{"id":23209,"date":"2025-01-11T11:44:46","date_gmt":"2025-01-11T16:44:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=23209"},"modified":"2025-03-21T08:15:24","modified_gmt":"2025-03-21T12:15:24","slug":"5051-5100","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=23209","title":{"rendered":"5051-5100"},"content":{"rendered":"

(5051) Bible\u2019s creation suggests it is a human effort<\/strong><\/p>\n

The way the Bible was compiled and not finalized until centuries later, replete with false information and contradictions strongly suggest it was a human, not divine, creation. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/1hz6f4o\/the_way_the_bible_was_compiled_and_finalized_has\/<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/a>The way the bible was compiled and finalized has all the hallmarks of a human creation, rather than a divine one.<\/p>\n

\n

So the bible as it exists today wasn’t actually finalized and canonized until the 4th century. And the early Christians, those who were initially heavily persecuted and oppressed by the Roman Empire, those early Christians actually recognized quite a number of books that did not make it into the final version of the bible.<\/p>\n

And so then eventually the final canonization of the bible was primarily decided by church leaders that were closely aligned with the Roman Empire. You know the same Roman Empire that initially heavily persecuted Christians. The same Roman Empire that later made Christianity its state religion for political reasons and then started persecuting and oppressing non-Christians.<\/p>\n

And so very clearly the Christian Church that canonized the bible in the 4th century was extremely different from the Christian church of the early days, when Christians were politically and socially ostracized and were largely poor people from the lower ranks of society. The Christian church of the 4th century that canonized the bible on the other hand was very much a political institution as much as it was a religious one, an organization that at the time was already very wealthy and powerful and closely aligned with the Roman Empire and the political goals that the Roman Empire pursued.<\/p>\n

And the very same powerful and wealthy church leaders that decided which books to include in the bible made the decision to exclude various books that the earliest Christians believed in, often because those books were seen as too radical and too much of a threat to the authority of the Roman Empire and the official church. So for example the gnostic gospels were significantly more radical in their condemnation of wealth, power and political authority than the gospels that were eventually included in the final version of the bible. And so to the Roman Empire and the official church that was closely aligned with the Roman Empire those gnostic gospels were considered a threat that challenged their power and influence. So the decision was made to exclude those books from the bible. And also gnostic Christians kept being oppressed and persecuted for a long time until gnostic Christianity pretty much ceased to exist. And some books like the Gospel of Mary for example also illustrated the power and strength of women, which at a time were women were expected to be submissive to men would have also been as a problem.<\/p>\n

Clearly the people who canonized and finalized the bible were primarily quite powerful people, closely aligned with the Roman Empire who were interested in their own agenda, and who also considered political reasons in their decisions as to which books to include in the bible and which to reject. Certain books were excluded as they posed too much of a challenge to the political and religious authorities or the agenda of the powers to be. And so to be frank the process through which the bible was compiled seems to be quite the opposite of a divine creation. The bible seems to have been compiled largely by people who Jesus would have probably had harsh words for, people obssessed with political power, status and material wealth. The bible was compiled by the very same people who would continue to oppress and persecute Christians who chose to reject the political and religious authority of wealthy priests and bishops and the Roman political aparatus.<\/p>\n

And so the way the bible was compiled has pretty much all the hallmarks of a human creation, rather than a divine creation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

A divinely-created bible would have a vastly different make-up, history, and pedigree. If God actually exists and intended for the Bible to be his message to humanity, he did a miserable job of having it <\/a>compiled.<\/p>\n

(5052) Christianity minus afterlife equals zero<\/strong><\/p>\n

The major selling point of Christianity is that it allegedly<\/i> offers the experience of a wonderful afterlife. But if it didn\u2019t hawk this benefit, and was only touted as a means for a better life in this world, its support would evaporate to virtually nothing.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/1hvaf82\/hoping_to_get_an_answer_to_this_question_about\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Christians often talk about all of the (what we might call) benefits of being a Christian. Peace and joy, a sense of purpose, a sense of certainty, love, guidance, and so on. They say it\u2019s not just about \u201cgetting to heaven\u201d or \u201cavoiding hell.\u201d But I doubt this. And I think the responses to this post will reveal why.<\/p>\n

