed events they depict. So much of what we find in Matthew 6 qualifies as cult weirdness. That is, to keep on the good side of the god of the cult, certain behaviors were mandatory. Here is verse 6:1:
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before others in order to be seen by them, for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.”
And verses 3-4: “But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
Whoever is in the cult, and obeys its rules, will be rewarded by the god.
Public praying is also frowned upon, verse 6: “…whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” When you’re in the cult, you get to know divine secrets—and there are rewards for that. It’s a great puzzle that the modern version of the ancient Jesus cult specializes in public praying, for example, at church. We’ve all seen the publicity photos of evangelicals surrounding Trump, laying their hands on him and praying. In other words, to hell with taking this Jesus-script seriously.
Then we find one of the most famous fragments of Jesus-script, verses 10-13, known as The Lord’s Prayer, which is loaded with absurdities and magical thinking—no surprise since it derives from ancient superstition. Here is the King James version:
“Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.”
There are so many things wrong with this.
Our Father which art in heaven. As long as humans have invented gods, they have imagined them in human categories. That is, they are commonly assigned genders, male or female. Christianity fell into this pattern: their god is a father, who has a son, who was conceived by the holy spirit—thus presumably also male. It is hard to calculate how much damage this has done by encouraging misogyny. I suppose we can credit the Catholic church with the effort to counter this, by worshiping, idolizing the Virgin Mary, whom the church has declared was bodily taken to heaven. Hence she is the Queen of Heaven. Yet even this has not cancelled the imbedded misogyny of the Catholicism: Pope Francis was quite firm that women will never be admitted to the priesthood.
Perhaps it made sense to assign human gender to the creator god in the context of the ancient understanding of the world, that is, earth was the cosmos, with the heavenly realm above the clouds and below the moon. Now we know that earth is a planet orbiting the sun, one of billions in our galaxy, and that there are billions, perhaps trillions of galaxies. How does it possibly make sense to assign a human gender role to a force that created all this? If there is such a mind responsible for it all. Most professional cosmologists are not committed to that idea.
So exactly where is this heaven which is god-the-father’s home? Some theologians have noticed the silliness of claiming that heaven is a place, and have resorted to insisting that heaven can be considered a state of being. Yet they have failed to provide the reliable, verifiable, objective data to prove this claim.
Hallowed be thy name. This is flattery—why would the creator of the cosmos get off on human praise? — with magical thinking as part of the mix, which is especially clear when the devout end their prayers with in Jesus’ name we pray. That’s the equivalent of a magic spell: if we say Jesus’ name, there’s a better chance that the prayer will work. And this short prayer ends with yet more flattery: “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever.”
This is the second mention of kingdom in the prayer, the first being in verse 10: “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” How does it possibly make sense to equate a god’s realm with human concepts about royalty? This appears to be a reference to the primary focus of Mark’s gospel, i.e., that the kingdom of god was due to arrive at any time, and among the many consequences would be the end of Roman rule. The writings of the apostle Paul may have influenced the author of Mark’s gospel: Paul was certain that he would still be alive when Jesus arrived on the clouds to establish his kingdom (I Thessalonians 4:13-17). But there has been no “arrival of the kingdom.” This is a theological blunder, and Christian theology remains anchored to this blunder. Given the vast scale of human and animal suffering we see around us every day, there is precious little evidence that a good god’s desires prevail on this planet. We might also wonder how this god feels about being pestered by the devout—for the last two thousand years—to bring his kingdom.
There are a couple of other texts in Matthew 6 worthy of mention, because they are signs of cult fanaticism—and because they are simply ignored today by so many Christians.
Verses 19-21: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
The early Jesus-cult wanted its devoted followers to remain focused on achieving eternal life. So heaven was the only place to store up treasures. Of course, today some of the most famous televangelists, among them Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland, have stored up enormous treasures on earth, including mansions and private jets. But I know so many devout churchgoers who are obsessed with accumulating treasures on earth. Christmas itself has become an orgy of consumerism, but aside from that, they want what most folks want these days: cars, big flat-screen TVs, fine houses, decent wardrobes, and dozens of luxuries taken for granted in our modern world. Instead of storing up treasures in heaven. Whatever that means.
And in verses 25-33 we find Jesus-script that warns against worrying about what to eat, drink, or wear. Here are verses 28-30:
“And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?”
The ridicule at the end can be expected from cult fanatics. Cult members would be especially hurt to be told they didn’t have enough faith.
This has a hollow ring today: don’t worry about what to eat, drink, and wear. Responsible adults know very well that being responsible means providing for their families—what to eat, drink, and wear. They would be considered fools if they bragged that their god clothes the grass of the fields, so why worry?
Things may have changed since I attended church, but I suspect that dressing properly is still a thing. Has dressing in your Sunday Best gone out of fashion? And the church itself has specialized in storing up treasures on earth, by which I mean building countless spectacular houses of worship in which to offer praises to their god. Some of the faithful may assume that this qualifies was storing up treasures in heaven, but is it really? Moreover, the Jesus-script about not worrying about clothing is totally ignored by Catholic clergy especially. The costume budget of the Vatican alone must be colossal. But, of course, the Vatican—and thousands of Catholic churches worldwide—have perfected show business to impress the folks who show up for mass. How could their dogmas not be correct when they specialize in spectacular rituals performed in dazzling costumes? Don’t worry about clothing is thoroughly ignored in this context.
Again, it’s no wonder if the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t get much traffic. It contains too much Jesus-script that just doesn’t make sense. There is too much cult weirdness.
Very few Christians read Matthew 6 in an objective fashion. They filter everything through the religious portion of their brain and fail to see that they are being spoofed. It can be conjectured that a real god would be much more practical than to inspire this cultish spiel.
(5271) Christianity is based on dishonesty
Christian belief is drilled into peoples’ heads with vicious force, and is accelerated by threats of unimaginable punishment in a dubious ‘second life.’ All of this is dishonest. It claims to provide certainty while failing to concede that all this is dangling on a wishful hope and a prayer. There is nothing concrete about something that requires faith above reason or evidence. The following was taken from:
The Christian appeal to fear, to cowardice, is an admission that the evidence supporting Christian beliefs is far from compelling. If the evidence were such that Christianity’s truth was immediately apparent to anyone who considered it, Christians—including those who wrote the Gospels—would feel no need to resort to the cheap tactic of using fear-inducing threats to inspire “belief.” (“Lip service” is a more accurate term.) That the Christian clergy have been more than willing to accept such lip service (plus the dollars and obedience that go with it) in place of genuine belief, is an additional indictment of the basic dishonesty of Christianity.
How deep dishonesty runs in Christianity can be gauged by one of the most popular Christian arguments for belief in God: Pascal’s wager. This “wager” holds that it’s safer to “believe” in God (as if belief were volitional!) than not to believe, because God might exist, and if it does, it will save “believers” and condemn nonbelievers to hell after death. This is an appeal to pure cowardice. It has absolutely nothing to do with the search for truth. Instead, it’s an appeal to abandon honesty and intellectual integrity, and to pretend that lip service is the same thing as actual belief. If the patriarchal God of Christianity really exists, one wonders how it would judge the cowards and hypocrites who advance and bow to this particularly craven “wager.”
If Christianity was true, there would be wide avenues of evidence supporting its truth, such as statistically-proven answered prayers, super-human knowledge imparted in scripture, and verified instances of violations of the natural physical laws of nature. With nothing like that happening, Christianity relies on a dishonest faith-based claim that its truth is a matter of certainty- enough to barter peoples’ legitimate lives for one that is centered on fear, exacts huge amounts of time and effort, and costs a dear penny for its victims. It is a scourge on the planet, a cancer that has ravaged peoples’ lives, relationships, peace, and finances for twenty centuries.
(5272) God versus Satan in the Old Testament
As if there is a competition between God and Satan to see who can be more brutal, more heinous, more murderous, and more the kind of guy you want to hate. Well, spoiler alert! God wins this competition by a holy mile. The following racks up the score in each of the books of the Old Testament:
Of course, like all posts about Christianity, we have to first assume that the traditions were flawlessly passed down and not butchered by translations, errors, “errors” and the common kinds of changes that were commonplace when scribes (both religiously motivated and otherwise) copied works by hand.
With that established, let’s look at what God does in each book, and let’s look at what Satan does in each book. Actually, you know what, let’s combine all Satan, Lucifer, Adversary, Accuser, Serpent, Devil, Demon and other “evil” characters, and see how even that amalgamation compares against God. We’ll follow Mindshift’s example, and limit God’s misbehavior to a maximum of three examples, no matter how many are actually present. You know, just to make it a little more fair for the most holy and loving of beings. And no, it doesn’t matter if these things literally happened, or only metaphorically happened – God’s evil as a narrative device is still God’s evil.
Genesis: Serpent takes a role in convincing humans to sin. Doesn’t actually curse humanity or set the consequences of sin – that’s all God. Deciding to make the curse of sin genetically or “spiritually” (whatever that means) inheritable was… definitely a choice of God’s. God then goes on to drown all but 8 people (and remember, only racists and monsters decide that entire groups of people, including men, women and children, deserve to die!). God then goes on to commit the atrocity of Sodom and Gomorrah, which just showcases God’s fascination with collective punishments for individual wrongdoings. I highly recommend re-thinking your morality if you think that killing an entire group of people down to the last woman, elder and child unilaterally is ever an appropriate response in any situation.
