{"id":19989,"date":"2023-06-05T07:27:57","date_gmt":"2023-06-05T11:27:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=19989"},"modified":"2023-07-02T07:29:03","modified_gmt":"2023-07-02T11:29:03","slug":"4401-4450","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=19989","title":{"rendered":"4401-4450"},"content":{"rendered":"

(4401) The harms of religion<\/strong><\/p>\n

If there really was a god, it can be conjectured that it would intervene with humans only<\/u> if such intervention would result in a net positive effect. But this is not the case with any of the religions that have existed. They have all produced more harm than good. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/atheism\/comments\/13zvzd0\/long_time_christian_searching_for_answers\/<\/a><\/p>\n

As someone who values scientific inquiry and evidence-based thinking, I find religious claims often contradict or undermine our current understanding of the natural world. I believe that relying on religious explanations can hinder scientific progress and impede our ability to seek truth through empirical means.<\/p>\n

The existence of widespread suffering and evil in the world raises significant doubts for me about the existence of a loving and all-powerful God. It’s challenging to reconcile the idea of a benevolent deity with the immense pain and injustice that we observe.<\/p>\n

Looking at the history of religions, I see countless instances where beliefs have been used to justify discrimination, violence, and oppression. I find it troubling that religious dogmas have often been employed to divide people, incite conflicts, and suppress individual freedoms.<\/p>\n

Organized religion and its institutions, in my view, often exert control and influence over people’s lives, sometimes in negative ways. Cases of abuse by religious authorities, indoctrination of vulnerable individuals, and the perpetuation of discriminatory practices are disheartening and further strengthen my opposition to religious institutions.<\/p>\n

I really think that the main reason is that I firmly believe in the importance of rational thinking and critical examination. Religious belief, based on faith without evidence or logical reasoning, can discourage individuals from questioning and critically evaluating their beliefs. This can hinder personal growth, hinder societal progress, and lead to harmful consequences.<\/p>\n

I have concerns about religious \u201cmorality,\u201d which can be subjective, outdated, and often contradictory. I believe that ethical values should be based on empathy, reason, and the promotion of human well-being rather than adherence to religious doctrine.<\/p>\n

I value individual autonomy and the freedom to think independently. Religious belief systems, with their dogmas and often strict adherence to doctrine, can impose restrictions on personal freedom, limit the pursuit of knowledge, and suppress dissenting viewpoints.<\/p>\n

A god would realize these problems and \u2018stay out the game,\u2019 and just leave all sentient beings alone. Furthermore he would have no reason to resurrect dead lifeforms to either reward or punish them in some nebulous afterlife. So the question \u2018would the world have been better off without Christianity?\u2019 can be answered with one word- \u2018yes.\u2019<\/p>\n

Some apologists will counter with the fact that whether or not God intervenes, humans will make up fake gods and suffer the same problems. This is true. However, assuming that the Christian god is the only true god, and Yahweh intervenes in the manner he has done, this is not solving the problem- in fact, it only made things worse by throwing another \u2018log on the fire.\u2019 When he could, being omnipotent, show himself universally and align everyone to being Christian. Now that would solve a lot of <\/a>problems.<\/p>\n

(4402) Omnipotence and emotions are mutually exclusive<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christians routinely refer to their god as being omnipotent, meaning that he knows everything there is to know, past, present, and future. Their scriptures also paint their god as having emotions, from surprise to anger to wrath. These two properties are mutually exclusive.<\/p>\n

This would be like attending a dance that you know will end at midnight, but then becoming angry when the party is shut down at that time. This reaction would be nonsensical.<\/p>\n

In like manner, it makes no sense when God becomes angry as follows:<\/p>\n

In Genesis 6:3, God is angry with the wickedness of humanity and decides to destroy the world with a flood.<\/p>\n

In Exodus 32:10, God is angry with the Israelites for worshiping a golden calf and commands Moses to destroy the tablets of the covenant.<\/p>\n

In Numbers 16:45, God is angry with Korah and his followers for challenging Moses’ authority and strikes them dead with lightning.<\/p>\n

In Psalm 78:59, God is angry with the Israelites for their disobedience and stubbornness and allows them to be defeated by their enemies.<\/p>\n

In Revelation 16:19, God is angry with the world for its wickedness and pours out his wrath on the earth in the form of plagues, earthquakes, and other disasters.<\/p>\n

