{"id":13249,"date":"2021-07-19T16:14:48","date_gmt":"2021-07-19T20:14:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=13249"},"modified":"2021-09-11T08:08:52","modified_gmt":"2021-09-11T12:08:52","slug":"3051-3100","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=13249","title":{"rendered":"3051-3100"},"content":{"rendered":"

(3051) The credulity test<\/strong><\/p>\n

Suppose your neighbor rings your doorbell and excitedly tells you an amazing story:<\/p>\n

\u201cJust a few moments ago, a young woman walked across my swimming pool!\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cYeah, she just entered my backyard and walked on the water!<\/p>\n

\u201cDid you get any video?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cNo, didn\u2019t have time to get my phone.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAre you sure she was walking ON the water\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cYes, the entire 40 foot length!\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIs she still around, can we locate her?\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201cNo, she left and when I looked around I could no longer see her.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cCan we see her footprints in the pool deck?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cNot sure, let\u2019s go look\u2026.Yes, here are some footprints leading out of the pool and they appear to be too small to be a man and too big to be a child.\u201d<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s assume you have known this neighbor for many years, and he always seemed sane and sensible. This is the first time he has told a story such as this. Do you believe what he said?<\/p>\n

Compare this to the gospel story of Jesus walking on the water:<\/p>\n

The story you have just heard was told by a live eyewitness, a person you have known and respected for years, telling of something he observed only minutes earlier, and with a degree of physical evidence.<\/p>\n

The story of Jesus walking on the water was written by an unknown author, a person who did not witness the event, which allegedly happened at least 40 years earlier with no physical evidence.<\/p>\n

Yet, if you are a <\/b>true<\/b> Christian, you will\u00a0likely disbelieve your neighbor but emphatically believe the gospel story.<\/b><\/p>\n

This credulity test is a telling sign that you are <\/a>brainwashed.<\/p>\n

(3052) Preaching a non-Christian gospel<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Bible definitively states that Jesus sent his disciples out among the villages to preach the gospel<\/b>. However, this happened before Jesus was crucified and resurrected, so wouldn\u2019t it be true that this \u2018gospel\u2019 must have been somewhat non-Christian in nature? Here is the scripture:<\/p>\n

Luke 9:1-6<\/p>\n

<\/a>Then Jesus called the Twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and power to cure diseases.\u00a0And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.\u00a0\u201cTake nothing for the journey,\u201d\u00a0He told them,\u00a0\u201cno staff, no bag, no bread, no money,\u00a0no second tunic.\u00a0Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that area.\u00a0If anyone does not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that town, as a testimony against them.\u201d<\/p>\n

So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel<\/b> and healing people everywhere.<\/p>\n

It seems strange that Jesus would send his disciples out as missionaries before the seminal act of sacrificing himself for the remission of sins- the central core of the Christian faith, and the only<\/u> way for people to get to heaven. So what gospel were they preaching? And wouldn\u2019t this (interim?) gospel have become obsolete a few weeks later when Jesus was crucified and resurrected? Did the disciples have to go back to these villages and essentially say, \u2018Just one more thing, and, by the way, it\u2019s the most important thing!\u2019<\/p>\n

Taken at face value, it would appear that Jesus was preaching to his disciples a gospel that he felt was complete and ready to be disseminated to the public- one that had nothing to do with his dying and rising. Thus, he was broadcasting a gospel that was inconsistent with present-day <\/a>Christianity.<\/p>\n

(3053) Jesus as the new Moses<\/strong><\/p>\n

[Note: a more detailed description of this issue is presented in #1244<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

There is a lot of evidence that the person who wrote the Gospel of Matthew was historicizing the theology that Jesus was the new Moses, and, in fact, was greater than Moses. In the following, it is revealed that the events of Jesus\u2019 life are portrayed as a mirror to those of Moses:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/tippling\/2021\/07\/22\/jesus-as-the-new-moses-and-theology-historicised\/<\/a><\/p>\n

The parallels are shown in this chart:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Matthew<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

The Pentateuch<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1-2<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Exodus 1:1 \u2013 2:10<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Infancy narrative<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3:13-17<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Exodus 14:10-31<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Crossing of water<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4:1-11<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Exodus 16:1 \u2013 17:7<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Wilderness temptation<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5 -7<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Exodus 19:1 \u2013 23:33<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mountain of lawgiving<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

11:25-30<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Exodus 33:1-23<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Reciprocal knowledge of God<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

17:1-9<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Exodus 34:29-35<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Transfiguration<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

28:16-20<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Deuteronomy 31:7-9<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Commissioning of successor<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Matthew\u2019s audience was the Jews, and his goal was to convince them that Jesus was the new Moses, but even greater. This was the most direct way to get Jews to convert to Christianity. His success rate among the Jews was limited, but what he wrote soon became sacred scripture for the Gentiles who were much more credulous and less steeped in knowledge of the Jewish faith. Had they been, they would have known that human sacrifice, eating of the flesh of a human (even symbolically), and having multiple gods (even if partitioned into a trinity) would have been anathema to <\/a>Jesus.<\/p>\n

(3054) Judas\u2019 betrayal was fictional<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the most recognized passion themes of the gospels is the\u00a0 betrayal of Jesus by one of his disciples- Judas. But as can be seen in the following, there are many reasons to doubt the historicity of this tale. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/tippling\/2021\/07\/01\/is-the-betrayal-of-jesus-by-judas-historical\/<\/a><\/p>\n