Exodus: I can’t think of anyone we could call Satan or the Adversary here. God, however… hardening the Pharaoh’s heart, the classical collective-punishment-for-individual-wrongdoing of first-born slaughter. And then drowning an entire army. “But they were the enemy!”, you say. “Every single one of them were slavers!” But what do we say about people who decide that entire groups of people deserve to die? Especially ones driven by leadership that had his free will impinged by heart-hardening.
Leviticus: I can’t think of anyone we could call Satan or the Adversary here. God, however… someone did an oopsie with some incense, so he toasted them. God gives people permission to own slaves, knowing, if he was omniscient or had a basic understanding of human psychology, that people would spend thousands of years using the verses to justifying slavery. (And to think, he drowned an army for being slavers…). But my favorite is 26:29, in which God prescribes enforced cannibalism as a punishment for keeping its commandments. Wild stuff.
Numbers: Oh hey, the Adversary pops up here! You know, the angel of the lord. He blocks the path of Balaam with a sword for God. Not a demonic figure, not an enemy of God. God, however… Time for more plagues, wiping out 15 thousand rebellious people. And say it with me, everyone – what do we say about people that decide entire groups of people deserve to die? Some Israelites complain about their living conditions, and God sends venomous snakes to kill them, because that’s a perfectly rational way to handle complaints. And Numbers 28-32… What do we say about people that decide that entire groups of people deserve to die, and that their loved ones are to be “kept for themselves”? And it’s not like we’re talking 18-year-olds here, as much as I wish we were…
Deuteronomy: I can’t think of anyone we would call Satan or the Adversary here. God, however… time to genocide 7 different nations, and then forced cannibalism for mothers in a siege (which is a curse, not a natural consequence of war), and God directly takes credit for killing and harming those it kills and harms.
Core foundational establishing texts for the entirety of the Abrahamic theological ecosystem, and we’re off to a rough start. Maybe it improves.
Joshua: I can’t think of anyone we would call Satan or the Adversary here. God, however… time for more genocides! Jericho, all men, women, children and animals are slain by direct command, in quite unpleasant detail about only one family being spared, followed by mass executions and then maintaining the orbit of the sun specifically to keep the killing going. Need I remind you what we say about people who think entire groups of people deserve death?
Judges: I can’t think of anyone we would call Satan or the Adversary here. God, however… Jephthah sacrificing his daughter should not have been allowed. Where was the Abrahamic rejection of sacrificial rituals? Instead, God directly helps him with his war, knowing factually what was promised, as if what was promised was enough to convince God to help in some sick, twisted way. God empowering Samson to kill thousand of people. Israel kills tens of thousands of their own people after abducting 600 virgin girls from a neighboring tribe, and God simply approves of all this.
Ruth: I can’t think of anyone we would call Satan or the Adversary here. God, however… never speaks or acts, so he gets off squeaky clean for the first time! Kind of strange that the unchanging, eternal being that people base their “objective” morality on took so many books to not commit genocides, but we’ll take what we can get.
1 Samuel: We finally get a mention of the Adversary! Oh, wait, no, 29:4 on is about David being adversarial towards his own military and a potential traitor (which, considering his role as a deceiver, was likely). God, however… we start with the annihilation of tens of thousands of people for the sin of… looking at an ark. God sends an evil spirit to torment and disturb Saul, which is just bizarre. We’re just supposed to accept that God controls and sends evil spirits to torture people, and that that’s okay because of the person being targeted. But, let’s move back to good ole genocide – of “kill men and women, infants and nursing babies, oxen and sheep”, commanded by God to Saul of obviously innocent creatures. Saul leaves alive the king and a few of the animals – but he did kill all men and women and infants and nursing babies. God, however, was pissed that he did not kill the rest, and tortures him with an evil spirit that he controls for the sin of not being thoroughly genocidal enough.
2 Samuel: I can’t think of anyone we would call Satan or the Adversary here. God, however… hands David some concubines and wives? Not “finds wives that loves him”, but hands them over like property. He then tortures and murders David’s infant after 7 days of illness, and then commands the rape of the wives. Was this because the wives deserved the punishment? Nope, it was to punish David. Then David takes a census he wasn’t supposed to do (though God explicitly incited him to take the census), and, yup, you guessed it, another genocide of seventy thousand people. Yet another collective punishment.
1 Kings: Oh hey, a Lying Spirit! We’ll take it and call it Satan (you know, Father of Lies and all that). Oh, but God sent the lying spirit. Hmm, how do we attribute credit for the 400 prophets being deceived so that Ahab can be killed, given that the lying spirit was acting explicitly as an agent of God? Let’s assign mutual credit for that. But sending a lion to kill someone for eating food in the wrong place is all God. Now, how do we finish this… oh, more genocide! Just a good old-fashioned drought that kills indiscriminately, as far as I can tell.
2 Kings – I can’t think of anyone we would call Satan or the Adversary here. God, however… murdering dozens of children for the crime of calling someone bald is certainly a choice. But let’s get back to basics – time for God to allow a siege that leads to cannibalism by innocent mothers. God then ices an entire army of nearly two hundred thousand people that all certainly deserved it, I’m sure, regardless of what we say about the indiscriminate murder of large groups.
1 Chronicles – Satan apparently was the one to incite the census back in 2 Samuel! Let’s ignore the factual contradiction and just pretend that God was innocent in 2 Samuel, and that Satan actually did it. I am being incredibly charitable here by doing so. Going to just give God this freebie and move on.
2 Chronicles – I can’t think of anyone we would call Satan or the Adversary here. God, however… approves of temple massacres, gives a guy leprosy for the sin of incense (seriously, why does God hate incense this much?), and then God decides to change it up, and uses Babylon to slaughter Israel. (This later gets reframed and God uses the Persians to slaughter Babylon for the sin of attacking Israel at God’s direction.)
Ezra: I can’t think of anyone we would call Satan or the Adversary here. God, however… you know, starting out, not that bad. Declares that outsiders cannot build his temple for… reasons, justifying the exile of Israel as “you chose these consequences” , and then force-divorcing and mass family separating all men who married foreign wives (you know, like God commanded they do in previous books). God never speaks out against it. Had all the time in the world to complain about mixed fabrics and shellfish, though! A downright benevolent chapter by the standards established up to this point.
Nehemiah: I can’t think of anyone we would call Satan or the Adversary here. God, however… Time for the mass Sabbath enforcement, more marriage purges, and a purity reform that enforces the pattern Erza established by barring foreigners from priesthood regardless of beliefs. Still downright benevolent compared to mass genocides – so maybe God will fix that soon.
Esther: I can’t think of anyone we would call Satan or the Adversary here. God, however… Back to the genocide of tens of thousands! That’s about it – God keeps it simple in this one.
Job: Satan finally commits a substantive crime! 18 books in, and we have the unconscionable murder of 8 children… with God’s express permission and allowance. But hey, we’ll just pretend this was all Satan and that God was not involved in any way. What’s the score? 8 to… I lost count. Even counting only the children, we’re 8 to at least four digits, but almost certainly five digits of kills. We could count Satan inciting God into atrocities, but what a weak God that it gets incited into destroying Job for no reason. But that’s okay – despite murdering his wives, he patches it up by just substituting in new women, because that makes it all better. We’ll pretend this book is entirely the doing of Satan, just to be extra fair to God.
Psalms: Oh hey, a Satan! Well, it’s just a plea by the writer for enemies to be destroyed by God – no actions taken by Satan here. God, however… really doesn’t take any actions either, but boy does the writer like the idea of dashing babies against rocks, and it’s surprising that God never explicitly states that doing so is bad at any point. Tacit approval will always be taken as approval, and only an explicit denial is appropriate – to fail to do so is to fail to uphold any justifiable morality.
Proverbs: I can’t think of anyone we would call Satan or the Adversary here. God, however… really doesn’t do anything to tell people not to set up one of the worst schools of thoughts in existence on accident by allowing people to attribute wealth or despair to one’s righteousness. This is the justification I see televangelists use daily for their grift, and if God was inspiring the Bible, God directly inspired this – and did nothing to inspire people to speak out against it in said book.
Ecclesiastes: I can’t think of anyone we would call Satan or the Adversary here. God, however… is to be feared or else. Pretty light book.
Isaiah: Welcome back, Satan! This is the real deal, too – the one fallen from heaven, the Day Star, Lucifer. People think that the evil one owns the earth, and had a war in heaven, but context reveals that the intent was simply to mock a Babylonian king – Christians misinterpreted this (by taking it out of context – ironic) to be a cosmic tale of Satan’s origins, but ignore that the verses are directly written to be a, quote, “taunt against The King of Babylon”. God, however… threatens more cannibalism, slaughters by fire and sword, and just engages in a massive and protracted campaign against various surrounding tribes that I’m sure is totally justified somehow.