It is difficult for anyone to admit that their god has limitations because someone else can claim that their god is omnipotent and therefore better. So god inflation creates thousands of omnipotent gods. But if you are going to make your god omnipotent you should be sure to make it emotionless, or else embarrassingly suffer the illogicalities of the Christian <\/a>god.<\/p>\n

(4403) Santa Claus- the ultimate dry run<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many children are impressed with a belief in both Santa and God when they are very young and not capable of discerning facts from fantasy. At some point, belief in Santa become unsustainable because of a collision of \u2018facts on the ground\u2019 with an ever-increasing capability to think critically. At that point, belief in Santa is destroyed, never to return.<\/p>\n

This same process takes place at a later age for many people who are raised in religious families. At some point their evolving rational mind realizes that there is a conflict between a belief in God and their observations of how the world looks, acts, and works. In a similar near-immediate way, belief in God dissolves.<\/p>\n

So, in effect, Santa belief is a dry-run for humans to take the next step and reject a deity that has woefully insufficient evidence. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/onlysky.media\/podcast\/santa-claus-the-ultimate-dry-run\/<\/a><\/p>\n

It\u2019s hard to even consider the possibility that Santa isn\u2019t real.\u00a0Everyone seems to believe he is.\u00a0 As a kid, I heard his name in songs and stories and saw him in movies with very high production values.\u00a0My mom and dad seemed to believe, batted down my doubts, told me he wanted me to be good and that he always knew if I wasn\u2019t.\u00a0And what wonderful gifts I received! Except when they were crappy, which was my fault somehow.\u00a0All in all, despite the multiple incredible improbabilities involved in believing he was real, I believed\u2014until the day I decided I cared enough about the truth to ask serious questions, at which point the whole fa\u00e7ade fell to pieces.\u00a0Fortunately, the good things I had credited him with kept coming, but now I knew they came from the people around me, whom I could now properly thank.<\/p>\n

Now go back and read that paragraph again, changing the ninth word from\u00a0Santa<\/i><\/em>\u00a0to\u00a0God.<\/i><\/em><\/p>\n

Santa Claus, my secular friends, is the greatest gift a rational worldview ever had.\u00a0Our culture has constructed a silly and temporary myth parallel to its silly and permanent one.\u00a0They share a striking number of characteristics, yet the one is cast aside halfway through childhood.<\/p>\n

The \u201cYes, Virginia\u201d crowd will heap implausible nonsense on the poor child, dismissing her doubts with invocations of magic or mystery or the willful suspension of physical law.\u00a0Only slightly less problematic is the second choice, the debunker who simply informs the child that, yes, Santa is a big fat fraud.<\/p>\n

I chose door number three. And that has made all the difference.<\/p>\n

The Santa-God analogy is precise. Most people shed only one of these beliefs, but others eventually take both of them down. Their experience with Santa provides a good \u2018template\u2019 for how to \u2018divorce\u2019 from <\/a>God.<\/p>\n

(4404) List of interpolations<\/strong><\/p>\n

Scholars have researched the discrepancies between modern Bible translations and the oldest surviving manuscripts, finding many instances where later scribes added to the original script. These interpolations represent ambiguities that should not exist in an alleged divinely-inspired book. This problem is a consequence of a failure to preserve the original writings- something that a real god would definitely have ensured. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2023\/06\/suspicious-interpolations-by-greg-g.html#more<\/a><\/p>\n

Bible scholars often have suspicions of interpolations but do not go as far as taking them out of the Bible unless they have old, reliable manuscripts that omit the passage. Here are some passages that were in the King James Version but have been removed, or in the case of popular passages, they are noted as missing in the most reliable old Bibles.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

KJV Passages in\u00a0Modern Translations<\/h3>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Generally Omitted<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h3>\n
    \n
  • \n

    Matthew 17:21<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Matthew 18:11<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Matthew 23:14<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Mark 7:16<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Mark 11:26<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Mark 15:28<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Luke 17:36<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    John 5:3\u20134<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Acts 8:37<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Acts 15:34<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Acts 24:6\u20138<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Acts 28:29<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Romans 16:24<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    1 John 5:7\u20138*<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Omitted from Some Other\u00a0Bible Versions<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h3>\n
    \n
  • \n

    Matthew 20:16b<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Mark 6:11b<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Luke 4:8b<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Luke 9:55\u201356<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Luke 23:17<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Acts 9:5\u20136<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Acts 13:42<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Acts 23:9b<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Usually Bracketed<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    Mark 16:9\u201320<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n