All four gospels mention Judas Iscariot, but since most scholars believe Mark\u2019s gospel was the first written, and subsequent gospels used Mark as a template for their gospels, this fact is hardly surprising, and does not add any credibility to the narrative.<\/p>\n

A lot of Mark\u2019s narratives are considered by many scholars to be dubious or fictitious and probably designed to illustrate some theological agenda. For instance, many believe that the Trial before the Sanhedrin, the Barabbas incident, and the \u201cEmpty Tomb\u201d were all inventions of Mark, carried over into later Gospels.<\/p>\n

One clue to Judas fictive origin comes from Paul\u2019s epistles where the famous passage in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 reads:-<\/p>\n

\u201cFor I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,\u00a04\u00a0and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,\u00a05\u00a0and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.\u00a06\u00a0Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c<\/a>]\u00a0at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d<\/a>]\u00a07\u00a0Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.\u00a08\u00a0Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Here, he specifically mentions \u201cthe Twelve\u201d, so he seems totally unaware that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus & then committed suicide. <\/em><\/p>\n

Additionally, in 1 Corinthians 11:23 Paul says:-<\/p>\n

\u201cFor I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was\u00a0<\/em>betrayed<\/strong>, took bread\u2026..\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Scholars have disputed the word \u201cbetrayed\u201d, as elsewhere it is translated as \u201chanded over\u201d. It seems some translators have retroactively inserted this meaning into Paul\u2019s epistles from their knowledge of the later gospels. \u201cHanded over\u201d could refer to the Chief Priests handing over Jesus to the Romans as they considered him a \u201ctrouble-maker\u201d threatening the\u00a0status quo<\/em>\u00a0of the understanding between the Jewish hierarchy and the Romans which allowed many of their traditions to continue under Roman rule.<\/p>\n

There are differences in the Gospels, as to Judas\u2019s motive for betrayal.<\/p>\n

Mark<\/strong>:- Judas went to the Chief Priests and offered to betray Jesus, and they promised him money, but no mention of how much and whether they paid him straight away (\u201cpromised\u201d seems to indicate he would get paid\u00a0after<\/strong>\u00a0the betrayal).<\/p>\n

Matthew<\/strong>:- Judas went to the Chief Priests and asks \u201cwhat will you give me if I betray him to you\u201d, and they paid him \u201c30 pieces of silver\u201d\u00a0before<\/strong>\u00a0his betrayal.<\/p>\n

Luke<\/strong>:- \u201cSatan\u201d apparently entered Judas and he went to the Chief Priests to betray Jesus and they \u201cagreed\u201d to give him money, but no mention of how much and when it was to be paid.<\/p>\n

John<\/strong>:- Again, \u201cSatan\u201d apparently enter Judas, and he left the \u201cLast Supper\u201d to betray Jesus but no mention of how this was done.<\/p>\n

There are two versions of what happened to the \u201c30 pieces of silver\u201d:-<\/p>\n

According to\u00a0Matthew<\/strong>\u00a027:3-8 Judas Iscariot is filled with remorse, and returns the money by throwing it into the temple, and then leaves to hang himself. The Chief Priests use the \u201cblood money\u201d to purchase land, and call it \u201cThe Field of Blood\u201d.<\/p>\n

However, in\u00a0Acts<\/strong>\u00a01:17-20 Judas uses the money, himself, to buy the land, and then apparently \u201cfalling headlong,[a<\/a>]\u00a0he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0The field is later called \u201cThe Field of Blood\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

So who, exactly, bought the land?<\/p>\n

Some scholars have suggested that Judas is supposed to personify \u201cthe Jews\u201d as the evil opposition to Jesus since Judas is the Greek version of \u201cJudah\u201d which could relate to the \u201cKingdom of Judah\u201d, part of Jewish Palestine.<\/p>\n

It is important to consider the context of when the Gospels were written.<\/p>\n

Mark<\/strong>\u00a0(considered to be the first gospel) is normally dated to 70 CE, which was after the devasting Jewish war of 66 \u2013 70 CE when the Roman army overran the city of Jerusalem, destroying the Temple, and consigning the population to exile or slavery.<\/p>\n

Some early Christians interpreted this defeat as \u201cThe Wrath of God\u201d, and punishment for the Jews for not accepting Jesus as the \u201ctrue\u201d Messiah.\u00a0 Thus, the blame for Jesus\u2019s death was placed directly on the Jews, and this attitude pervades the Gospels.<\/p>\n

With this in mind, it seems to me that, the whole Judas Iscariot narrative is an invention of the Gospel writers needing a \u201cscapegoat\u201d for the capture & execution of Jesus.<\/p>\n

In reality, there were probably twelve disciples who were loyal to Jesus, and Jesus was just arrested for being a \u201ctrouble-maker\u201d and summarily executed. If this was not the case, it looks as if Jesus exhibited very poor judgement when he picked his Disciples (not a good look for \u201cThe Son of God\u201d).<\/p>\n

Writing fiction (intended to be taken as fact) is perilous because, in that you\u2019re not recounting what actually happened, it is likely that you will end up writing things that lack elements of realism. In this instance, the author of Mark made up the story of the betrayal probably to promote the theme of Jewish guilt in the death of Jesus- but at the cost of staining credulity and spawning as collateral damage doubt on everything else he <\/a>wrote.<\/p>\n