Simple question that I have never received an answer to in other groups: if your understanding of Christianity were completely accurate minus the existence of an afterlife, would you still be a Christian? Would it still be \u201cworth it\u201d? Are the worldly benefits of Christianity enough to keep being a Christian if it all ended after you die?<\/p>\n

My opinion is no. There are so many ways to live a fulfilling life with or without religion (not saying it\u2019s easy but still), that if the afterlife option were taken off the table, religion would lose most if not all of its appeal.<\/p>\n

Christianity offers nothing of a benefit in this life other than a placebo effect. If there was some statistical advantage of Christians such as answered prayer, this would be a different <\/a>conversation.<\/p>\n

(5053) Apologetics are missing from the Bible<\/strong><\/p>\n

When non-Christians critique the Bible and core Christian doctrines, it is telling the responses to this criticism are generally all external to the Bible. That is, the Bible fails to defend itself on almost every controversial topic. Why would an omni-god leave the defense of his message to humanity in such fallible hands? The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/1hzv4m9\/the_authors_of_the_bible_clearly_had_no_idea_what\/<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/a>The authors of the Bible clearly had no idea what arguments the Bible would be subject to in the future.<\/p>\n

\n

In the modern era, pretty much every single argument a non Christian could bring up has some sort of defense or acknowledgement by Christian apologists.<\/p>\n

But this brings up a problem. Why leave the critical defense of your religion to people rather than defend it yourself?<\/p>\n

Think of the most convincing critiques of Christianity you could think of.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n
      \n
    1. Morality of eternal hellfire<\/li>\n
    2. Animal suffering + other forms of problem of evil<\/li>\n
    3. Location influencing religious biases<\/li>\n
    4. Creation of Satan<\/li>\n
    5. Slavery + biblical genocides<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      And many more.<\/p>\n

      Now think of the defenses of these arguments. 90% of the time, these critiques are not even indirectly acknowledged by the Bible.<\/p>\n

      While many of Paul\u2019s epistles were very situational and addressed specific issues around that time, it\u2019s reasonable that Paul wouldn\u2019t just say \u201cit\u2019s okay for animals to suffer because\u2026\u201d because obviously there is no context to do so. But it is still very telling that apologists almost never consult the Bible to do their job. Rather these very fallible people construct arguments commonly in some form of \u201cit\u2019s possible that\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

      It seems much less likely that the Bible was a divinely inspired text, but rather a book written by passionate but fallible believers very much ignorant of the problems Christianity needed to defend against, leaving its defenders to speculate on what God REALLY meant or what COULD be the case.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      The Bible should contain text explaining why slavery was okay in its time but should nevertheless eventually be eliminated, or explain why God made Satan and allowed him to pester people, or why eternal suffering in hell was an appropriate punishment. None of this is there. The people who wrote the Bible didn\u2019t understand that the problems they were creating would challenge the faith two thousand years <\/a>later.<\/p>\n

      (5054) Yahweh qualifies as being non-existent<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The following lists 8 traits of things that don\u2019t exist. Yahweh meets all 8:<\/p>\n

      https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/atheism\/comments\/1hvw6bl\/you_cant_prove_gawd_doesnt_exist\/<\/a><\/p>\n