    John 7:53\u20138:11<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

* By the way, the 1 John 5:7\u20138 omission was prompted by Isaac Newton\u00a0who noted it was missing in older manuscripts.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Some scholars argue that 1\u00a0Corinthians 14:33b-35 is an interpolation because it interrupts the natural flow of the reading and because it forbids women to speak in church which contradicts 1\u00a0Corinthians 11:5 which permits women to pray and prophesy in church as long as their heads are covered.<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 ESV<\/strong><\/p>\n

33 As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians 11:5 ESV<\/span><\/p>\n

5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.<\/p>\n

So do women pray in church or not? It depends on what part of 1 Corinthians you read. If you read it in consecutive chapters, you can let the women speak until you reach Chapter 14 when you must tell them to \u2018shut up.\u2019 The Bible is a mess created by multiple authors, adventurous scribes, and the loss of the originals. It seems that an omnipotent god could have done <\/a>a little better.<\/p>\n

(4405) Morality is product of human development<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christians are trained to believe that morality is an unchanging ideal defined by their holy texts. But this view is misguided. Morality is fluid and changes with time and human progress. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/141xq8f\/morality_is_most_likely_to_be_a_social_construct\/<\/a><\/p>\n

As society continues to evolve, our understanding of morality undergoes a transformation. It is evident that social morals have changed over time, reflecting the values and norms of different eras. In certain biblical verses, we can observe the social morals prevalent during that period in Israel. For example, passages like Ephesians 6:5\u20138, Colossians 3:22\u201324, 1 Timothy 6:1\u20132, and Titus 2:9\u201310 address the relationship between masters and servants, emphasizing obedience.<\/p>\n

These passages reflect a moral framework that was accepted during that time, where obedience and submission were valued virtues within the context of the society portrayed in the Bible. However, it is important to note that societal norms and values have since evolved, leading to a broader understanding of morality that embraces principles of compassion, equality, and social justice.<\/p>\n

When we consider the evolution of morality, it is helpful to examine the interplay between societal constructs and the development of moral values.<\/p>\n

Morality, in part, arises from the social nature of humans. As social animals, we rely on cooperation, empathy, and reciprocity to thrive as communities. Over the course of human history, societal constructs, such as cultural practices, philosophical systems, and religious beliefs, have played a significant role in shaping our moral values.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the theory of evolution provides insights into the development of moral behavior not only in humans but also in other social animals. Many species exhibit rudimentary forms of morality, which can be seen as a baseline for understanding our own moral compass. For instance, certain primates display behaviors such as empathy, cooperation, and fairness, which contribute to maintaining social cohesion within their groups.<\/p>\n

These basic moral tendencies have likely evolved over time, just as our own moral values have. As societies progress, our moral compass expands to embrace more inclusive and accepting values compared to the moral framework presented in ancient texts. Our understanding of morality has become more nuanced, incorporating principles of compassion, equality, and social justice that go beyond the teachings of the past.<\/p>\n

This suggests that morality is a product of human development and societal norms rather than a fixed and unchanging divine decree.<\/p>\n

The fact that human morality has surpassed what is presented in the Bible should worry Christians. Why would God not have supplied a set of ethics that would have better stood the test of time? The moral standards in the Bible simply match the prevailing conditions of that time. This indicates they were written by humans without divine <\/a>input.<\/p>\n

(4406) Veneration of tombs is not evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some apologists suggest that Jesus\u2019 empty tomb was an early relic site for Christians of the First Century. Although there is scant evidence for this claim, the following essay shows that even if true, it would not provide significance evidence for the resurrection:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AcademicBiblical\/comments\/141rkqi\/ive_recently_learnt_that_early_christians_did_in\/<\/a><\/p>\n

The key question to ask is “would we expect ancient Christians to come to venerate an empty tomb site even if there was in fact no empty tomb?” Arguably, the answer is not “no”. This diminishes the evidential value of them venerating a site. And the reason why the answer is not “no” is because, as it has been pointed out in other comments here, these kinds of cultic sites were common in the ancient Mediterranean world by 1st century and their presence itself does not indicate the historicity of the events they were tied to. For example, there were numerous burial sites of figures from the Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n

I once went through the first book of Pausanias’\u00a0Description of Greece<\/em>, a 2nd century travelogue of sites worthy of visit and events tied to them, including mythological events (which were of course believed to be history at the time) and noted all persons mentioned to have a tomb. I then tabulated how many of them are ruled out from being even\u00a0candidates<\/em>\u00a0for historicity because the person buried actually didn’t exist. And it turns out it’s about evenly split.<\/p>\n