(3055) Christians don\u2019t believe in NT demonics<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christians, many of whom hang on every word of the New Testament, show they don\u2019t really believe it by the way they handle their children\u2019s psychological problems. They use psychiatrists and medications instead of exorcists. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/opqnax\/christians_who_take_mentally_handicapped_children\/<\/a><\/p>\n

At the height of my belief, I was always very uncomfortable with the frequency and symptoms of so called “demon possessed” people in the New Testament.<\/p>\n

Frequency<\/strong><\/p>\n

It seemed like a given that any village would have a handful of known demoniacs. They were like local characters back then. They ranged from\u00a0strong cave men breaking free from chains<\/a>\u00a0to kids with\u00a0speech issues<\/a>. When was the last time in these particularly “wicked times” you’ve seen\u00a0any<\/strong>\u00a0“demon possessed” person whose issues couldn’t be diagnosed and treated by modern medicine? Curiously, the NT demoniacs who were just a part of everyday life don’t seem to exist any more.<\/p>\n

Symptoms<\/strong><\/p>\n

Show me which Biblical symptom of “demon possession” could not be put down to an episode of treatable psychosis or mental illness. In other words, Christians: Which of the symptoms of the Biblical demoniacs, if present in your children, would cause you to go to an exorcist\/pastor instead of a doctor? If none or very few, then I would argue you don’t really believe the people in the NT were demon possessed.<\/p>\n

Hospitals see many similar “demoniac” cases daily. Not one of them is treated with exorcism, and not even Christians – except the most nutty and fringe Christians – would dare to go down that route today.<\/p>\n

If someone told you that they believed in the healing power of brown rice, but when you went to their house you discovered that they had no brown rice, and hadn\u2019t eaten it for over a year, what would you think? A person\u2019s actions are more important than their words. The way that Christian parents handle their children\u2019s behavior problems lets us know that they don\u2019t really believe in the demon stories of the New <\/a>Testament.<\/p>\n

(3056) John and Mark in one day<\/strong><\/p>\n

Most Christians deliberately or inadvertently separate their reading of the gospels into isolated silos- for instance reading one of them for a week and then a few weeks later reading another. This separation allows them to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would occur if they read them consecutively. The most pregnant problem arises when one reads the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John on the same day. It would dawn on all but the mentally impaired that they are reading about two different Jesus\u2019s The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2021\/07\/theology-inflation-and-disappearance-of.html#more<\/a><\/p>\n

Now, finally, what do we do with the gospel of John?<\/p>\n

Its author took theology inflation to a whole new level. I have often suggested that Christians read Mark\u2019s gospel in one sitting, straight through,\u00a0carefully; this takes about as much time as watching a movie. Then take a break, have a big glass of wine. Then read John\u2019s gospel straight through. It\u2019s a tougher go: you\u2019ll need the wine. It\u2019s especially troubling that Mark and John created two\u00a0different\u00a0Jesuses.<\/p>\n

In Mark, Jesus comes out of nowhere to be baptized for the remission of sins. John would have none of that. Jesus doesn\u2019t set foot in the water. Why would this be necessary, since John\u2019s Jesus had been present at creation?\u2014it was through him that everything was made.<\/p>\n

In Mark\u2019s gospel, Jesus was in agony praying in Gethsemane,<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u201c\u2026he threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him\u2026.Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0(Mark 14:35-36)<\/p>\n

John deleted that too.<\/p>\n

If you\u2019ve not been brought up in the Christian faith, the bragging of Jesus in John is jarring:\u00a0\u00a0\u201cNo one comes to the father but by me,\u201d \u2026 \u201cthe father and I are one,\u201d \u201c\u2026I am the resurrection and the life.\u201d And here perhaps is a high point in John\u2019s theology inflation:<\/p>\n

\u201cIndeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes.\u00a0\u00a0The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son.\u201d (John 6:21-22)<\/p>\n

Since the promise of eternal life is pushed relentlessly in this gospel, this Jesus has remained popular.<\/p>\n

But John didn\u2019t abandon a wrathful God, and non-belief is a crime. John 3:16, \u201cGod so loved the world\u201d is a favorite, cherished verse, but look at John 3:18, \u201cThose who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already\u2026\u201d\u00a0\u00a0and John 3:36, \u201cWhoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure God\u2019s wrath.\u201d This is theology inflation typical of cult fanaticism: our way is the only way.<\/p>\n

These texts result in an unrealistic view of the world. At one point John\u2019s Jesus proclaims, \u201cBut take courage; I have conquered the world!\u201d (16:33). Now when I read this line I think of Leonardo DiCaprio on the bow of the Titanic, yelling, \u201cI\u2019m the king of the world.\u201d It is delusional theology inflation to present Jesus of Nazareth saying that he has conquered the world. As human history has unfolded, there is no evidence of that at all.<\/p>\n

Let me mention also that John deleted the famous words of the Eucharist from his version of the Last Supper. Instead, in his chapter 6, following the feeding of the 5,000, we find these ghoulish words:<\/p>\n

\u201cVery truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.\u00a0Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;\u00a0for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.\u00a0Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.\u00a0\u00a0Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.\u201d (John 6:53-57)<\/p>\n

Again, there\u2019s too much hint of Halloween here. What better example of ancient cult superstition? This is theology inflation that embraces magical thinking. Eat this, drink that, and you\u2019ll live forever. These are magic potions.<\/p>\n