Jeremiah: I can’t think of anyone we would call Satan or the Adversary here. God, however… deceives his own people via false prophets, threatens starvation and cannibalism, and once again uses Babylon to punish his own people massively disproportionately to the crimes committed (and, once again, in alignment with the “might as well punish em all” collective punishment school of thought).
Lamentations: I can’t think of anyone we would call Satan or the Adversary here. God however… I mean, you read all the prior chapters. What, exactly, do you think they’re lamenting? The actions of the enemy? Nope – the actions of their God, which are “like an enemy”.
Ezekiel: We’ve got Satan back! Unfortunately for God, Satan is entirely acted against, and does nothing wrong in this specific chapter – just refers back to the punishment for the actions in Genesis, assuming this wasn’t actually talking about the kings it was talking about in the prior verses and that this wasn’t just taken massively out of context. God, however… God kills Ezekiel’s wife and forbids mourning her, which is one messed-up punishment. More destructions of nations, and then punishing a prostitute by taking those she chose not to sleep with and giving her to them to punish her as they desire. It goes on for way too long and is incredibly gross and uncomfortable to read – I had to tap out of this chapter, to be honest, I couldn’t take God’s description of what he wanted to have happen to her.
Daniel: We have something that could be construed as Satan (showing off that Greco-Roman inspiration that’s part of why we know this prophecy was written post-hoc) – the angel! Then we have the archangel, then we have the prince of Greece, and they’re just sort of muddled up with real rulers of the earth but are also understood to be spiritual beings. Let’s just say that all of this is a dark, demonic force! Satan… forces Daniel to pray for an extra week until Michael could come help out. What a sinister crime. God, however… yet another Babylonian conquest, because you can never go wrong with the genocide of your chosen people due to the misdeeds of their leaders, deciding to make Nebuchadnezzar act like an animal, because mind control and the complete stripping of free will is treated as an acceptable punishment for… a prideful and boastful king (and this is another example of things getting under God’s lack-of-skin far too easily), and then the destruction of the Temple which is, at best, a highly utilitarian gambit necessary for greater purposes.
Time for those books no one cares about!
Hosea: No Satan. God, however… you can’t just command someone to take a sex worker as a wife, God. That’s a bad thing. God brags about how he is the lion, from which none can be rescued. (Doesn’t this sound like some imagery used to describe Satan in the New Testament? Should remind you of something!), and then God once again threatens dashing infants to pieces and ripping pregnant women open.
Joel 1: No Satan. God, however… is called the Destroyer. God is the lion. All these terms I’ve seen used to describe Satan, used to describe God here. How bizarre.
Joel 2: No Satan. God, however… time for more plagues of locusts to indiscriminately kill and starve populations!
Amos: No Satan. God, however… Promises fire and destruction, and is confused when people don’t worship the one sending plagues of locusts, fire and destruction to them.
Obadiah: No Satan. God, however… decrees the total destruction of Edomites, who were associated with Isau, who were hated in the womb for stealing a birthright, and then more good ole genocides and eye-for-an-eye and collective punishment philosophy. And this is supposed to be the eternal and unchanging “Turn the other cheek”-style God of the New Testament?
Jonah: No Satan. God, however… time for Nineveh to turn around and repent, or they’ll be destroyed! By who? Well, the Destroyer, of course. (That’s God in this context, not the Destroyer of the New Testament – I know, startlingly easy to confuse the two.) Who needs Satan when you have divine wrath?
Micah: No Satan. God, however… yet more destruction and genocides, as usual, but also God hides from his people (which sounds like God’s actions in my experience).
Nahum: No Satan. God, however… more threats on Nineveh, and these ones include threats of molestation and sexual violence! Can’t forget the infants being dashed again – on every corner of every street.
Habakkuk: No Satan. God, however… more using the Babylonians to sate its divine wrath, more God enabling evil, and more of God being the author of evil.
Zephaniah: No Satan. God, however… more bragging about how he will sweep away everything, all humans and animals. More boasting about how he destroyed cities and poured out blood.
Haggai: No Satan. God, however… more forcing droughts and famines, more threats, more bragging about all the destruction it causes.
Zechariah: Finally, Satan’s back! God had so much free reign, with no chance for Satan to come up. Satan in this episode acts as the prosecutor of Joshua (standing in for Israel), accuses Joshua, and gets rebuked by God and Joshua’s acceptance is affirmed. That’s basically it. God, however… tells parents to be willing to kill their own children if they’re false prophets, talks about sending off plagues that will rot the flesh off the bone of its victims, and, in a hilarious and ironic twist, God talks about no longer having pity for Israel.
Malachi: Satan’s gone for the rest of the Old Testament. God, however… if the Edomites rebuild, it will never forgive them, and will rebuke their offspring, and just generally engage in collective punishment for their tribes. More fire judgment threats for the wicked, yada yada. I’m bored now.
I lost track of the score, kill-wise, atrocity-wise and example-wise, but I think the point’s been made. How do you redeem such a wicked soul? It would have to repent and be reborn to truly cleanse itself of such colossal sins. I think it not possible, given God’s pride – and in the Classical Theist paradigm, God is eternal and unchanging, and thus these atrocities are a permanent stain. Feel free to ask for citations on anything you wish to discuss.
Christians cannot run from this comparison, unless they are willing to jettison the Old Testament from their bibles. The people who described this fictional god, Yahweh, had no idea that thousands of years in the future, this kind of violent god would no longer be viewed in a positive light. Christianity is saddled with this image problem and it will never go away.
(5273) How miracles came to be believed
In his book The Triumph of Christianity, biblical historian Bart Ehrman conjectured on how people came to believe in Christian miracle stories even if they did not directly experience anything of that nature themselves:
When people believe in miracles today, it is rarely because they have actually experienced one. Some people claim they have, but not most. In fact, most people who believe in miracles have not even observed one, let alone been the beneficiary of one. What all believers in miracles have in common is that they have heard of miracles. Often they have heard of miracles of others who claimed the miracles happened to them. More often they have heard of miracles from others who claimed they personally observed them happen to someone else-or who claimed to know someone else who knew someone else who observed them.
Most believers in miracles today have only heard of miracles. It is reasonable to assume that this is why most people in early Christianity believed in miracles. They heard stories such as those found in the book of Acts. These are literary narratives, not disinterested historical records. They are accounts that had been told by word of mouth before someone wrote them down. Many people today believe the Holy Spirit really did come upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost and made them speak in tongues — a great miracle. They believe it because they have read the story in Acts 2.
We might suppose this is how it worked in early Christianity. People heard the stories. Most people did not believe in them. Some, after hearing enough stories repeated time after time, began to consider them possible. Eventually they came to believe in them. They then converted. It is not necessarily because the apostles and their followers were really doing miracles. They may have been or they may not have been. But when told with enough conviction , the stories certainly proved convincing to others. And there is proof: people did convert, and the reason stated was almost always the same. The words of the Christians were backed up by stories of miracles.
This is the best explanation for why early Christians came to believe in the miracle stories surrounding the life of Jesus. Over time, repetitively hearing the testimonies of other people tends to override what otherwise would be deflected by a healthy dose of skepticism.
(5274) What if you’re wrong?
Christians love this question, which is an adjunct to Pascal’s wager, supposing that their brand of reality is the only possibility other than atheism. It takes courage to kill this mental virus, and for that reason many Christians fail to escape even when they realize that there are gargantuan holes in Christianity. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/1mp4man/what_if_youre_wrong_about_the_afterlife/
What if I’m wrong? What if you’re wrong? What if, maybe, every human who has walked this Earth hasn’t fully figured out if there is an afterlife yet?
We can play this back and forth “what if” game all day, humans have been doing it for centuries, but at the end of the day, neither of us are going to know who was “right” about what lies beyond death until we both die, so who cares?
I don’t care about what happens after I die, I care about what happens when I am alive. I care about showing kindness and love to the people in front of me right now, because I won’t see them in an afterlife.
I care about helping people in need in the present, and I’m doing it because I actually care, not because I’m promised an eternal award for it. So, if I die and then hear a voice or see a figure that tells me that I am eternally in damnation because I didn’t spend my one life worshiping it, than I will take the punishment, because it is my fault.
I won’t spend the only life that I have right now worrying about a life that I can’t even see yet.
This is the right approach when challenged with vacuous threats based on a religion that is extremely poorly evidenced. Given the thousands of religious faiths, many of which are now extinct, to fret about one of them that might be true is a waste of time. In a thousand years, Christianity will be dead, and some other faith will appear and will ask people of that time, ‘What if you’re wrong?’
(5275) Incredible versus impossible
Consider the following stories being told by a pair of golfers:
Golfer #1 claims that he just played 18 holes on a par-3 course in only 18 stokes- that is he made 18 consecutive holes-in-one.
Golfer #2 claims that he just finished a round of golf and that instead of walking or riding from shot to shot and hole to hole, he actually flew unaided between these points.
Any sane person will immediately dismiss both of these claims. But there is a difference between them.
What golfer #1 is claiming is actually possible within the realm of the known physical laws of nature. Very, very, very unlikely, but certainly possible.