Tombs of historical persons:<\/p>\n

Themistocles [1.1], Menander [1.2], Euripides [1.2], Pyrrhos of Epirus [1.13], Thrasybulus [1.29], Pericles [1.29], Chabrias [1.29], Phormio [1.29], Melesander [1.29], Apollodorus [1.29], Eubulus [1.29], Conon [1.29], Timotheus [1.29], Zeno [1.29], Nicias [1.29], Harmodius [1.29], Aristogeiton [1.29], Ephialtes [1.29], Lycurgus [1.29], Plato [1.30], Kimon [1.32], Protophanes [1.35], Anthemocritus [1.36], Molottus [1.36], Cephisodorus [1.36], Heliodorus [1.37], Themistocles, son of Poliarchus [1.37], Nicocles [1.37], Phytalus [1.37], Theodorus [1.37], Theodectes [1.37], Mnesitheus [1.37], Orsippus [1.44]<\/p>\n

Tombs of fictional persons:<\/p>\n

Antiope the Amazon [1.2], Pyrrhus, son of Achilles [1.3], Attis [1.4], Pandion [1.5], Theseus [1.17], Nisus [1.19], Hippolytus [1.22], Oedipus [1.28], Erysichthon [1.31], Amphictyon [1.31], Ion [1.31], Asterius [1.35], Geryon [1.35], Hyllus [1.35], Eumolpus [1.37], Alope [1.39], Pandion [1.39], Nisus [1.39], Alcmene [1.41], Amphitryon [1.41], Hippolyte [1.41], Tereus [1.41], Megareus [1.42], Timalcus [1.42], Callipolis [1.42], Euippus [1.43], Ischepolis [1.43], Pyrgo [1.43], Iphiaoe [1.43], Astycratea [1.43], Manto [1.43], Coroebus [1.43], Autonoe [1.44], Car [1.44]<\/p>\n

Apart from burial locations, Pausanias discusses other known sites of mythological events, e.g. an altar where Theseus was purified [1.37], entrance to the Underwold through which Hades kidnapped Persephone [1.38], entrance to the Underwold through which Heracles brought Cerberus [2.35], a stone where Apollo laid his lyre [1.42], the statue of Athena from Troy [2.23], a statue of Zeus from a Trojan altar at which Priamos was killed [2.24], various buildings built by the Cyclops [e.g. 2.25], an artificial island built by Phocus [2.29], a stone where Orestes was purified [2.31], an olive tree grown from a club of Heracles [2.31], a spring where Hera regains here virginity every year [2.38], House of Menelaos [3.14], a sanctuary built by Heracles [3.15], a rock on which Orestes sat after being cured of madness [3.22], a cave where Dionysis was raised [3.24], etc.<\/p>\n

Similarly, there have been claims about a known location not only of Jesus’ burial but also e.g. of his birth in Bethlehem (today’s Church of the Nativity) or his ascension (the Church of the Ascension). Ancient Christians even believed there were extant remnants of the Noah’s Ark!<\/p>\n

Thus even today the remains of the Noah’s ark are still shown in Cardyaei [a region south of Lake Van, in today’s Turkey]. And if one were to make a search and discover them – it stands to reason – he would surely also find the ruins of the altar at the foot of the mountain. (Panarion 18.3.3-4)<\/p>\n

Currently there are at least two sites in Jerusalem touted as the place where Jesus lay dead for 36 hours. Of course, there is no pedigree or historical validity to either one. On the other hand, if Jesus really did rise up from the dead, it can be conjectured that the site of his resurrection would have been widely known and the knowledge of it passed down to each successive generation. That is, there should be a single empty tomb site that has documentation leading back 2000 <\/a>years.<\/p>\n

(4407) Believing in Christianity is becoming harder<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is much harder to be a Christian today that it was in the distant past. This is because there has been an ever increasing wave of knowledge that has made its truth seem less likely. Consider the following:<\/p>\n

(1) During early Christianity, it seemed perfectly natural to believe that the earth was at the center of the universe<\/b> and that the stars were just little points of light. This seemed consistent with a god who created this scene as the stage upon which humans could strive, suffer, succeed, and fail. But when astronomy opened up the universe to an unimaginable size, it became more difficult to believe that humans were the main concern of God.<\/p>\n