      What qualifies something as being non-existent?<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. \n
          \n
        1. Lack of physical presence or manifestation in reality.<\/em>\u00a0Non-existent things do not have a concrete, material presence in the actual world.<\/li>\n
        2. Inability to causally interact with existing things.<\/em>\u00a0Something that is non-existent cannot affect or be affected by objects and events in reality.<\/li>\n
        3. Absence from the set of all existing things.<\/em>\u00a0If we could enumerate everything that exists, non-existent things would not be on that list.<\/li>\n
        4. Purely conceptual or imaginary nature.<\/em>\u00a0Non-existent things may exist as ideas or fictional concepts, but have no corresponding entity in the real world.<\/li>\n
        5. Lack of spatiotemporal location.<\/em>\u00a0Non-existent things are not located anywhere in space or time in our universe.<\/li>\n
        6. Impossibility of direct observation or measurement.<\/em>\u00a0We cannot empirically detect or measure non-existent things using any scientific instruments or methods.<\/li>\n
        7. Logical incoherence or impossibility.<\/em>\u00a0Some philosophers argue that certain logically impossible concepts, like square circles, qualify as non-existent.<\/li>\n
        8. Negation of existence.<\/em>\u00a0Non-existence is often defined simply as the absence or negation of existence.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          There is a 99+ percent probability that if Yahweh was the actual god of the universe, there would be nothing on this list that would suggest that he isn\u2019t real. He would have a concrete presence, would be seen to interact with people and things, would have a specific location, and would produce measurable effects. And now, because we know about the speed of light, we know that no conscious being can be aware of everything happening in the universe in real time- that is, a god as imagined by Christians is impossible. Yahweh does not <\/a>exist.<\/b><\/p>\n

          (5055) The illogic of Satan<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Christianity created the fictional character of Satan, likely as a foil for God, to explain why bad things happen, and as a way to scare people into joining the faith. All it takes, though, is a modicum of reasoning to understand the inherent logical problems. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

          https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/atheism\/comments\/1i298il\/satan_in_the_gospels_doesnt_make_sense\/<\/a><\/p>\n

          According to the gospels Satan entered Judas to cause him to betray Jesus which led to his crucifixion.<\/p>\n

          Why would Satan want to kill Jesus when by doing so, then Jesus could die for humanity’s sins and save us. Shouldn’t have Satan done everything he can to prevent the crucifixion so Jesus cannot die for humanity\u2019s sins and thus we would all end up in hell?<\/p>\n

          The whole idea of Satan is silly. He apparently ISN’T as powerful as God, and I guess God lets him tempt people and then run hell. But god is the one that created hell, set up the rules for who goes there, and is apparently fine with torturing people unendingly for sins such as not worshiping him.<\/p>\n

          The devil might be evil, but so is the god that oversees it all.<\/p>\n

          We no longer live in a world where belief in Satan should be a real thing. He is clearly fictional, has no basis in reality whatsoever. He survives only in a fantasy world created by a two-millennium old fairy tale. It is time to admit this fact- Satan does not exist. And without Satan, Christianity cannot be <\/a>true.<\/p>\n

          (5056) Religion- \u2018we meant to do that.\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Every time a religion has to retreat and admit a previous fallacy, it tries to re-image the situation in a way that makes it seem like it was all planned out in advance. Never admit failure. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

          https:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2025\/01\/daniel-mocsny-on-how-religions-re.html<\/a><\/p>\n

          There is an amusing video on YouTube (https:\/\/youtu.be\/TpeSH6ngsgIin<\/a>) which a gentleman makes physical-comedy type of error – he trips on a treadmill at the gym and gets thrown off – and then quickly recovers and carries on nonchalantly, as if to wordlessly declare, “Yeah, I meant to do that.”<\/p>\n

          Religions work like that. The old religions began in the pre-scientific world, in which even many educated people freely commingled empirical claims with fantastical ones.* Most likely, ancient thinkers thought this way because their lived experience showed them the sorts of things that usually happen, and they reasoned in commonsense ways, but they lacked the modern scientific knowledge that we live in a universe governed by physical laws, so they did not appropriately constrain their notions of what\u00a0could\u00a0happen.<\/p>\n

          Fast forward to the modern world, and religions are like the guy who falls off the treadmill while checking out the hot girl in the gym, then tries to cover his error by breaking into a set of pushups, now that he’s on the floor. “Yeah, I meant to do that.” Religions are festooned with cognitive fossils – embarrassing markers of erroneous pre-scientific thinking – and struggling to paint them as all part of some master plan.<\/p>\n

          A true religion would never encounter any need to make an obvious error as part of a plan. Christianity has had to make admissions on numbers of occasions (most notably creation\/evolution), and yet still suffers from multiple logical disconnects with <\/a>reality.<\/p>\n