This is a critical, unrecoverable fault with Christianity that passes acknowledgment only by ignoring it. The double-daily-gospel read is a good challenge for any Christian to explain how these gospels were both selected for inclusion in the Bible. What were they thinking? We live in a world with one reality- not <\/a>two.<\/p>\n

(3057) COVID proof test<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the ways to test the strength of prayer and to measure God\u2019s healing powers is to see how well some of \u201cHis\u201d representatives on earth fared in the face of the Great Pandemic of 2019-2021. Many religious leaders dismissed COVID-19 as either a hoax or as nothing for a god-fearing person to be concerned with, and have further discouraged the use of the remarkably effective vaccines. Many of their followers have died unnecessarily as a result. But even more poignant, many of these clergy have died themselves, indicating presumptuously that their prayers for personal protection were not answered. The following is a partial list of those who died from COVID-19.<\/p>\n

Reginald Foster<\/p>\n

Rev.Dr. Ron Hampton<\/p>\n

Patriarch Irinej<\/p>\n

Sister Ellen Lorenz (one of nine nuns to die in the same outbreak)<\/p>\n

Rev. Jorge Ortiz-Garay<\/p>\n

Rabbi Yaakov Perlow<\/p>\n

Televangelist Frederick K.C. Price<\/p>\n

Pentecostal Pastor Wade McArthur Danner<\/p>\n

Evangelical pastor Bishop Gerald Glenn (Stated He would hold service “Until I’m in Jail or in the hospital”, I guess he got his wish)<\/p>\n

Bishop James Scott<\/p>\n

Assistant Presiding Bishop Phillip A. Brooks<\/p>\n

Bishop Timothy Scott<\/p>\n

Bishop Robert E. Smith Sr.<\/p>\n

Bishop Robert L. Harris<\/p>\n

Brother Fred Wolfe<\/p>\n

Pastor Bob Bryant Wade Morris, a popular Southern Baptist youth speaker<\/p>\n

Pastor Landon Spradlin (Called media coverage of COVID “Mass Hysteria”)<\/p>\n

Pastor Fred Thomas<\/p>\n

Pastor Michael \u201cGrizzy\u201d Griswold<\/p>\n

Evangelical pastor Irvin Baxter (He said COVID was caused by premarital sex)<\/p>\n

Pastor Jeff Fuson<\/p>\n

Reverend Vickey Gibbs<\/p>\n

Pastor Joseph Atiles<\/p>\n

Bishop Harry Jackson (unknown if COVID related, though he was at white house super-spreader event 2 weeks prior to his death)<\/p>\n

A perfect chance for God to demonstrate his protective powers has gone to waste. It would seem that an omnipotent deity would as a first priority protect his dedicated representatives, the very people that he relies upon to bring people to the Christian faith. What a missed <\/a>opportunity!<\/p>\n

(3058) Binding of Isaac<\/strong><\/p>\n

The story in Genesis 22 where God commands Abraham to kill his son Isaac as a test of faith reveals an uncomfortable truth about the foundation of the Christian faith- its god is either immoral, or the Bible is inaccurate, or the killing of a child is moral if so commanded by God. In other words, there is no wiggle room for apologists to squeeze out of this predicament. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/osp6zq\/the_binding_of_isaac_implies_that_killing\/<\/a><\/p>\n

You hear a voice and witness a miracle accompanying a message. The message: “Kill your child. I am the Lord your God.”<\/p>\n

What do you do?<\/p>\n

Personally, I would not do it. I know that killing children is wrong. I believe that anything that would create a miracle and give me such a message would be evil.<\/p>\n

However, the Bible says differently. Read Genesis 22. God directly tells Abraham to kill his son. When Abraham attempts to do so, God says,<\/p>\n

Because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.<\/p>\n

(Genesis 22:16-17)<\/p>\n

God declares Abraham’s actions as good, not evil. What proof did Abraham have that this was God speaking, not a devil? Abraham has seen miracles at this point. He has heard the voice of God. But he has no proof that this is God speaking.<\/p>\n

I do not see a categorical distinction between Abraham’s actions and what I described above.<\/p>\n

If you believe it is wrong to kill your children by the command of a mystical voice and a miracle, then do you disagree with the Bible that Abraham was “faithful” by not withholding his son from God?<\/p>\n

How much proof would you need before being convinced that God was the one telling you?<\/p>\n

I only see three options:<\/p>\n

1) Accept that God is immoral<\/p>\n

2) Reject the Bible as a trustworthy source of information about God<\/p>\n

3) Accept that killing an innocent child is moral if you hear a voice and see a miracle telling you to do it.<\/p>\n

Of course, this is a fictional story. But if Christianity is true, God must have approved of it being included in his holy book. Therefore, the trilemma holds and Christians, to be honest with themselves, must pick one of the three options above. If not, a fourth choice is waiting: God is <\/a>imaginary.<\/p>\n

(3059) Where are the gods?<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the mysteries of theism is not only what gods are like but also where they are located. It seems that the conventional answer to this question has been changing over time. The following is taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/atheism\/comments\/oz3xgn\/where_are_the_gods\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Ask your religious friends that simple question: where is your god located? You will hear amazingly diverse answers.<\/p>\n

\u201cHeaven, of course.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cHe lives inside me.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cHe\u2019s all around us. He\u2019s everywhere.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cDon\u2019t be stupid.\u201d<\/p>\n