(2) Before Darwin, and theory of biological evolution<\/b>, it seemed impossible to think that humans and other animals could have come about by natural means. The easy default assumption was that God performed this creation as it states in Genesis. But today, a Christian must be concerned, if being self-truthful, that a gradual evolution scheme doesn\u2019t match the idea of a god intent on acquiring human worship.<\/p>\n

(3) Time.<\/b> During the First Century, Christians were excited about the imminent return of Jesus. But as the centuries passed without this seminal event, it has become increasingly difficult to maintain the suspense and expectation of seeing Jesus in the clouds. The more time that goes by, the more faith it takes to believe that this event will ever happen, much less anytime soon.<\/p>\n

(4) Division<\/b>. Christianity started with a measure of cohesion, such that early Christians were somewhat aligned with each other on their beliefs. It is easier to have faith when everyone around you is believing the same thing. But now, with over 40,000 Christian denominations, that cohesion is lost, requiring Christians to exercise more faith to believe that their own view is the correct one.<\/p>\n

(5) Scientific studies have routinely shown that prayers<\/b> provide no earthly benefit (they may provide some emotional benefit). Christians of the past could be assured by anecdotal evidence of their prayers, but only recently has science weighed in on this issue. A Christian today is left to wonder why the effectiveness of prayers is not more detectable by science.<\/p>\n

(6) Early Christians were for the more part illiterate, so any issues\/contradictions concerning biblical scriptures<\/b> were of no concern to them. If they could read, they likely had access only to a single gospel. We know that there were groups of Christians that rallied solely around the Gospel of Luke, for example. But today, with not only multiple gospels, but letters and other texts under a single cover, the problems of text variants and contradictions have become a real concern. In fact, only in the past 50 years have many of these issues come to light. And as they do, it will require more and more effort to remain faithful.<\/p>\n

(7) In a time of increasing apostasy<\/b>, that is, the recent burgeoning atheist\/agnostic movement, it becomes more difficult to retain faith. That is, it is much easier to believe something when everyone around you is believing the same thing. But when very intelligent people leave their churches, it challenges the faith of those who remain behind- wondering if perhaps the apostates are right.<\/p>\n

(8) Clerical misdeeds<\/b>. Although clerics have always been \u2018sinners,\u2019 in the past these peccadilloes and more serious violations of their faith were mostly kept secret. Today, that has changed dramatically, and the followers of any denomination of Christianity must face the fact that many of their leaders have led un-Christian lives. This has hit hard especially on the Catholic Church with the ongoing pedophilia scandal. It leaves a Christian to wonder why God is not better controlling his spokespeople.<\/p>\n

(9) Explanations for disasters<\/b>– in the past major storms or plagues, or similar cataclysms were seen as the reaction of a wrathful god, but science has now explained all of them in natural terms. This has removed a lot of what had previously been perceived as \u2018acts of God.\u2019<\/p>\n

(10) In the past, Christians were awed by the majesty of God\u2019s power<\/b> as d<\/b>ocumented<\/b> in the Bible<\/b>. But those great displays of power, such as the Great Flood, the Exodus, the Long Day, the Guiding Star, the three hours of darkness and so forth have been all been crushed by astronomy, archaeology, and other branches of science and history. Only the minor miracles remain (very weakly) plausibly historic.<\/p>\n

(11) Before the advent of modern psychology, people inflicted with psychotic disorders<\/b> were often perceived as being inhabited by demons, adding fuel to the belief in the supernatural. For the most part, these mental victims are no longer seen that way, and that purely organic reasons are at play.<\/p>\n

(12) Stories of miracles,<\/b> such as sightings of angels, ghosts, reconstituted body limbs, or walking on water, for example, were the talk of the day, adding to a general belief in the supernatural. But today with cameras essentially everywhere, these \u2018miracles\u2019 are no longer accepted without authenticated pictorial or video proof. As a result, they have nearly vanished completely.<\/p>\n

For these reasons and more, believing in Christianity has become more difficult than it was in the past. If Christianity was true, the opposite would be happening- it would become increasingly more difficult to be a non-believer, as the evidence would be ever mounting in favor of its <\/a>truth.<\/p>\n

(4408) Did the Father exist before the Son?<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is asking the question whether Christians believe that God the Father (Yahweh) existed at some time and then later, his son (Jesus) came into existence. Another way to ask this question is whether the Trinity existed at the very beginning or did it come into being with Jesus and the Holy Spirit being created at some later time.<\/p>\n

Against the latter assumption is the text of John 1:1-2<\/p>\n

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. (\u2018Word\u2019 in this text is a metaphor for Jesus)<\/p>\n