          (5057) Electrician\u2019s road to atheism<\/strong><\/p>\n

          The following discusses the theological journey of Frank Lerant, who started out as a Christian but then become disturbed and curious when he was confronted by an evangelical co-worker, spurring him to take the matter seriously and to investigate to find the truth:<\/p>\n

          https:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2025\/01\/its-not-hard-to-figure-out-whats-wrong.html#more<\/a><\/p>\n

          I recently finished reading Frank Lerant\u2019s 2021 book,\u00a0How I Opened My Mind and Let God Out: An Electrician\u2019s Road to Atheism\u00a0<\/a>(Kindle, 172 pages). It also is a welcome addition to this publishing boom.<\/p>\n

          Lerant points out that it was his encounter with a fundamentalist co-worker that gave a major boost to his close study\/probing of Christianity, which resulted eventually in the writing of his book. He describes it as \u201c…a culmination of my thoughts based on years of study, argument, and contemplation. I feel a compelling urge to do my part in helping to make religion a thing of the past. It may take generations, but I am confident that if we don\u2019t kill each other off in the name of \u2018God,\u2019 it will happen\u201d (p. 8, Kindle).<\/p>\n

          Study, argument, and contemplation.\u00a0Surveys\u00a0have shown how little churchgoers read the Bible, let alone study it. Serious contemplation also is lacking, especially if that includes critical thinking applied to the Bible. Debate and argument are avoided as well. The devout are okay believing that their clergy know what they\u2019re talking about\u2014after all these ordained keepers of the truth have been to seminary: how can they not be god-experts? Hence the brainwashing of children has worked pretty well. Lerant includes a chapter titled,\u00a0Brainwashing 101, and is precise in detailing the reasons for that churches indulge in this practice: \u201c\u2026the brainwashing must be completed before children develop their logical and critical thinking skills, because these would give them the ability to analyze what they see and hear in a skeptical manner\u201d (p. 14, Kindle).<\/p>\n

          I cheered especially when I read his chapter,\u00a0God\u2014the Biggest Failure of All Time. Just look at the world around us, with so much suffering. Take it all in, but please resist the urge to make god look good. \u201cThe all-seeing, all-knowing God has gotten a lot of things wrong since day one. He built us a planet with killer earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, and other destructive phenomena\u201d (p. 88, Kindle).<\/p>\n

          \u201cGod created deadly bacteria, viruses, and cancer cells that have devastated mankind forever. Billions of people have suffered and died prematurely from disease, including countless children\u201d (p. 88, Kindle)<\/p>\n

          This is indeed the Christianity-crushing problem of horrendous suffering, discussed at length in John Loftus\u2019 2021 anthology,\u00a0God and Horrendous Suffering<\/a>\u00a0(504 pages). This includes 22 essays covering a wide range of issues that render theology helpless (full-disclosure, I contributed two of them). It would certainly help advance the cause of \u201cmaking religion a thing of the past\u201d \u2014in Lerant\u2019s words\u2014if churchgoers brothered to read it. But since even Bible reading is not on their agenda\u2026<\/p>\n

          Lerant sums up the implications of horrendous suffering: \u201cIf there is a god, he is a failure and chooses not to use his powers to make any corrections. Therefore, he should not be worshiped as a god, or perhaps should be ignored completely. In the meantime, men and women can stop wasting their time worshiping this sham\u2026\u201d (p. 90, Kindle).<\/p>\n

          In his chapter 12,\u00a0Side Effects, Lerant briefly mentions\u00a0patriotism, and makes a very important point:<\/p>\n

          \u201cWorshiping and blindly following the orders of a secular leader is just as dangerous as doing so for a religious one. Once you are primed as a child to follow the doctrine of religion without facts or proof, you can more easily be brainwashed to do the same with a nation, a political party, or leader of any kind\u201d (p. 105, Kindle)<\/p>\n

          So is it any surprise that the Trump cult is so closely associated with fanatical Christianity? But I have long regarded patriotism with deep distrust. At the time of World War I, the supposedly Christian nations of Europe, e.g. Germany, France, England, engaged in the most brutal fighting imaginable against each other. These nations got the young fighting men pumped up for battle by an appeal to patriotism: nothing was more important than fanatical loyalty to country. During World War II, Pope Pius XII was deeply distressed that so many Catholics in the various countries at war were killing each other. Yes, patriotism can be just as destructive as unthinking religious devotion.<\/p>\n