What golfer #2 is claiming is outside of those laws- in effect, impossible. Within our knowledge and understanding of how the world works, a human flying without some sort of artificial means is beyond the bounds of possibility.
So, the basis of skepticism between these two cases is somewhat different, even if the ultimate degree of rejection of the claims is of the same magnitude.
The miracle claims of the Bible align with golfer #2 above. In other words, we are asked to believe in things that are not only highly improbable, but that are actually impossible within our understanding of how the physical laws of nature work.
Yet, Christians reverse this equation. They would immediately say that golfer #1 is lying, but then turn around and accept a claim analogous to golfer #2 that, for example, Jesus made a dead person alive again. That is, they rightly dismiss the improbable while dubiously embracing the impossible.
An atheist would say that golfer#1 is more likely telling the truth than the Bible telling us that a man was raised from the dead by another man. That is, he admits the possibility of the improbable while outright dismissing the impossible. This is the more logical approach.
The miracle claims of the Bible are impossible, at least to the extent that centuries of objective, dispassionate observations have never shown them to be even remotely possible. This should be the default position for any reasonable person until and if something comes along to change our view of reality.
(5276) Demand for worship is disqualifying
The following makes the point that a god demanding worship is no more moral or admirable than an earthly leader forcing his subjects to do the same:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1mq6rrn/even_if_god_existed_why_would_we_worship_it/
Even if God existed, why would we worship it?
I think this is something that behooves believers. They seem to think that if God existed, it would be necessary to worship it. And while I don’t think God exists there’s an interesting thought experiment here that can be used to critique the morality of demanding worship. For instance, we deem human leaders that demand worship to be evil tyrants. The theist response would be that God is all powerful and all knowing so its different, but that’s tantamount to admitting that God is amoral, or at least has a completely different, possibly Nietzschian set of morals which deem slavery as good. The whole thing collapses because there’s a claim that God is good, yet God demands something that most modern humans deem to be evil: tyranny.
If we accept the premise that God was truly good, or at least morally neutral, then it doesn’t matter if it exists or not because it wouldn’t demand that atheists believe in it without any shred of evidence. The existence of God would be a neutral scientific question. It wouldn’t come with Pascals wager and all that baggage.
If anything, a just God would probably admire the logical consistency of the non-believer. It would probably be happy that we are using our reasoning capacity as intended. It might even seek to correct the worshipers for their slavish authoritarian and sectarian tendencies, which have caused a lot of historical injustices. At least, that’s what a good person would do, so it must be what a good God would do. Unless of course God is beyond good and evil as I’m suggesting, in which case I’d say Bakunin was right about God; in that case we better abolish it, because it seeks to enslave us. But, since God doesn’t exist, we need not worry about that.
I think the thought experiment reveals that a God that demands worship is an evil God, and therefore, the Abrahamic traditions contradict themselves and have no explanation for this. A just God would find being worshiped repulsive and would seek to persuade us to be free. That or it’s evil because the need to be worshiped and goodness can not exist within the same being.
If Christians could just wake up and realize that a god who:
1) did nothing to make himself a god (at least that is the standard mythology), he just always existed as such
2) perpetrated many questionable murders and genocides
3) created a torture chamber for non-believers
4) hides himself so more people can be tortured in hell
5) gives humans no freedom of thought
SHOULD NOT MERIT WORSHIP. Christian are brainwashed zombies who sometimes fall into similar patterns of un-merited worship even for humans (Donald Trump).
(5277) Divine Priorities
Somehow the grand creator of the universe, the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent lord of the sky is obsessed with human crotches. The irony is thick enough to cut. The following is a poem that captures the gist of this sentiment.
Divine Priorities, by Eira Quinn
God’s been silent for 2,000 years.
No updates,
no press releases,
not even a courtesy smite.
But somehow,
he’s still deeply invested
in what I do with my genitals.
Not famine.
Not genocide.
Not billionaires hoarding wealth
while kids drink lead in their water.
No.
The real crisis?
Whether two consenting adults
kiss in a way
that makes old men in pulpits
uncomfortable.
It’s wild how the Almighty
can create galaxies,
but draws the line
at butt stuff.
The same god who seemed unconcerned about drowning the earth in a flood, or about his followers killing each other in wars and inquisitions, or about taking women as sex slaves, or about burning witches at the stake, suddenly wakes up and frowns when he sees two men or two women express their love for each other in physical ways. What a great guy he is!
(5278) Honest sermon on Mark 9
The following is a hypothetical sermon on Mark, Chapter 9, that conceivably could be given by a pastor who decided to quit playing make-believe with the Bible and just decided to be brutally honest with his congregation, for his last hurrah before resigning:
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2025/08/honest-sermons-on-gospel-of-mark.html#more
Baptist preacher William Miller predicted that Jesus would return on October 22, 1844. Thousands of people were psyched for this dramatic event, which turned into what became known as The Great Disappointment, since Jesus didn’t show up. Miller had calculated the date based on data—what he assumed was data—that he found in the Bible. He should have grasped that some Bible data is just plain wrong. Such as the opening verse of Mark 9: “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”
We are entitled to wonder what was going on in the head of the author of Mark’s gospel—whoever that was. There is consensus among mainstream New Testament scholars that this gospel was written in the wake of the destructive First Jewish-Roman War (67-70 CE), during which Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed. This horror is reflected in Mark 13. The Jesus-script in Mark 9:1 might reflect this gap of four decades between supposed Jesus events and the writing of the gospel: “some standing here who will not taste death” until they see the arrival of the kingdom. Some maybe, likely very few.
But in any case, this prediction was wrong—as was William Miller’s in 1844. In other words, this is bad theology: it is a major blunder. There is no evidence whatever that a divine kingdom has arrived on our planet. Well, maybe Jesus has showed up on toast, as people have claimed. But this hardly represents Jesus arriving “with power.” It represents over-active imaginations.
Next up is Mark 9:2-8, which is actually tiresome cult bragging. This is the famous “transfiguration” scene: Jesus takes three of his disciples with him (Peter, James, and John) to a high mountain, and Elijah and Moses drop by for a visit! Right away we know that we are in the realm of fairy-tale. Why Elijah, who Moses? In 2 King 2, we read that Elijah was taken to heaven on a fiery chariot pulled by fiery horses. Heaven was god’s abode, and was not yet considered a destination for ordinary people who yearned for eternal life. Heaven and hell as places for reward and punishment were not part of Old Testament theology. And, of course, Moses, a major hero of the Old Testament—who had been dead and gone for hundreds of years—is suddenly there as well.
Mark here is positioning Jesus among the elite of religious heroes—this is what I mean by cult bragging. He wants his readers to grasp just how special Jesus was. Another symbol of this: Jesus glowed; his clothes became dazzling white. In Mark 1:11, after Jesus was baptized, a voice declared from the sky: “You are my Son, the Beloved, with you I am well pleased.” Now, in this scene, this message is repeated, this time from a cloud, so that these chosen disciples (major figures in the Jesus cult) get the message directly: “Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved, listen to him!’” (Mark 9:7) This god speaks from a cloud—well, naturally, because clouds are in the sky where gods live. Again, we can see clearly we are in the realm of fairy-tale.
Moreover, it was hard for Mark to be consistent in his message. The major focus of his gospel is Jesus’ proclamation of the soon-to-arrive kingdom of god. So why do we find this text?
“As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead. So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what this rising from the dead could mean.” (Mark 9:9-10)
Mark was writing for the benefit of the Jesus cult, so perhaps he wanted the cult members to know that he was sharing insider-information. Moreover, the author of this gospel would have known very well that other cults in this ancient setting believed in dying-and-rising savior gods. Hence he presents the disciples as oblivious: “questioning what this rising from the dead could mean.”
By the way, anyone interested in reading the gospels carefully, critically should compare Mark’s description of the transfiguration with the versions that Matthew (17:1-9) and Luke (9:28-36) produced. They both copied from Mark, and changed the wording as they saw fit.
The biggest chunk of Mark 9 is vv. 14-29, in which we find the story of Jesus casting a demon out of a boy who had suffered for a long time from the demon’s evil inflictions. But again, Mark tries here to score points for the cult. The father of the boy mentions that the disciples had been unable to cast out the demon—and Jesus lashes out: “You faithless generation, how much longer must I be with you? How much longer must I put up with you?” (v. 19) Jesus tells the father: “All things can be done for the one who believes.” Immediately the father of the child cried out, ‘I believe; help my unbelief!’” (vv. 23-24) Jesus then casts out the demon, and later his disciples wondered how he did it: “When he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, ‘Why could we not cast it out?’ He said to them, “This kind can come out only through prayer.’” (vv. 28-29) This seems to be warning to the cult that belief and prayer are crucial.
Here we have superstition with no connection to reality. The boy’s affliction is described:
“…he has a spirit that makes him unable to speak, and whenever it seizes him, it dashes him down, and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid…” (vv.17-18) There is no health professional today who would assign these symptoms to demon possession. Maybe some whose minds are trapped in fundamentalism would speculate about demons, but such foolishness can be dismissed. And it’s a dilemma, a disgrace, for believers today that the gospel authors could accept superstitious so matter-of-factly. How could this possibly be an example of infallible divine inspiration?