But where are gods really? In the beginning, gods were everywhere. They lived in trees and rivers and animals. Then, over time, we chopped down the trees and swam in the rivers and realized there were no gods there, and gods had to move.<\/p>\n

So gods came to inhabit the tops of tall mountains, like Mount Olympus. Then, over time, we climbed the mountains and realized there were no gods there. Gods had to move again.<\/p>\n

So for a long time gods lived in the sky. They were in heaven, just above what we could see from here on earth. But then we created telescopes and satellites and rockets, and now we know there are no gods in the sky either. They\u2019ve had to move again.<\/p>\n

These days it sounds gods live in some kind of ethereal world, not in the same way that you and I do. Gods have gotten metaphysical. They have had quite a trip.<\/p>\n

It should seem obvious that for a being to see, hear, speak, think, or store memories, it must have a material structure, like a brain or a computer chip. This means that it has to have a definite location. Saying God is everywhere is a cop-out. And seeing that there is no god anywhere near our planet rules out the concept of omniscience, as the limits of space-time preclude the ability see everything happening in real time. This suggests that either the god of Christianity is impossible or else our knowledge of science has a major <\/a>miscalculation.<\/p>\n

(3060) Anti-semitism in Acts<\/strong><\/p>\n

It should be assumed that if Christianity is true, Yahweh would ensure that his holy textbook would not toss disparaging aspersions upon his \u2018chosen people\u2019 the Jews. Notoriously, this problem contaminates the Gospel of John, but it also appears in Acts, as explained below:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2021\/08\/a-new-testament-profile-in-fanaticism.html#more<\/a><\/p>\n

But devout readers should be on the alert for texts that have caused considerable harm. Here are two verses from Acts 20 that we wish weren\u2019t there:<\/p>\n

\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u201cHe was about to set sail for Syria when a plot was made against him by the Jews, and so he decided to return through Macedonia.\u201d (v. 3)<\/p>\n

\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Paul\u2019s own words,\u00a0\u201c\u2026I set foot in Asia, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears, enduring the trials that came to me through the plots of the Jews.\u201d\u00a0(v. 19)<\/p>\n

The early Jesus movement was a breakaway Jewish sect, so \u201cthe Jews\u201d became the enemy, especially in John\u2019s gospel, known for its horrid fueling of anti-Semitism. These two verses in Acts 20 are part of that pattern. This is a major flaw in any attempt to position the Bible as \u201cinspired word of God.\u201d Couldn\u2019t God have foreseen how much damage would result from such texts?<\/p>\n

How could God allow the Bible to contain verses such as these that have caused generations of suffering among the Jewish people, supposedly the very ones he specifically ‘chose’ among all of the people inhabiting the earth? A god should have foreseen this problem and prevented it from happening…that is, a god that actually exists. But if, as apologist like to suggest, Yahweh used this as punishment for the Jews\u2019 failure to follow Jesus, culminating in the Holocaust, can he still be considered <\/a>omnibenevolent?<\/p>\n

(3061) Matthew cheats to protect his numerology<\/strong><\/p>\n

For unknown reasons, the author of the Gospel of Matthew was obsessed with the number 14, believing it held some special significance. He wanted to show that exactly 14 generations had passed between the most significant events in biblical history. But to maintain this illusion, it is apparent that he purposefully omitted three generations during one of those periods to artificially support his thesis. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2021\/08\/john-beversluis-gospel-according-to.html#more<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0According to Matthew (v. 8), Joram begat Ozias (also known as Uzziah). But, according to 1 Chronicles 3:11-12, 2 Chronicles 26:1, and 2 Kings 14:21, three kings reigned between Joram and Ozias\u2014Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah\u2014and Ozias did not become king until Amaziah had died. How is the omission of these three intervening kings to be explained? Some have argued that the similarity between Ozias (or Uzziah) and Amaziah caused Matthew inadvertently to confuse one for the other.\u00a0 That cannot be ruled out a priori. But another much more likely explanation clamors for our attention.<\/p>\n

Given Matthew\u2019s fascination with the number fourteen, the threefold omission of these kings would have enabled him to maintain fourteen generations between David and the Babylonian exile. That, of course, means that the omission was intentional\u2014a fact which casts some doubt on the integrity of the author of Matthew. But until a better explanation comes along, this seems to be the least problematic interpretation of the texts.<\/p>\n

This seemingly insignificant deception nevertheless carries a taint that should be admitted by even the most ardent apologist. It is difficult to trust anything someone has written given that one portion of it reflects strong evidence of deliberate <\/a>deceit.<\/p>\n

(3062) Four hurdles to martyrdom<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is a substantial subset of Christians who have serious doubts about the veracity of Christianity, but hang on one last thread of argument- that Jesus\u2019 disciples would not have died heroic deaths for something that wasn\u2019t true. This reasoning has some merit in general, but to get there, you must straddle four hurdles, as follows:<\/p>\n

1) Was Jesus a real person, or perhaps a legendary figure like Hercules, who was more a product of imagination or visions than being flesh and blood? Although this remains a minority view of scholars, it carries a substantial amount of weight given the utter lack of historical accounts that were contemporary to his alleged lifetime.<\/p>\n

2) If Jesus was real, and for the sake of argument, we will concede that he had a band of disciples, were these men actually killed by Roman authorities, or perhaps were stories of this genre simply made up by Christians of later times as a way to promote the faith?<\/p>\n