          The ecclesiastical bureaucracy gets away with so much because Bible reading is pushed aside by so many of the devout. Lerant provides brilliant analysis of\u00a0what\u2019s wrong with Christianity, especially in his chapters titled,<\/p>\n

          Holy Scriptures\u2014What Good Are They Now?
          \nPlagiarized Paganism
          \nMorality\u2014Is This What the Bible Teaches Us?
          \nIs the New Testament Any Better?<\/p>\n

          There is so much in the Bible that is disastrously bad, but it goes undiscovered by the lazy devout who prefer to trust their spiritual leaders. For those who decide to read the Bible cover-to-cover, they soon discover that it\u2019s a chore; it\u2019s not a labor of love. It should spark alarm and rebellion; it should be a wake-up call. Lerant states the truth bluntly:<\/p>\n

          \u201c\u2026the New Testament is cherry-picked by church leaders and educators for its warm and fuzzy parts. The desire to believe and worship can be so powerful that any rational challenge falls on deaf ears and blind eyes. I ask you, should the wish to believe in something be more important than the authenticity and reality of what you believe in? If you do not read the entire book that you claim guides your life, you are misleading yourself. If you read the book and refuse to acknowledge the inaccuracies, malevolence, contradictions, and controlling agenda, then you have your head in the sand. If you do not question tales of supernatural events in your own holy books but reject other religions\u2019 myths, you are a hypocrite\u201d (p. 55, Kindle).<\/p>\n

          Above all, his chapter,\u00a0Plagiarized Paganism, can help the devout snap out of it. He shows the many ways in which the Bible authors borrowed extensively from ancient miracle folklore, superstitions, and magical thinking. As Richard Carrier has pointed out in his 2018 essay,\u00a0Dying-and-Rising Gods: It\u2019s Pagan Guys. Get Over It<\/a>, there were many other cults that sold the idea of getting to live forever:\u00a0just follow our god.<\/p>\n

          Lerant was raised in a Catholic environment, but even at an early age he began to figure out that church teachings didn\u2019t make sense. When he fell into conversations with a fundamentalist co-worker\u2014as mentioned above\u2014his curiosity went into over-drive. What a pity this response is all too rare. He figured out the truth:<\/p>\n

          \u201cTheology is a powerful tool used for demarcation and is, in many ways, superfluous to the advancement of mankind. Religious divisions have helped to maintain a perpetual state of turmoil worldwide. It has outstayed its welcome. The world would simply be a better place without it. Faith over reason will be the end of us\u201d (p.94, Kindle).<\/p>\n

          Lerant\u2019s road to atheism is a testament to the likely outcome of any individual who is able to overcome the injury of brainwashing and to evaluate the facts objectively. In almost every case of such an endeavor, it will result in a rejection of belief in <\/a>Christianity.<\/p>\n

          (5058) Tracking scriptural slavery ethics proves men created god<\/strong><\/p>\n

          The scriptural trajectory of slavery provides a convincing argument that god was created by men in the image of their own thoughts and morals of their time. The changes that occurred subsequently were changes in humans, not god- who obviously doesn\u2019t exist. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

          https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/1i49rql\/tracking_the_course_of_slavery_proves_men_create\/<\/a><\/p>\n

          <\/a>Tracking the course of slavery proves men create god, not the other way around.<\/p>\n

          \n

          I hold the opinion that god was created by men, in their image. This is why god and it’s rules always seem to match the opinions and desires and customs of the leaders of each religious sect. And it explains why god’s rules change over time. It explains why there is an “old” covenant and then a new covenant. AND it includes Islam afterwards. The pattern holds even into Islam and the Quran. Lets go back to the very beginning and track this and you can see the result for yourself.<\/p>\n

          Borrowing from work done previously<\/a>, using Christian pastor Thorton Stringfellow’s<\/a> work, we can see the pro slavery attitude of “god”, in the early bible. I will ignore the occasions where it is god’s chosen leader who instructs rules around slavery so I can focus my argument on god (And avoid the . . . don’t blame god for the sins of men . . . argument) These are GOD talking . . .<\/p>\n