This verse seems to suggest the illogical situation where a father and his son come into being at the same time, or else they forever existed in unison.<\/p>\n

However, on the other hand, if the Father existed before the Son and the Holy Spirit, then the Trinity did not exist at the beginning. That is, the very nature of God changed from being a singular being into a three-part being. The adage \u2018God doesn\u2019t change\u2019 weighs against this scenario.<\/p>\n

It seems that no matter what sequence that Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit came into existence, it doesn\u2019t make sense. All at once or sequentially? \u2013 it would be difficult for a Christian to defend either assumption. It is much better for them not to think about it. In fact, not thinking critically is the best way for a Christian to remain a <\/a>Christian.<\/p>\n

(4409) Approaching and leaving Jericho<\/strong><\/p>\n

There exists a contradiction between the Gospels of Mark and Luke about the directional movements of Jesus when he healed a blind man sitting by the roadside outside of Jericho. Mark said it happened as Jesus was leaving<\/b> the city, while Luke describes the scene as Jesus approached<\/b> it.<\/p>\n

Mark 10:46-52<\/p>\n

They came to Jericho. As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving<\/b> Jericho, Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside. When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout out and say, \u201cJesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!\u201d Many sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he cried out even more loudly, \u201cSon of David, have mercy on me!\u201d Jesus stood still and said, \u201cCall him here.\u201d And they called the blind man, saying to him, \u201cTake heart; get up, he is calling you.\u201d So throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus. Then Jesus said to him, \u201cWhat do you want me to do for you?\u201d The blind man said to him, \u201cMy teacher, let me see again.\u201dJesus said to him, \u201cGo; your faith has made you well.\u201d Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the way.<\/p>\n

Luke 18:35-43<\/p>\n

As he approached<\/b> Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard a crowd going by, he asked what was happening. They told him, \u201cJesus of Nazareth is passing by.\u201d Then he shouted, \u201cJesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!\u201d Those who were in front sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he shouted even more loudly, \u201cSon of David, have mercy on me!\u201d Jesus stood still and ordered the man to be brought to him, and when he came near, he asked him, \u201cWhat do you want me to do for you?\u201d He said, \u201cLord, let me see again.\u201dJesus said to him, \u201cReceive your sight; your faith has saved you.\u201d Immediately he regained his sight and followed him, glorifying God, and all the people, when they saw it, praised God.<\/p>\n

Biblical innerantists approach this contradiction predictably by inventing an assumption- that this is talking about two different beggars. One named Bartimaeus (in Mark) and one who is unnamed (in Luke). This would imply that the author of Luke (who we are 100 percent sure that he copied large segments of the Gospel of Mark) read the story of Bartimaeus but then decided to write not about him but about another blind beggar who was also located in the outskirts of Jericho.<\/p>\n

So if this is true, Jesus approaches Jericho and heals a blind beggar, and then as he is leaving, there is another blind beggar that he heals in almost precisely the same manner using the same talking points. Although this is marginally possible, the much more likely explanation is that Luke made a mistake when he copied this story from <\/a>Mark.<\/p>\n

(4410) Belief and salvation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christianity exchanges what it needs the most (evidence-free belief, because it has no hard evidence) for what its customers need the most (a feeling of freedom from death and suffering). This contract is what sustains a faith that seems obviously false to anyone who examines it critically. The following discusses this deceptive contract:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/14671vh\/belief_and_salvation\/<\/a><\/p>\n

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”<\/em><\/p>\n

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved\u2014you and your household.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Ok we get it. All these verses claim that belief renders salvation. But why? The Bible, and other holy books like it, are silent for any explanation of this key assertion of why belief renders salvation. They just claim that without it, you can’t please God and Gods wrath will be visited upon you. In essence, these verses claim that life is a credulity contest and if you can force yourself to believe this particular credulity you win! Herein I will attempt to explain the why to this claim.<\/p>\n

Close examination of the claim there are two essential parts:\u00a0belief<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0salvation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Belief<\/strong>: For a false invented religion,\u00a0belief<\/strong>\u00a0in it is the most important element that the religion needs to sustain and propagate itself. Having no external reality, without human belief the religion withers away with the last believer. Therefore, belief becomes a fundamental aspect for the survival and growth of a religion, even if it is based on falsehood.<\/p>\n