In verses 30-32 we read that Jesus told his disciples—for the second time—that he would be betrayed, killed, then rise from the dead. But it didn’t sink in, again. “…they did not understand what he was saying and were afraid to ask him.” (v. 32) Scholars have wondered why the disciples were depicted as such a dumb bunch. Perhaps the author of Mark knew that dying-and-rising savior god cults were common, but one way to deflect attention from this fact was to present the disciples as clueless.
Mark chapter 9 does include one of the feel-good texts that preachers are fond of quoting. In verses 33 to 37 we read that the disciples had been arguing among themselves “who was the greatest.” Jesus told them: “Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.” (v. 35) And here’s the feel-good text, that has been captured in works of art:
“Then he took a little child and put it among them, and taking it in his arms he said to them, ‘Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me.’” (vv. 36-37)
This text is surely ignored by angry devout folks who want to turn away immigrant families that include children. How embarrassing this text is: if you welcome children, then you’re welcoming Jesus himself—and the god who sent him. Most definitely, this is a feel-good text with a sting to it…for those with limited compassion.
In verses 38-41 we wander back into superstition. The disciples had come across someone who was performing exorcisms in Jesus’ name, but who was not in their in-group. But Jesus saw this as a good thing: “Do not stop him, for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us. For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.” (vv. 39-41) This would also seem to be an appeal to cult members to do good deeds. Whoever gives a cup of water will not lose their reward.
The final major section of Mark chapter 9 is verses 42-48, which fails to qualify as great moral teaching. This seems to be another warning to cult members to behave themselves. “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.” (v. 43) This Jesus-script also advises cutting off your foot and plucking out your eye—it these body parts cause you to sin. Apologists rush to insist that these should be taken as metaphors, and we can doubt that any of Mark’s readers would have taken such extreme measures. Even so, this brutal, barbarian Jesus-script qualifies as bad theology; it is not what we would expect of a holy hero whom the world is supposed to adore and worship.
Any modern reader gifted with common sense and critical thinking skills can figure out that Mark chapter 9 has far more flaws than redeeming qualities. Curious readers would also want to know where the author of Mark got his information. He fails as historian because he never names his sources—and that’s a big problem, since he wrote his gospel at least forty years after the events he depicts. Thus any modern reader would want to how and why anything he wrote should be trusted. Mark was promoting the Jesus cult. That was his main agenda.
Anyone with a clear mind should be able detect the tell-tale signs of mythology in this text. For one, if demons don’t exist, as most modern people concede, then there a massive problem with God’s holy text presenting them as if they do exist. Why would God allow his scriptures to be polluted with something so clearly fictional? And that is just one minor example. Either god is playing dirty or he doesn’t exist.
(5279) The fallacy of saying you choose to go to hell
Christians often try to soften the horror of God’s sentence of non-Christians to hell by claiming that hell-bound people have chosen this for themselves- and that therefore God is not to blame. The following debunks this logic:
This post is directed at eternal suffering is a choice crowd. Anyways I do not choose in any way shape or form to be given immortality and exist in a state of suffering for eternity. Nobody rational would. That is the ultimate bad end and evil for any human being. Nobody wants that. I do not choose that in any way shape or form. That is a punishment imposed upon me by a toddler God having a tantrum.
“But you choose that when you reject Jesus”
It’s not like I am believing Jesus exists, is king of the universe, and I am saying no I want to do XYZ and being a follower of Christ means I have to not do XYZ so I am rejecting him. That would be crazy. I don’t believe he exists in heaven right now, I believe he was just a religious dude that had a following and all kinds of crazy mythology and legends developed around him.
I cant force myself to believe in Jesus, I either do or I don’t. At best I can “Fake it until I make it” but why would I? I believe your threats of hell are just as valid as the boogyman will get me. Prove and demonstrate your position first, and then maybe ill take a leap of faith. The fact that the threats are what happens after you die, with this God being mysteriously absent in reality, tells me its the ultimate scam.
So no I don’t choose to reject Christ, I don’t believe in him. It’s up to you to demonstrate him to me before I sacrifice my time and energy worshiping a being so he doesn’t torture me for eternity.
Christians can just as well be accused of choosing hell because they don’t believe in Allah. Nobody would choose hell. That just makes sense, and Christians need to let this one go.
(5280) Christianity is a wishy-washy religion
It would seem that if a universal god had the intent to establish a religion on our planet that he would manage to make it precise and cohesive, such that its correct theology would be well understood by everyone. This is not the case with Christianity. It is wishy-washy hodgepodge of conflicting doctrines. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1mu6m6s/there_is_no_real_christian_religion/
I have cited many times that there are over 18-thousand Christian denominations in the USA alone. There are 45 thousand denominations globally. Not all Christian denominations believe in the same god or even the same Jesus, yet they act as if Christianity is a major religion. Christianity is the wishy-washiest religion on the planet. It is a hodgpod of religions with a common origin and every bit the same as a comparison to Islam. It is always the church up the street whose congregation is following false teachings. It is the church up the street that does not understand the Holy Spirit, the nature of God, or the Meanings Jesus had when he wrote the bible (Yes, I know.).
The nature of Jesus as a trinarian, fully human prophet, a human chosen by god, a human born of god, a spirit, a spirit in human form, a metaphor, a being fully human and full god, Jesus is the brother of Satan and living on Kolob, Jesus is subordinate to God the father, the same as god the father. The Father, the Son, and the holy ghost are distinct beings, the same being. Christadelphians believe Jesus is the Son of God, but only in a relational sense, with the Father being uniquely God. And I am sure there are many more. On any given day, any random one-third of Christianity will swear to you that the other two-thirds are going to burn in hell for their false beliefs.(Well, if that denomination believes in a Hell. Not all of them do.)
Matthew 24:5-31, For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for [a]all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, [b]pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Why pretend there is anything called Christianity? It is the most wishy-washiest religion on the planet.
If someone tells you that they are a Christian, they have not told you anything concrete about what they believe. It can be all over the map. This is not the expected product of an omnipotent god, who, you would think, would have the ability to align the beliefs of his followers.
(5281) Christianity created the problem it purports to solve
Much like a protection racket where the mob boss threatens you with damage but offers you protection at a price, Christianity works in much the same manner. Out of the blue, it creates a problem for humanity by inventing a place called hell where humans are destined to suffer UNLESS they worship their god (whom they also invented). The following was taken from:
Christianity frames human existence around a central problem: that none of us are perfect and therefore stand guilty before a holy God. From this starting point, it teaches that our imperfection separates us from God and leads to eternal punishment, and that no amount of good deeds or moral living can overcome this. The only solution offered is Jesus’ death and resurrection, which are said to pay the penalty on our behalf and reconcile us with God.
But this entire structure depends on accepting the Christian definition of the problem in the first place. Before encountering Christianity, I never thought of imperfection as a cosmic offense that demanded punishment, let alone as something requiring a divine sacrifice. From my perspective, Christianity creates both the problem and the fix, presenting humanity as broken in a way that only Christianity itself can repair.
The world was working fine before Christianity and none of the previous world religions had the audacity and cruelty to assign non-followers to a place of everlasting torment. For that accomplishment, Christianity deserves a special honor in annals of human malignancy.
(5282) Arguments for Christianity are vacuous
The following is a quick rundown of 11 alleged ‘demonstrations’ of the truth of Christianity, leaving any objective person wanting something more:
I’ll start by saying one thing that I honestly do not understand is believing and faith. There is no reason to believe something that is not true. If you start by believing something, then it is easy to cherry pick evidence and place your own cognitive biases on it (especially if you were born into it or are surrounded by it). If for a second you did not believe in god, you would find that there is no evidence to bring you back (and if you look at all these arguments from an atheists perspective you would understand how absurd they are.)
1. Ontological argument “God’s existence follows from the idea of a maximally great being.”
You can’t move from a concept to actual existence merely by defining it in. (If existence were a predicate, you could “define” anything into being like in Gaunilo’s reductio)
2. Cosmological argument “Everything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause (God).”
Modern physics allows models where intuitive causal talk breaks down; extrapolating everyday causal metaphysics to the origin of spacetime is not valid argument, only justification through human intuition. Even if the universe has a cause, it doesn’t follow that the cause is the theistic God. Also fallacy of composition.
3. Fine-tuning argument “The laws/constants of physics appear “fine-tuned” for life, best explained by a designer (God).”
It is unknown what “parameters” exist and if they can be changed at all. To claim “this is improbable” you need a well-defined probability distribution over possible universes; we don’t have that, so appealing to improbability is invalid. Alternative explanations also exist (such as multiverse), so even if it was found out to be improbable, it would not prove a god. Also anthropic principle.
4. Moral argument “Objective moral values exist, and theism (or God) best explains them.”
Morals are best explained through evolution as a way to coexist with others of a species. Seen by other species other than humans having morals, and morals also changing over time to accommodate the people living in them (slavery, premarital sex etc).
5. The resurrection of Jesus “Historical evidence (empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, early creedal tradition) supports the conclusion that Jesus rose bodily, and the best explanation was his actual resurrection.”