          Genesis 9:18-27<\/span><\/strong> — Noah <\/span>(the only righteous man on earth… included for this reason<\/span><\/strong>) decrees that his son Ham and his descendants shall be slaves. (This is punishment for Ham’s crime of seeing his father naked) <\/span><\/p>\n

          Genesis 17:12-13<\/span><\/strong> — All males must be circumcised, including those who were bought. <\/span><\/p>\n

          Genesis 16:1-9<\/span><\/strong> — Sarai’s slave fled after being mistreated. God’s angel instructs her to return and submit to her mistress anyway. <\/span><\/p>\n

          Exodus 12:43-45<\/span><\/strong> — God instructs Moses and Aaron that their slaves may only eat food at the passsover meal after they have been circumcised. <\/span><\/p>\n

          Above this line we see the REALLY old views. Here there is no allusion to mercy or kindness. No instructions about treating them well or freeing them. Basic instructions on what do to with slaves, and god ordering a FREED slave who escaped, to go back into slavery.<\/p>\n

          Next . . .<\/p>\n

          Exodus 21:2-6<\/span><\/strong> — Israeli slaves must be set free after 7 years But this does not apply to any foreign slaves <\/span><\/p>\n

          Exodus 21:7-11<\/span><\/strong> — How your daughter must be treated after you sell her into slavery. <\/span><\/p>\n

          Exodus 21:20-21<\/span><\/strong> — You may beat your slaves as long as they do not die within a couple days of the beating. <\/span><\/p>\n

          Exodus 21:26-27<\/span><\/strong> — You have to let your slave go free if you destroy their eye or knock out one of their teeth. <\/span><\/p>\n

          Leviticus 22:10-11<\/span><\/strong> — A priest’s hired servant may not eat the sacred offering, but his slaves can. <\/span><\/p>\n

          Leviticus 25:44-46<\/span><\/strong> — You may buy slaves from the nations around you and bequeath them to your children as inherited property (except if they’re Israelites). <\/span><\/p>\n

          Numbers 31<\/span><\/strong> — After the Israelites conquer the Midianites, Moses orders the execution of everyone except the virgin girls (including the male children). God then instructs Moses on how the 32,000 virgins are to be divvied up and given to the Israelites as their property. <\/span><\/p>\n

          Deuteronomy 15:12-18<\/span><\/strong> — Free your Hebrew slaves every 6 years. Do not consider this a hardship because their service was worth twice as much as a hired hand. <\/span><\/p>\n

          Deuteronomy 20:10-11<\/span><\/strong> — When attacking a city, offer them the option of being your slaves rather than being slaughtered. <\/span><\/p>\n

          Joshua 9<\/span><\/strong> — Joshua “saves” the Gibeonites from being slain by the Israelites. Instead, he makes them slaves to the Israelites in perpetuity. <\/span><\/p>\n

          Above this line, we start to see rules being put into place to protect slaves from the absolute WORST abuses. You are allowed to beat them . . .but they have to survive for at least 2 days after. And we see now that the time frame for releasing is every 6 years. Before it was 7. But we also see slaves from surrounding areas can be bought and held for life. We see some minor improvements to slaves lives from the last section, which god ordered codified into law.<\/p>\n

          Ephesians 6:5-8<\/span><\/strong> — Slaves are to obey their masters as they would obey Christ. <\/span><\/p>\n

          Colossians 3:22<\/span><\/strong> — Paul tells the slaves of Colosse to “obey your earthly masters.” <\/span><\/p>\n

          Colossians 4:1<\/span><\/strong> — Paul says masters should be fair to their slaves. (Tacitly endorsing the existence of slaves and masters) <\/span><\/p>\n

          1 Timothy 6:1-2<\/span><\/strong> — Slaves should consider their masters worthy of full respect. <\/span><\/p>\n

          1 Timothy 1: 10<\/span><\/strong> — 10\u00a0for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers\u2014and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine <\/span><\/p>\n