Salvation<\/strong>: Humans instinctively fear death and seek to avoid pain. Avoiding death is part of our psychological makeup. Proposing eternal life and preservation of your intact ego with memories and sense-of-self is perhaps the most seductive of all temptations. Also, as a doubleheader, salvation promises avoidance of future pain and suffering (aka Hell or Gods wrath). Together, preservation of life and avoidance of suffering, are the most powerful motivations within human psychology.<\/p>\n

Therefore, false human invented religious, intuitively tie the act of\u00a0belief<\/strong>\u00a0(the most important thing to it) to\u00a0salvation<\/strong>\u00a0(the most important thing to the potential believer). Genius and succinct, with respect to marketing.<\/p>\n

This demand for\u00a0belief<\/strong>\u00a0in exchange for\u00a0salvation<\/strong>\u00a0is the upmost clue to what is being proposed is a false human invented religion. Realizing this is a huge time saver. No need to spend time\/effort considering complicated metaphysical claims, explanations of ontology or creation, digging through theology, looking for contradictions, incoherencies, etc.. Start at the top and when you encounter this pattern, you can skip the rest and carry on looking for other potential truths about reality.<\/p>\n

Any organization that tells you that what you believe is more important that what you do- head for the doors and never come <\/a>back.<\/p>\n

(4411) The Bible makes perfect sense<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Bible makes perfect sense\u2026once you realize that it was written at a time when women were the property of men, slavery was commonplace, and death was the penalty for minor offenses. A time when belief in gods and magic was widespread, when witchcraft and homosexuality were the work of demons, when Earth was at the center of the universe, and gods were used to explain every unknown (which was almost everything). A time when the most intelligent people knew less about the world than the average 8-year old does today. Then it made perfect sense.<\/p>\n

But the only sense it makes today is that it is an obsolete product from humankind\u2019s primitive <\/a>past.<\/p>\n

(4412) God is the villain, Satan is not<\/strong><\/p>\n

It doesn\u2019t take much thought to read the Bible and come to a conclusion that Christians have been deceived to think of God as being all good and Satan as being all bad. In fact, an objective reading of the scriptures makes it seem much more appropriate to worship Satan and despise God. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/exchristian\/comments\/1470umm\/how_can_the_christian_deity_be_anything_but_the\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Seriously when is the Christian deity not the villain in the story? How can Christians constantly go on about their God being good and loving? Just feels like one giant case of Stockholm syndrome.<\/p>\n

His Story is literally: Create everybody. Punish everyone for two people eating a fruit of knowledge he put there in the first place. Kill everybody for not worshiping him. Commit genocide against entire peoples. Routinely endorse and command slavery and the killing of children and innocent people. Kill those who don\u2019t sacrifice to him. Often kill people for the smallest or pettiest offense. Routinely has to have his favorites or prophets BEG him not to kill everyone on a whim. Routinely betrays those most loyal to him. Decided to come to kill himself, to save everyone from himself. Resurrects himself. Claims credit for saving everyone from himself. Destroys world again in the end times.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile Satan: Worst offense was wanting his bosses job, took the form of a weird snake, encouraged people to obtain knowledge, questioned the authority of his boss, generally seems to want the best for people to have a good and pleasurable life. Only killed a few people and only because the Christian deity told him to (Job). Apparently he’s the villain though? Makes no sense.<\/p>\n

The people who wrote the Bible did a poor job of managing their narrative in that they portrayed Satan in a better light than God. This was an unforced error, but contemporary people benefit from it because it lets us know that none of this can possibly be real. God is absolutely the worst-depicted \u2018protagonist\u2019 in all of <\/a>fiction.<\/p>\n

(4413) Judeo-Christianity is self-defeating<\/strong><\/p>\n

The argument presented below suggests that God would not have had to warn his people about being lured into other religions because his religion, being so much more amazing and effective, would mean that there exists no actual competition:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/onlysky.media\/bseidensticker\/christianity-is-self-defeating\/<\/a><\/p>\n

The book of Exodus gives God\u2019s demand that the Jews avoid foreign religions when they returned to Canaan (\u201cYou shall have no other gods before me,\u201d etc.).\u00a0 God had to make sure that they weren\u2019t corrupted.<\/p>\n

Wait a minute! How\u00a0could<\/em>\u00a0they have been corrupted?<\/p>\n

The Jews enter a land full of foreign gods\u2014invented gods\u2014but God had made plain the correct religion.\u00a0 How would those made-up gods look next to the real deal? \u00a0Judaism would be a stunning and brilliant jewel compared to the other religions\u2019 tawdry plastic beads.<\/p>\n