Jesus as a historical figure is well-supported, the resurrection as a supernatural event is not provable by historical method and alternative explanations (hallucination theories, legendary development, theft of body, mythologizing) are more likely. The historical method is good at reconstructing probable naturalistic events, but it cannot conclusively verify singular supernatural occurrences. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and independent corroboration (which the resurrection lacks beyond the Christian sources).
6. Miracles “Testimony of miracles (including scripture) is good evidence that miracles occurred.”
Cognitive biases, wishful thinking, cultural contagion, and misperception can explain many reported miracles. Neuropsychological studies show spiritual/mystical states can be induced by brain processes, and research has shown that acts such as praying has no impact on patients outcomes in medical settings.
7. Reliability of Scripture “The Bible’s textual tradition is reliable and consistent, so we can trust its reports.”
Many biblical books have good manuscript attestation compared to other ancient texts (Dead Sea Scrolls etc), but good textual preservation does not by itself prove the truth of the events the texts describe. Textual criticism assesses what the original authors wrote, not whether their accounts of supernatural events are accurate. There are thousands of textual variants and evidence of editorial activity, harmonizations, additions (e.g., the woman taken in adultery) and theological shaping over centuries. This invalidates claims of inerrancy or unbroken transmission.
8. Fulfilled prophecy argument “Old Testament prophecies (e.g., messianic passages) were fulfilled by Jesus, which supports Christianity.”
Many alleged prophecies are general or vague. They can be retrofitted to events after the fact (postdiction). Some “prophetic” texts were compiled or edited later; dating and original referents matter. If a text was written after an event, it’s not prophecy. Establishing that a prediction predates the event is nontrivial.
9. Pascal’s wager “Even if God’s existence is uncertain, it’s pragmatically safer to believe.”
Many gods rejection: there are many possible deities.
10. Religious Experience / Inner Witness “Direct experiences of God (conversion, mysticism) are prima facie evidence of God’s reality.”
Religious experiences correlate with brain states (temporal lobe stimulation, psychedelics, sleep phenomena). Such correlations show that experiences are mediated by brain processes. That in itself doesn’t disprove a spiritual origin, but it undercuts exclusive claims that these experiences are reliable indicators of objective supernatural reality. People of many faiths (and none) say they’ve had powerful religious/mystical states that point to mutually incompatible metaphysical beliefs. That diversity suggests experiences are not straightforward pointers to one true religion and are a product of the mind and the persons beliefs.
11. Argument from Consciousness “physicalism cannot account for subjective experience, so God/immaterial mind is best explanation”
Neuroscience shows strong dependency of consciousness on brain states; pointing to the hard problem is an argument from ignorance. You need positive evidence for a nonphysical substance, not merely gaps in current explanation.
If a god actually existed and further became a human and interacted with other humans in a historical setting, it would seem that it would leave evidence of a much better quality. What apologists are working with are more like shreds of hope than articles of proof.
(5283) Four Jewish takedowns of Christianity
Christianity professes to be the successor of Judaism, such that its truth is dependent on the truth of Judaism. That is, it cannot jettison Judaism without undermining its own authenticity. This creates a problem when, from a strictly Jewish perspective, the articles of Christianity are easily debunked by Jewish scholars. The following four salient points are made below:
For this debate, I will discuss certain fundamental tenets of faith. Our tradition, rooted in the Torah given to Moses at Sinai, is the eternal covenant between Hashem and the Jewish people. This covenant, and the divine laws it contains, are immutable. While we respect the beliefs of others, we must stand firm on the truths that have guided our people for millennia. The core of our debate today is a discussion of the nature of Hashem (or G_d) and the path to salvation, as we believe them to be revealed in the Holy Scriptures.
Argument 1: The Oneness of G_d (Shema Yisrael)
-
- The Jewish position: The central pillar of Jewish faith is the absolute and indivisible oneness of G_d, as declared in the Shema Yisrael: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our G_d, the Lord is One.” Monotheism is not just about one God; it’s about a single, indivisible entity. There can be no partners, no intermediaries, and no divine aspects or persons that are separate from the essence of G_d.
- The critique of Christianity: The Christian concept of the Trinity—G_d the Father, G_d the Son, and G_d the Holy Spirit—is a fundamental departure from this principle. From an Orthodox Jewish perspective, this concept introduces a plurality into the Godhead, which is a form of idolatry, or at the very least, a violation of the pure monotheism of the Torah. The idea of “three in one” is seen as a logical and theological contradiction. We would argue that if Jesus is G_d, then there are two gods, or if he is not G_d, then he is not divine. The Christian attempt to reconcile this through the Trinity is, from our perspective, a rejection of the Shema.
Argument 2: The Nature of the Messiah
-
- The Jewish position: The Jewish concept of the Messiah is that of a human king, a descendant of King David, who will usher in an era of peace, prosperity, and spiritual enlightenment. The Messiah is not divine. He will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, gather the Jewish exiles from around the world, and bring an end to all wars. He will be a great leader and teacher, but a mortal man.
- The critique of Christianity: The Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah is a complete departure from this prophetic understanding. Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies as they are understood in Judaism.
- He did not bring about a universal peace.
- He did not end all wars.
- He did not rebuild the Temple (in fact, it was destroyed after his death).
- He did not gather the Jewish exiles.
- Most importantly, the Christian claim of his divinity is in direct contradiction to the Jewish concept of a human Messiah. The suffering and death of the Messiah are not a part of the Jewish prophecies; rather, the Messiah is a figure of strength, victory, and salvation.
Argument 3: The Interpretation of Scripture (Tanakh)
-
- The Jewish position: We believe that the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings (the Tanakh) are the word of G_d. We interpret these texts through a long-standing tradition of rabbinic commentary, oral law, and legal analysis. The meaning of the text is to be understood in its original context and in light of the continuous tradition of interpretation.
- The critique of Christianity: We would argue that Christianity takes Jewish scripture out of context and reinterprets it to fit a narrative about Jesus. For example, Christian apologists often use passages like Isaiah 53 to argue that it is a prophecy about Jesus. From a Jewish perspective, this passage is about the suffering of the Jewish people as a whole, who serve as a “suffering servant” for the nations. We would also point to the fact that the Christian “New Testament” is a new covenant that, from our perspective, seeks to nullify or replace the eternal covenant given at Sinai. The idea that a new covenant could replace the old is a theological impossibility for an Orthodox Jew.
Argument 4: The Path to Salvation
-
- The Jewish position: Salvation and a relationship with G_d are achieved through living a life of observance of the commandments (Mitzvot), engaging in prayer, and performing good deeds. It is not dependent on a specific belief or a single act of faith, but on a continuous relationship with G_d through the fulfillment of the Torah. G_d is merciful and just, and He forgives those who repent.
- The critique of Christianity: Christianity teaches that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of G_d, and that his sacrifice on the cross atoned for the sins of humanity. From an Orthodox Jewish perspective, this concept is problematic. It suggests that a person can be saved through a belief system, rather than through their actions. It also suggests that a divine being had to die to atone for sin, which is a concept that is not found in the Jewish scriptures. We would argue that the Jewish concept of Teshuvah (repentance) is the true and traditional path to atonement, a path that is open to everyone, regardless of their beliefs.
In conclusion, while we respect the right of every person to their own beliefs, we must stand firm on the truths that have been the bedrock of our people for thousands of years. The G_d of Israel is One and indivisible. The Messiah is a human king who will one day bring about a world of peace, and salvation is found not in a single act of belief, but in a lifelong commitment to living a righteous life according to the eternal laws of the Torah. The covenant at Sinai is an eternal one, and it is a path to a life of meaning, purpose, and a close relationship with G_d.
If Christianity was true, this problem would not exist. In fact, the case can be made that if Christianity was true, all that would exist today would be a Jewish-Christian amalgam faith- that is; classical Judaism would have been permanently modified by Jesus and God and would not longer exist as a sole entity. The fact that Judaism continues to exist in its original form is direct evidence against the truth of Christianity.
(5284) A returned Jesus must be neutralized
Christian churches and organizations acknowledge the theology of Jesus returning and they seem to be desiring it to happen soon, but their very existence depends on him NOT returning. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/1mv1i36/warning_whatever_you_do_make_absolutely_sure/
Warning: Whatever you do, make absolutely sure Jesus never returns.
The funny thing about faith is that if there were actually evidence of this being, people would take it for granted, and the entire institution of religion would collapse overnight.
Now, let’s imagine the return of Jesus literally in today’s world:
Those who claim to speak for Christ, pastors, televangelists, politicians, would lose their authority instantly. If Jesus himself is here, no one needs an intermediary. Many “believers” who built their lives and empires around interpreting scripture would suddenly look small, maybe even fraudulent.
Politicians who’ve wrapped themselves in Christian language and symbols would be exposed. Their claim of divine legitimacy would crumble if Jesus contradicted them. And he likely would, because his teachings; humility, peace, rejection of wealth and power, cut against almost everything modern politics is built on.
Not all who call themselves Christians would accept him. Historically, religious institutions have resisted every prophet who challenged their wealth, rituals, or authority. Those who “believe” in name only would reject him as a threat to their influence.