          Titus 2:9-10<\/span><\/strong> — In his letter, Paul instructs Titus to teach slaves to be obedient. <\/span><\/p>\n

          1 Peter 2:18<\/span><\/strong> — Slaves, submit to your masters; even the harsh ones. <\/span><\/p>\n

          Here we see a lot less orders from “god” directly telling people to go and seek, buy, or capture slaves. And we see masters encouraged to treat their slaves well. But we also clearly see that slaves can be owned, and that slaves are expected to stay loyal and obedient to masters even bad or cruel ones. We still have slavery endorsed and there are fewer laws from god about how to treat slaves, just a general order to be “fair”. We even have ONE passage that speaks poorly of slave traders (FINALLY)<\/p>\n

          33:50<\/span><\/strong> – “Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.” <\/span><\/p>\n

          23:5<\/span><\/strong> those who guard their chastity, except with their wives or those \u02f9bondwomen\u02fa in their possession,1\u00a0for then they are free from blame, <\/span><\/p>\n

          The Quran also instructs Muslims NOT to force their female slaves into prostitution (24:34), and even allows Muslims to marry slaves if they so desire (4:24), and to free them at times as a penalty for crime or sin (<\/span>4:92, 5:89, 58:3<\/span><\/strong>) and even allows slaves to buy their liberty, if they meet certain of their master’s conditions (24:33).\u00a0 <\/span>[90:10<\/span><\/strong> ‘freeing of a bondsman’ refers to Muslims ransoming other Muslims who were slaves of non-Muslims.] <\/span><\/p>\n

          We see in the quran another uptick. While god encourages and allows slavery, we see an increase in care for, and protection of the slaves. This is quite the increase from you can beat them but try not to break their teeth in or kill them or you’ll have to pay a fine mentality of the old test. The quran also encourages you to free your slaves and put that act on par with giving to the poor, Charity.<\/p>\n

          ——————————————————–<\/p>\n

          So what then do I make of all this?<\/p>\n

          I could easily point out that the constant promotion, encouragement etc of slavery makes “god”, a monster. Regardless of which book you see that god supports slavery. Yet today we hold the societal value that slavery is bad. So have we evolved past god’s morals?<\/p>\n

          I believe that applying occams razor, we see the obvious, (albeit painful for many people) truth . . .that god never ordered any of that; because “god” doesn’t exist. The truth is, god never existed. And men, fearful of death and the unknown, invented god. But when they needed to give god a personality, they simply attached their own. Their own beliefs, culture, and values. THIS is why god’s attitude towards slavery changes as we see the writings move forward in time. The MEN who are busy writing on behalf of god, have evolved. Therefore, god and god’s views evolve to match.<\/p>\n

          Men created god. Tracking the course of “god’s” attitude towards slavery is just one proof of this obvious fact.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

          All discussion about the truth of Christianity should stop when it is positively shown, according to the scriptures, that the Christian god endorsed slavery,. This is a game-ender. No apologetics can compensate for a god being less enlightened spiritually or morally than regular human <\/a>beings.<\/p>\n

          (5059) Old Testament is deeply immoral<\/strong><\/p>\n

          It is impossible to scrutinize the Old Testament and claim that the god imagined by Christians is the same god as depicted there. There is a serious disconnect. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

          https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/1i55wq8\/the_old_testament_is_deeply_immoral_and_is_not\/\/<\/a><\/p>\n

          The Old Testament is deeply immoral and is not the work of a moral, just and loving God.<\/p>\n

          \n

          I’d say the Old Testament is clearly deeply immoral and contains many absolutely abhorrent allegedly divine commandments that are totally at odds with the idea of a moral, just and loving God.<\/p>\n

          So for example….<\/p>\n

          Leviticus 25:44-46 allows Israelites to buy slaves from the nations around them, and gives them permission to treat people as property. It says that only fellow Israelites should not be treated as slaves, but foreigners are fair game and can be bought as slaves and treated like property.<\/p>\n

          Exodus 21:20-21 makes some minor concessions, calling for punishment of slave owners who beat up their slave so hard that they die as a result. But it also clearly states that beating your slave is fine if they don’t die because they are the slave owners property.<\/p>\n