3) If the disciples were killed by the Romans, was this sentence carried out strictly because of their belief in Jesus, or was it more related to the fact that their preaching was seen as a threat to Roman rule? In other words, were they influencing Roman citizens to place faith in Jesus above allegiance to the emperor. This would imply that their belief in Jesus had nothing to do, directly at least, with their deaths.<\/p>\n

4) If the disciples were indeed killed because of their refusal to denounce their belief in Jesus, then, to be honest, they would have been no different that scores of followers of other religions that have been martyred over the long course of history. Who is to say that non-Christian martyrs were somehow any more delusional that Jesus\u2019s disciples?<\/p>\n

It is easy to see that failure to scale any one of these hurdles would eliminate this line of apologetics, which is often the last lifeline that maintains belief for many people. It is highly likely that at least one of these four represents a dead-end for the martyrdom defense of <\/a>Christianity.<\/p>\n

(3063) Use of false beliefs to establish loyalty<\/strong><\/p>\n

Research has shown that humans, by way of their evolutionary past, use the act of rallying around false narratives as a way to create cohesion and loyalty within their group. It is likely that Christianity followed this model by developing outlandish beliefs that only those within the group could hold, thereby creating an advantageous us-verses-them paradigm. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.salon.com\/2021\/08\/08\/a-terrifying-new-theory-fake-news-and-conspiracy-theories-as-an-evolutionary-strategy\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Humans are constantly focused on signals of loyalty: “Are they loyal members of the group?” and “How can I signal that I’m a loyal member?” There are al sorts of ways in which we do that. We take on particular clothes, we have gang tattoos\u00a0and all sorts of physical ways of expressing loyalty with the group.<\/p>\n

But because we humans are exceptionally complex, another way to signal our loyalty is through\u00a0the beliefs that we hold. We can signal loyalty to a group by having a certain set of beliefs, and then the question is, “Well, what is the type of belief through which we can signal that we belong?” First of all, it should be a belief that other people are not likely to have, because if everyone has this belief, then it’s not a very good signal of group loyalty. It needs to be something that other people in other groups do not have. The basic logic at work here is that anyone can believe the truth, but only loyal members of the group can believe something that is blatantly false.<\/p>\n

There is a selection pressure to develop beliefs or develop a psychology that\u00a0scans\u00a0for beliefs that are so bizarre and extraordinary that no one would come up with them by themselves. This would signal, “Well, I belong to this group. I know what this group is about. I have been with this group for a long time,” because you would not be able to hold this belief\u00a0without that prehistory.<\/p>\n

I believe we can see this in a lot of the conspiracy theories that are going around, like the QAnon conspiracy theory. I think we can see it in religious beliefs too, because\u00a0a lot of religious beliefs are really bizarre when you look at them. One example that we give in the text is the notion of the divine Trinity in Christianity, which has this notion that God is both one and three at the same time. You would never come up with this notion on your own.\u00a0You would only come up with that if you were actually socialized into a Christian religious group. So that’s a very good signal:\u00a0“Well, that’s a proper Christian.”<\/p>\n

Bizarre stories abound in the Bible with concepts such as talking snakes, stationary suns, a virgin birth, water becoming wine, and dead people coming back to life. These preposterous tales helped to establish a Christian community that was separated from the remainder of society and thus could present itself to prospective congregants as being something special. What this unfortunately means is that successful religions tend to be based on false information while those that wither away are the ones that approach reality <\/a>objectively.<\/p>\n

(3064) Plato puts words in Socrates mouth<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is an analogue to the gospel authors \u2018quoting\u2019 Jesus. It was after Socrates death that Plato penned some of Socrates quotes, but in retrospect, it can be assured that many of these quotes were fictional because they do not comport to the positions of Socrates based on more reliable sources. This effort to put words in someone\u2019s mouth, especially posthumously and for self-service, is what happened in the gospel accounts. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/atheism\/comments\/ooeru5\/socrates_and_jesus\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Just watched a fascinating lecture on Plato\u2019s \u201cRepublic\u201d. Plato presents some characters posing questions and presenting theories to his teacher Socrates, the character would present his position or conclusion and then Socrates would counter the idea or argument.<\/p>\n

The thing that struck me the most was that fact the lecturer made it very clear that some of the counter arguments posited by Socrates were in fact the position held by Plato, that in fact Plato was putting words on Socrates lips, in some cases Socrates would not have agreed with some of the statements Plato was saying Socrates would have made or supported. The \u201cRepublic\u201d was published after the suicide of Socrates who was not in a position to correct or admonish Plato.<\/p>\n

This, I think, is where we are with the gospels. NT Scholars mostly agree that the earliest of the gospels, Mark, was written around the year seventy CE, at least forty years after the crucifixion of Jesus, and the others following much later. We cannot possibly be sure of any of the things that Jesus was reported to have said.<\/p>\n

All four gospels are \u201cputting words on Jesus\u2019s lips\u201d to reinforce and support the theological message of the individual gospel writers. Historically then they are unreliable hogwash.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s already highly dubious to quote a person who lived 40+ years ago, but beyond that, even in the synoptics, there is evidence that each author made Jesus say things that fit their individual agenda. This highlights one of the biggest failures of Christianity- Jesus did not write anything himself. Being God, this should have been a no-brainer, to leave us with a highly verifiable book written by the man <\/a>himself.<\/p>\n