Ordinary people who genuinely believe would rally to him, destabilizing entire governments and denominations. If citizens began pledging loyalty to Christ over their countries, we’d see global crises of authority.
World powers do not tolerate rivals. If Jesus attracted mass loyalty, even “Christian” governments would see him as a destabilizing figure to be silenced. As before, power would likely turn against him.
Scholars and theologians would lose credibility if his words contradicted their frameworks. Seminaries and religious colleges would have to be rewritten from scratch. Institutions that built entire industries around “studying Jesus” would be obsolete in the presence of Jesus himself.
In the end, the political and religious power of those who claim to believe would collapse. Their authority depends entirely on his absence, on filling the silence with their interpretations and agendas. If he were physically present, their power wouldn’t just weaken. It would evaporate.
Warning: Whatever you do, make absolutely sure Jesus never returns. If he does, he’s a walking existential threat to the entire industry of religion and politics.
What to do in case he returns:
Step one would be to discredit him.
Step two, if that fails, it’s the same as it was 2,000 years ago, neutralize him.
The last thing those who profit from faith could ever allow is the real thing showing up.
The last things these organizations want to hear is that Jesus is back on the planet. All of the religious muscle they have been flexing would suddenly look like a stinking mess of bullshit. They depend on Jesus not returning while acting as if that is what they desire. So, it is convenient for them that Jesus is NEVER RETURNING. He is dead, and will remain that way for the foreseeable future.
(5285) Catholic acceptance of evolution is deceptive
The Catholic Church famously accepted the theory of evolution, setting themselves apart from most Protestant denominations. However, when the details of such a position are examined, it can be argued that this acceptance runs counter to the fundamentals of their theology. The following was taken from:
What Catholic doctrine claims
The Catholic Church insists it has no quarrel with evolution, arguing that theology deals with metaphysical questions while science studies material processes. Yet Catholic teaching also tells us there was a decisive moment in our history when God infused spiritual souls into our most recent animal ancestors. In that instant, creatures without free will or rational intellect supposedly became human beings for the very first time. This means their parents (i.e. the generation just before the first humans), looked like us biologically, but weren’t truly “human” in mind or spirit.
Why this cannot be dismissed as “purely metaphysical”
The Church would like to frame this as a matter beyond science. But the problem is that the appearance of rationality, moral awareness, and symbolic thought is a scientific question as much as a philosophical one. How human cognition arose, whether gradually in populations or suddenly in a single leap, can be studied with fossils, archaeology, and anthropology. Catholics want us to believe this was a miraculous one-generation jump from non-rational to rational beings. That is more than a mere metaphysical claim; it’s a testable historical claim.
What science overwhelmingly shows
The fossil and archaeological record shows that over hundreds of thousands of years, hominin brain size slowly expanded, cortical reorganization unfolded gradually, and symbolic behaviors emerged step by step. At the same time tool use became more refined, social networks spread, trade extended across regions, art evolved in sophistication, and burial rites signaled emerging shared beliefs. These aren’t sudden shifts in behavior. Rather they’re long, incremental changes at the level of populations, not individuals.
It’s not just a coincidence that brain size/complexity increased over a time period that also coincided with increases in behavioral complexity. As babies grow up, their brains develop and their behavior becomes more complex at the same time. Also if we compare the brains of other primates, their brain size/complexity correlates with their behavioral complexity. That’s the same general pattern we see over human evolution: over many generations, brains changed and behavior became more complex together.
Conclusion
The evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that human rationality and symbolic thought didn’t arrive at a single moment in history. Rather it occurred gradually over many generations which took hundreds of thousands of years. Catholic teaching, however, requires the opposite: a sudden infusion of rational souls into the first human pair. These two views can’t be reconciled. One is slow, cumulative, and population-wide. The other is instantaneous, miraculous, and confined to a mythic couple. To accept evolutionary science in full is to reject the Catholic account of ensoulment. The two are not simply “different domains”; they are in direct conflict.
The church tried to overcome the scientific challenge to their dogma by conceding the issue of evolution, but in so doing, they are being deceptive- trying to get credit for two incompatible positions. Evolution and Catholic theology don’t mix.
(5286) Jesus is not God
Standard contemporary Christianity maintains that Jesus is God, or at least one of God’s three manifestations along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. But this ‘fact’ was not made clear in the scriptures. In fact, it is easy to use the scriptures to refute the claim. This leaves one wondering how God could have allowed such confusion to exist in the scriptures that he allegedly inspired. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1mxld2v/jesus_is_not_god/
If Jesus was God, this should have been LOUD AND CLEAR in the gospels. This is not a small matter. It’s like the most fundamental (I guess it’s most fundamental belief in christianity) and it was left like hanging ??? First three gospels don’t clearly mention it.
The mere fact that it wasn’t established before council of Nicaea tells that God didn’t clearly convey the most important message ? Does it make sense?
There are numerous verses that clearly show that he wasn’t God. You can try hard to do gymnastics with them but that’s something you can do with any thing. Examples
Philippians 2:9 — “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name …” — if God exalted him then he’s not God.
John 7:16 — “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.”
John 8:42 — “I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.”
John 14:28 — “The Father is greater than I.”
There are numerous others .. I don’t want to write
If Jesus humbled himself during his human period, then at least he was lesser than Father during that period, so kinda not God during that time? which implies not God at all??
Do all three persons in trinity behave in perfect harmony about every decision? If yes then they are not 3. If they have disagreement then, do they have different areas of kingdom? This is very very important point. There has to be one God (which you will say that you have one). But Jesus says that Father sent him and this was before he was human. Clearly it shows that at least it was Father’s idea (even if you don’t want to drive subordination from it, which it clearly shows).
All previous prophets had different teachings, that there’s only one God (I know you will say you have only one God as well). So they didn’t tell their nations that there are 3 persons in one Godhead. So besides Christianity, every other divine religion says otherwise. God only chose Christianity to reveal this most important fact?
The amount of gymnastic you have to do to make the trinity work clearly shows that it’s made up?? The flaws are so many that it absolutely makes no sense.
If the Trinity was the truth about God, it would have been made very clear in the New Testament. The case can also be made that it would have also been delineated in the Old Testament as early as the Book of Genesis. Instead, it is obvious that it is a sectarian theory that developed well after the time of the Bible’s development.
(5287) Christianity is a mind virus
Christianity’s main engine is the inculcation of immature minds, mainly because it lacks the degree of authenticity needed to persuade mature minds. It is a mind virus infecting millions of children every year. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1n0or9l/banned_from_rdebatereligion_for_calling/
Thesis:
If Christianity were based on truth, it wouldn’t need to be installed in children before they can question it, defended with emotional manipulation, or constantly adapted to fit the culture. A belief that relies on guilt, fear, and early psychological imprinting is not a moral framework, it’s a system of control.
Argument:
1. Childhood Indoctrination
Most Christians believe what they were taught as children, not what they discovered as adults. Kids are told they are sinful by nature, watched constantly, and at risk of hell for doubting. That’s not free will, that’s coercion disguised as “love”.
Yes, parents have the right to teach values. But when those values include eternal torment for wrong belief, we’re not talking about guidance anymore. We’re talking about fear-based psychological conditioning.
2. Emotional Control
Christianity uses shame, guilt, and fear to keep people loyal. Doubt is framed as rebellion. Suffering is called a “test”. Leaving the faith is portrayed as moral failure. These aren’t tools of truth, they’re tools of control.
Critics often get dismissed as “angry” or “hurt,” but pointing out abuse is not bitterness. You don’t need to be traumatized to recognize that fear and guilt are part of the design.
3. Shifting Doctrine, Supposedly Fixed Truth
If Christian morality is timeless, why does it keep changing? Slavery used to be justified. So did silencing women. Now we’re told those verses were misunderstood. Did God change, or did society?
Some argue those distortions don’t reflect “true” Christianity. But that’s exactly the problem. If people can use the same book to justify completely different moral systems, then the issue is with the book, not just the reader. That’s not divine clarity, it’s interpretive chaos.
4. Deflection and Double Standards
Apologists demand perfect certainty from critics while defending their own views with personal feelings, cherry-picked verses, or sermons found online. Meanwhile, peer-reviewed academic work is dismissed as biased. That’s not the pursuit of truth, that’s intellectual dishonesty.
5. “But What About the Good?”
Yes, Christianity has inspired charity, art, and community. But doing good doesn’t cancel out manipulation and fear. A system can build hospitals and still psychologically damage children. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
Common Objections (Answered):
“Not all Christians are like that.”
This isn’t about individual believers. It’s about how the system functions. Good people can still be part of something that causes harm or relies on coercive methods.
“That’s not real Christianity.”
If the same book can be used to justify both compassion and cruelty, then the book is the problem. A truth that needs constant reinterpretation isn’t timeless, it’s adaptable.
“You’re ignoring free will.”
Free will doesn’t apply when belief is instilled before critical thinking is possible, and backed by the threat of eternal punishment. That’s not a choice, it’s psychological pressure.
“You sound angry or hurt.”