Imagine the Hollywood set of a Western town, built with plywood facades, compared to a real building\u2014Neuschwanstein castle, say. \u00a0Who\u2019d be tempted to stray to the cutout imposter if you could have the real thing?<\/p>\n

Another example: imagine that God provided Disney World for the Jews but warned against moving into the filthy trailer park across the street.\u00a0 Why bother with the warning?\u00a0 How could anyone possibly be tempted?<\/p>\n

Similarly, with the Jews given the correct religion, how could God have ever been worried that another religion would be the least bit compelling?<\/p>\n

\u2026 or maybe Judaism\u00a0didn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0look special. \u00a0Perhaps the prohibitions\u2014remember that these were imposed by priests\u2014made a lot of sense because in fact early Judaism looked similar to all the other Canaanite religions.<\/p>\n

The very existence of these prohibitions argues that Judaism was made up, just like the rest.<\/p>\n

\u201cHere is a ready-to-eat steak and lobster meal that I have prepared for you. But I have to warn you not to eat instead the leftover meatloaf that is in the refrigerator.\u201d That is how ridiculous it is for the Bible god to be concerned that his people might be lured into following any of the neighboring impotent man-made religions. Judeo-Christianity is <\/a>self-defeating.<\/p>\n

(4414) Christianity can rot your brain<\/strong><\/p>\n

Trying to defend and make sense of Christianity requires untethering your brain from common sense and can cause it to rot. One of the leading apologists displays this truth when he tried to justify God\u2019s slaughter of the Canaanites. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/onlysky.media\/bseidensticker\/christianity-can-rot-your-brain\/<\/a><\/p>\n

There\u2019s a lot of killing in the Bible\u2014the honest and wholesome kind.\u00a0 The God-commanded kind.<\/p>\n

What are we to make of this violence?\u00a0 Apologist William Lane Craig takes a stab at justifying \u201cThe Slaughter of the Canaanites<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Craig\u2019s entire project is bizarre\u2014trying to support the sagging claims of God\u2019s goodness despite his passion for genocide\u2014but he gamely has a go.\u00a0 Craig responds to the question, \u201cBut wasn\u2019t it wrong to kill all the innocent children?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2026 if we believe, as I do, that God\u2019s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was\u00a0actually their salvation<\/strong>. \u00a0We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven\u2019s incomparable joy. \u00a0Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What\u2019s this supposed to mean?? \u00a0Does it mean that\u00a0Andrea Yates<\/a>\u00a0was actually right that she was saving her five children from the possibility of going to hell by drowning them one by one in the bathtub? \u00a0Does it mean that abortion is actually a good thing because those souls \u201care happy to quit this earth for heaven\u2019s incomparable joy\u201d?\u00a0 I hope none of Craig\u2019s readers have followed up with this avenue to salvation.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s hard to believe that he\u2019s actually justifying the killing of children, but there\u2019s more. \u00a0Let\u2019s parse Craig\u2019s next paragraph:<\/p>\n

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? \u00a0Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I thought that genocide was wrong.\u00a0 Perhaps I was mistaken.<\/p>\n

Not the children, for they inherit eternal life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yeah, right.\u00a0 Killing children is actually a good thing.\u00a0 (Are we living Orwell\u2019s\u00a0Nineteen Eighty-Four,<\/em>\u00a0where \u201cWar is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength\u201d?)<\/p>\n

So who is wronged?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Wait for it \u2026<\/p>\n

Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. \u00a0Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? \u00a0The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Uh, yeah.\u00a0 That was the big concern in my mind, too.<\/p>\n

Can you believe this guy?\u00a0 My guess is that he is a decent and responsible person, is a good husband and father, works hard, and pays his taxes.\u00a0 But he\u2019s writing\u00a0this?<\/em>\u00a0 It\u2019s like discovering that your next-door neighbor is a Klansman.<\/p>\n

This brings up the Christopher Hitchens\u2019 Challenge (video<\/a>).\u00a0 Hitchens challenges anyone to state a moral action taken or a moral sentiment uttered by a believer that couldn\u2019t be taken or uttered by an unbeliever\u2014something that a believer could do but an atheist couldn\u2019t.\u00a0 In the many public appearances in which Hitchens has made this challenge, he has never heard a valid reply.<\/p>\n

But think of the reverse: something terrible that only a believer<\/em>\u00a0would do or say.\u00a0 Now, there are lots of possibilities.\u00a0 Obviously, anything containing variations on \u201cbecause God says\u201d or \u201cbecause the Bible says\u201d could be an example.<\/p>\n