(3065) Absence of evidence is evident of absence<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christians have been trained to say the absence of evidence of god does not constitute evidence of his absence. But they would be the first to admit that the absence of evidence for unicorns strongly suggests that they don\u2019t exist. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/p38815\/absence_of_evidence_is_a_strong_reason_not_to\/<\/a><\/p>\n

This argument applies to a god with these traits:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. This God desires all humans to know it exists<\/li>\n
  2. This God has omni traits<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    If the god you believe in lacks one or both traits listed, this argument doesn\u2019t apply.<\/p>\n

    The argument from absence of evidence is simple.<\/p>\n

    P1: If a god with listed traits 1 and 2 exists, then there would be sufficient evidence for everyone to believe this god exists.<\/p>\n

    P2:\u00a0It is not the case that there is sufficient evidence for everyone to believe this god exists.<\/p>\n

    C: Such a god with those traits does not exist.<\/p>\n

    I\u2019ll mostly focus on objections to this argument, since the argument itself is simple enough.<\/p>\n

    If god gave too much evidence, it would violate free will, and people having free will is important to god<\/em><\/p>\n

    This argument is basically that too much evidence, such as overt miracles, god talking directly to you, etc, violates your free will and forces you against your will to believe god exists. For this god, his desire to be known conflicts with his desire for free will to exist, and the desire for free will wins out.<\/p>\n

    Firstly, I would argue that sincere belief is never a free choice. Belief simply occurs. The easiest demonstration is a thought experiment where a person is asked to hold a specific sincere belief they normally wouldn\u2019t. For example, someone might be asked to choose to believe that the world will end if they do not jump off the top of a skyscraper, and that they will not be harmed by doing so. Obviously nobody of sound mind is then going to jump to their death, which means they could not give themselves the sincere belief. A more mild example is asking a theist to set a five minute timer and choose for those five minutes to sincerely believe theism is false, or to have a straight person choose to sincerely believe their own gender is sexy and their opposite gender is gross and undesirable. It cannot be done. Given this, free will wouldn\u2019t be violated by god making people believe in him since belief is never a free choice anyways.<\/p>\n

    Secondly, god could do A LOT more without doing so much as to make it impossible for anyone to think god doesn\u2019t exist. Imagine someone with a missing limb prays to a god and then had their limb instantly regrow. Suppose it\u2019s proven to not be a hoax. Guess what: still doesn\u2019t conclusively prove a god. Imagine a man walks around claiming to be god. This person consistently performs feats that seemingly violate the laws of physics. Guess what: still doesn\u2019t conclusively prove a god. Alternate explanations are ALWAYS possible, so the argument that you are forced to believe at some evidence threshold where you aren\u2019t forced below that threshold is silly.<\/p>\n

    Note: this works equally well against \u201cgod wants you to have faith\u201d arguments.<\/p>\n

    God isn\u2019t obligated to follow your commands and provide the evidence you demand<\/em><\/p>\n

    This argument is basically that god could provide any evidence he wanted, but he doesn\u2019t have to and it\u2019s us humans being selfish dicks by demanding he give more evidence.<\/p>\n

    This falls flat because such a god has omni traits. He doesn\u2019t have to put in more effort to give more evidence. It\u2019s not a hassle for him It\u2019s not annoying. It means nothing to him on his end. It\u2019s a very human concept to be offended when people ask you to do more when you think you\u2019ve already done more than enough. This concept does not apply to an Omni god though, since doing more isn\u2019t even doing more. From god\u2019s perspective, there is no difference other than that doing more gets more believers, which god wants. It\u2019s like if people ask to borrow money from you. You like giving away money and helping. If you have limited funds, then you will not just give your money to everyone, and the more you give, the less you\u2019ll want to or be able to keep giving even though you like giving and like helping. But imagine you have infinite funds, and somehow this doesn\u2019t cause inflation. Why wouldn\u2019t you just keep giving away money? That\u2019s god\u2019s situation.<\/p>\n

    God did give enough evidence to convince everyone. You\u2019re just stubborn or bad or whatnot<\/em><\/p>\n

    This argument is basically that there is enough evidence, but some people are just choosing not to accept it as enough, and god giving more wouldn\u2019t change that. God knows this and so doesn\u2019t even bother.<\/p>\n

    On the surface this is strong, but it fails because it\u2019s impossible to prove and there is good evidence that it\u2019s not true.<\/p>\n

    For example, on one side we have me saying I would believe in god if I had more evidence. On the other side, we have people saying I would not. Who is the best expert on what I find convincing to myself? That\u2019s right: me. Since god has not provided more evidence, and specifically had not provided specific evidence I might claim would convince me, theists have no proof that this extra evidence wouldn\u2019t convince me. To claim to have proof is to claim the ability to see into the future. Thus, this argument does not have enough evidence to be believed true.<\/p>\n

    I think I\u2019ve addressed the major objections to the absence of evidence argument.<\/p>\n

    The endpoint of this logical argument is that if God has unlimited traits then he does not want everyone to believe in him. Or if he wants everyone to believe in him, then he is not unlimited. Given these devastating implications, some apologists will attempt to \u2018thread the needle\u2019 by claiming that God HAS given everyone sufficient evidence but many are too stubborn to admit it. This is a failed argument on all counts as very few atheists or members of other religions lack a sincere desire for truth. It is clear that for almost all of them the evidence for Christianity is insufficient. To be honest, a Christian should choose to support one the two sentences that start this <\/a>paragraph.<\/p>\n