Calling out harm is not weakness. It is moral responsibility. You do not need to be hurt by religion to recognize what it does to people.
“But Christianity has done good things too.”
Doing good doesn’t erase centuries of fear-based control. If another system used guilt and fear on children, we wouldn’t excuse it for building hospitals. We’d call it what it is.
Any ‘true’ religion would not need to impress its creed on the minds of children, but would have evidence sufficient to cause an adult who never heard of it to believe in it. And that is what Christianity lacks- the necessary minimal amount of objective evidence required to merit reasonable belief.
(5288) How Christianity gained undeserved dominance
Christianity was a global success despite the fact that it suffers mightily from a lack of convincing evidence of its truth. But it had the right formula to grow its numbers and squash other competing religions, as explained in the following:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1n1kexz/religious_faith_isnt_the_result_of_divine/
Religious faith isn’t the result of divine revelation, it’s the product of thousands of years of religious evolution. ….. It’s a sort of … survival-of-the-fittest ideology.
Christianity, for example, dominates globally not because Jesus actually rose from the dead, or rescued people from eternal suffering, but because Christianity had a better marketing strategy than other religions.
-
- Christianity is both evangelistic and exclusivistic, both of which set it apart from other religions in the Roman empire.
- It forbid the worship of other gods. So as Christianity grew, it destroyed other religions. It was the only religion with these two features at that time.
- It also encouraged the procreation of its members, and the indoctrination of children.
- It integrated with governments, sent out missionaries, promised heaven, threatened hell, shunned and persecuted non-believers, discouraged questioning, used violence when necessary, and set up systems to enrich itself and gain power.
In short, Christianity didn’t just survive – – it competed.
It evolved like a virus that learned how to spread, replicate, and protect itself from threats like …. logic, doubt, dissent, progress, or free inquiry.
It built immunity to challenge by branding doubt as sin …. and villainizing non-believers.
It infected human culture by turning its doctrines into laws, its myths into morality, and its rituals into culture. What began as belief …. became identity, law, and unquestioned truth.
Concepts like “sin,” “blasphemy,” or “salvation” became moral cornerstones—not because they actually reflect moral principles, but because Christianity made them foundational.
Christianity reshaped society’s very definitions of things like virtue, guilt, purpose, and even love.
And once in place, it’s no longer about faith—it’s about loyalty, identity, and obedience.
Truth is but one ingredient to success. Having a good game plan, being aggressive, using violence and intimidation, and making up ways to terrorize human brains can have the same effect as being true. And that’s how Christianity, despite being untrue, became the most successful religion of all time.
(5289) John 21 written to explain Jesus’ failure to return
The last chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is something of an enigma as the ending of John 20 appears to be a satisfying ending to the book. The theory espoused below is that it was written and added to the gospel to explain away the disappointment that Jesus did not return within the lifetime of those who had directly been with him- a promise that Jesus is reported to have made according to the synoptic gospels, and likely a universal expectation of First Century Christians. The following was taken from:
It is often assumed, that John 21 is a later addition to the gospel. John 21 seems to deal with the fact, that Jesus hasn’t returned yet. It deals with the death of the disciple which shouldn’t have happened prior to Jesus returning and offers a rationalization.
I think this would have been a problem most pressing for Christians around 100 AD. Earlier Christians believed in the imminent second coming. When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem it seemed like they were right. But then the last contemporaries of Jesus died and it slowly dawned on them, that Jesus was not yet coming. I imagine however, that like any religion they quickly found ways to rationalize this. So by the 2nd century Christians don’t seem to be overly concerned with Jesus not returning. That would mean the most likely date for John 21 is in the period right after the death of Jesus’ last contemporaries. But if John 21 is a secondary edition that could put the rest of the gospel relatively earlier.
If this theory is correct, then John 21 could be considered the first attempt at Christian apologetics- trying to explain why the expectations of Jesus’ return were not met. Since then, many more apologetic lines of attack were needed over the centuries as expectation after expectation failed to materialize.
(5290) Strongest arguments for atheism
If a debate were to occur between a theist and an atheist the preponderance of the evidence would decisively support the atheist position. The ‘facts on the ground’ would overpower the faith arguments of the theist. The following discusses this point:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/1mzit88/the_strongest_arguments_for_atheism/
One of the biggest reasons many people do not believe in an all powerful and all good God is the problem of evil. If God is both omnipotent and perfectly good, it is hard to explain the massive amount of suffering in the world. Natural disasters, disease, and the suffering of innocent children raise serious questions about the morality of such a being. Some argue that God may have reasons beyond our understanding, but that makes the claim unfalsifiable and still leaves atheism as a reasonable position.
Another reason is the lack of empirical evidence. Even after centuries of religious practice and personal testimony, there is no testable or repeatable evidence for any deity. Miracles and revelations are anecdotal and cannot be independently verified which makes them unreliable as proof of a god.
Religious contradictions also make belief difficult. Thousands of religions make mutually exclusive claims about reality, morality, and the afterlife. If these claims contradict each other, at most one can be true, and it is possible that none are true. This raises doubts about the truth of any particular religious tradition.
Science has provided explanations for things that were once attributed to gods. The Big Bang explains the origins of the universe, evolution explains the diversity of life, and neuroscience explains consciousness and human behavior. These natural explanations show that the universe can be understood without invoking a deity.
There is also the problem of using God to fill gaps in knowledge.
Historically gods were used to explain lightning, disease, and celestial events. Scientific discoveries have replaced these explanations, which shows that invoking God often just fills gaps in understanding rather than providing evidence.
Morality can also exist without God. Human morality can be explained through empathy, social cooperation, evolutionary pressures, and a desire for well being. A divine source is not necessary for ethical behavior or social norms.
Divine hiddenness is another challenge. If God truly wants a relationship with humanity, it is unclear why his existence is so ambiguous. Billions of people live and die without encountering convincing evidence of a deity.
Finally, atheism can be considered the default position. People are born without belief and the burden of proof lies with those claiming God exists. Until evidence is provided it is rational to withhold belief.
Together these points show that belief in a traditional all powerful and all good deity is not necessary to explain reality. Naturalistic explanations are sufficient and in many cases more convincing.
Atheism as a default position is well justified. Evidence for anything supernatural in the universe is sorely lacking, and until it is presented, there is no reason to conclude that anything of that sort exists.
(5291) Base-level Christianity is child abuse
Christianity has actually convinced people that the underlying act of being a regular human being is so abhorrent to god that such a person deserves eternal punishment after death, UNLESS they bow down in a sycophantic manner to an unseen, unheard, absentee savior. The damage caused by this insanity is most deleterious to the mental health of children. The following testimony was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exchristian/comments/1n4ftn0/why_baselevel_christianity_is_child_abuse/
I’m a new father and have been seeing a therapist for a few years since my wife and I started trying for a child. Knew I had a lot of unpacked shit and wanted to get it out before it started rubbing off on our child.
Had a lot of low confidence issues throughout my life, just thought I wasn’t worth anything. Didn’t date at all until midway through college because I just felt “I get it. Why would anyone be into me?” Thought I deserved only bad things and anything good was a temporary blessing. But my parents weren’t abusive. They never hit me or told me I sucked or was worthless, at least not directly. So I just couldn’t ever figure out where all this came from.
When I became a father, it started to hit me. Growing up in (at least an evangelical/baptist) Christian setting, you are told from the get-go you are worthless. The only value you have is God’s love for you, and your value increases slightly when you’re baptized.
“We are all deserving of Hell,” my parents and my church would tell me regularly. It is only by the grace of God do we receive salvation and can enter Heaven. This is told to children – children who are still figuring out the basics of the world.
I would NEVER tell my daughter her only value stems from an intangible being we read about in a book, let alone tell her she deserves eternal punishment unless she does some arbitrary measures such as pledging her loyalty to an invisible “loving” parent and salute a guy who died 2000 years ago to give us a fighting chance of going to Heaven – all of this by the way set up by the “loving” God.
I am so glad I will raise her in a non-religious home and teach her that she has inherent value. I will show her love through my actions, and not words about some absentee father who both has all the power but will do nothing to stop genocides or cancer.
Just blows me away it took this long (almost 40 years) to realize it.
There is nothing wrong with being a regular human, full of issues and imperfections. Christianity has gotten away with demonizing people into believing that they are pieces of shit. Given this fact, we can be assured that Christianity has no relationship with decency or reality.
(5292) Too many problems
If Christianity is the true religion of an omnipotent deity, there would be no way possible to compile a list of problems anywhere near the size of what is presented here. The conclusion of an objective analysis is that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Christianity is untrue.
One major lesson to be learned about determining what to believe and what not to believe can be summed up in a few words- the things that are real can be observed, measured, or reliably demonstrated. To that end, we can confidently state that ghosts, goblins, poltergeists, Bigfoot, behemoths, the Loch Ness monster, mermaids, hobbits, leprechauns, elves, alien abductions, wizards, witches, werewolves, centaurs, cyclops, angels, demons, dragons, satyrs, nymphs, gnomes, banshees, ogres, leviathans, vampires, fairies, zombies, and unicorns are not real. And one more we can add to this list: Yahweh- the god of Christianity.