    (3066) Another evolution of paganism<\/strong><\/p>\n

    A strong case can be made that Christianity is just another evolution of paganism. What made it unique is that if was of Jewish origins and therefore took advantage of a bedrock of ancient scriptures, giving it perhaps a higher sense of respectability. But, overall, it was just another pagan religion. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

    https:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2021\/08\/christian-truth-in-shreds-epic-takedown.html#more<\/a><\/p>\n

    Carrier hammers home the point that Christian theology emerged from this milieu:<\/p>\n

    \u201cThe Christians were not selling something new. They were actually getting in on an already popular game. Indeed, the pre-Christian historian Theopompous wrote that \u2018according to the [Zoroastrian] Magi, men will be resurrected and become immortal\u2019 in the apocalypse. The notion of resurrection itself, especially of the whole world at a designated end-times,\u00a0was itself pagan. It only entered Judaism in the centuries before Christianity arose. By then, Christians might not have even known the idea had originally been pagan; though the Zoroastrian teaching remained widely known across the Empire\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

    \u201cIn these worldviews at the time, it was essentially being taught that\u00a0we too\u00a0would rise from the dead to become gods. Christianity was not unusual in suggesting the same. Even its use of a model example in its savior figure, was likewise emulating a popular practice of constructing dying-and-rising savior gods, in whose triumph over death we too can share, through baptism and communion.\u201d<\/p>\n

    \u201cResurrections were everywhere. The type of resurrection could vary (it could be an eternal resurrection in a supernatural body, like Romulus, or back to a merely mortal life again, like Aristeas), but that\u2019s simply a matter of esoteric theological tweaking of a more generic yet ubiquitous concept: that men and gods could be, and often were, raised from the dead.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Esoteric theological tweaking.\u00a0Theologians of all brands have specialized in this\u2014trying to keep their products marketable\u2014even as the scientific revolution undermined mindless speculations about the gods. As humans have come to understand how the world works\u2014and even in modern times as theology has failed to identify credible epistemologies\u2014apologists seem more determined than ever to salvage the Ancient Jesus Mystery Cult (but\u2026why not stick up for all the others that Carrier describes?). Robert Conner has called them out:<\/p>\n

    \u201cThe Evangelical Resurrection Industrial Complex (ERIC) has churned out scores of scholarly tomes, hundreds of erudite disquisitions in professional journals, dissertations and commentaries, as well as debates and conferences beyond numbering, and the tsunami of dishonest verbiage shows no sign of receding.\u201d (On this blog, 6 September 2017.)<\/p>\n

    In a companion article about the virgin birth, published in September 2016, (Virgin Birth: It\u2019s Pagan, Guys. Get Over It<\/a>), Carrier said this\u2014and it applies to both of these Christian doctrines about the beginning and end of Jesus\u2019 life:<\/p>\n

    \u201cChristians just need to get over this, and accept that their religion is just another evolution of paganism, one more splinter sect of competitive superstitions and mythologies. Its ideas have been cobbled together from the dismembered parts of other religions that preceded it.\u201d<\/p>\n

    This Carrier essay takes aim at just one aspect of the resurrection fable, but so much else has been written about it:<\/p>\n

    \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0John Loftus\u2019 essay,\u00a0The Resurrection of Jesus Never Took Place,\u00a0in his anthology,\u00a0The Case Against Miracles<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Robert Price\u2019s essay,\u00a0Explaining the Resurrection without Recourse to Miracle, in the Loftus anthology,\u00a0The End of Christianity<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0And recently published,\u00a0The Resurrection: A Critical Examination of the Easter Story<\/a>, by Jonathan MS Pearce. Richard Carrier\u2019s evaluation:\u00a0\u201cThis book is the definitive starting point for anyone intent on questioning or defending the resurrection of Jesus. Introductory and aimed at a broad audience, but thoroughly researched, all the key works are here cited and arguments addressed, and with sound reasoning. If this book cannot be answered, belief in the resurrection cannot be defended.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Defenders of the Jesus Resurrection Event are in the same category as flat earth advocates and anti-vaxxers: we know how wrong they are, but as Jonathan MS Pearce has noted in his new book, \u201capologetics is an inexhaustible well of post hoc rationalizations.\u201d The errors of all these obsessively held beliefs have been demonstrated massively. For the resurrection especially, there has been one epic takedown after another.<\/p>\n

    Unfortunately for Christian defenders the veil of history has been lifted and the pagan architecture of the faith in inarguable. So, to keep members in the pews, they must do their best to keep them <\/a>ignorant.<\/p>\n

    (3067) God is a moral relativist<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Attempts to justify genocide in the Bible eventually end up in a dead end, as it can be revealed that God prescribes genocide for the same acts, in other situations, that he approves. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.talkreason.org\/articles\/Genocide.cfm#ethics<\/a><\/p>\n

    Another approach to defending biblical genocide centers on the charge that the Canaanites deserved it because they were sinful. Glenn Miller provides such a rationale in a lengthy blog post titled:\u00a0How could a God of Love order the massacre\/annihilation of the Canaanites?\u00a0Specifically, Miller says that the Canaanites deserved the killing of their women and children because they engaged in these activities:<\/p>\n