          Deuteronomy 20:10-18 says that the Israelites if they attack far-away cities should kill all the men if the city refuses to surrender, and permits them to take women and children as “plunder” and “use” for themselves, so meaning they could use them as slaves, which as we already established taking foreigners as slaves was just fine.<\/p>\n

          And the same passage calls on the Israelites to murder anything that breathes in the case of the “cities of the nation”, meaning the territory of the Canaanite peoples, who as the Israelites believed inhabited the promised land that God had commanded them to conquer and occupy. And apparently God wanted them to slaughter everyone in those territories, including women, children and infants.<\/p>\n

          Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says that a man who rapes a woman shall merely pay her father a fine and then be forced to marry the woman he raped.<\/p>\n

          Deuteronomy 21:18-21 calls on parents who have a disobedient and lazy son to take him to be stoned to death.<\/p>\n

          Leviticus 20:13 calls for the execution of homosexuals engaging in consensual sexual relations.<\/p>\n

          Deuteronomy 22:23-24 calls on the execution of both the man and the woman, if a man has sexual intercourse with a woman pledged to be married off if she doesn’t scream. Of course we know that women who are raped may not scream out of fear, but apparently the Israelites at the time believed if she doesn’t scream it means she wanted it, and so apparently that means she should be killed for it, even though of course she may have been raped.<\/p>\n

          2 Kings 2:23-25 tells the story of some boys who were making fun of a guy for being bald. Turns out that guy was a prophet who didn’t like being made fun of by children, and the story takes a dark turn when the prophet curses the boys in the name of the Lord, and the Lord then sends some bears who maul the children to death for making fun of someone’s bald head.<\/p>\n

          So that’s just a few of the most gruesome, abhorrent verses and doctrines from the Old Testament. And of course Christians will try extremely hard to defend all of this. So I know that apparently this was all about the Old Covenant, but now apparently we are living under the New Covenant. But I really don’t see how this makes any of this any better. Saying there’s now a new agreement in place doesn’t make it any less morally abhorrent to allow someone to buy slaves from overseas and to beat them up as long as they don’t die. Having a new covenant doesn’t make it any more moral to attack far-away cities and take women and children as slaves. It doesn’t make it any less immoral to send bears to maul to death a bunch of young boys for making fun of someone’s bald head. It doesn’t make it any more moral to execute people for engaging in consensual sexual relations. It doesn’t make it any more moral to call for the execution of women who may have potentially been raped, just because she didn’t scream for help.<\/p>\n

          And so if we assumed that the God of the Old Testament is the same God as the God of the New Testament then if that God existed they are certainly not a loving, moral or just God. The Old Testament is extremely immoral and cruel.<\/p>\n

          But the most likely explanation is of course that this alleged God of the Old Testament simply does not exist. The most likely explanation is that those writings are simply a human creation. They are the writings of a bronze-age warmongering people who as most people and tribes during that time were extremely barbaric, violent, sexist, and were extremely backwards in their moral compass. It’s hard to see how any of those writings could possibly be the work of a perfect, just and loving God.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

          The Old Testament destroys any theological claim that Yahweh is an admirable god, or even a realistic one. If anyone starts reading the Bible to figure out if Christianity is true, they can confidently stop well before they reach the New Testament and determine beyond a doubt that this is a fictional <\/a>religion.<\/p>\n

          (5060) God doesn\u2019t care about free will<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Christian apologetics touts the concept that every human possesses free will, allowing them to fairly compete for a heavenly afterlife. But the scriptures tell a different story- God has no problem interfering with free will. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

          https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/atheism\/comments\/1i5z6ih\/the_god_of_the_old_testament_doesnt_care_about\/<\/a><\/p>\n

          <\/a>The god of the Old Testament doesn’t care about “free will.”<\/p>\n

          \n

          Despite the common Christian argument that god values human free will, the Old Testament repeatedly shows god deliberately controlling human behavior. These instances often serve only to showcase god’s power. This is a problem for Christian apologetics that emphasize the importance of free will in god’s plan.<\/p>\n

          I’m an ex-Mormon atheist reading the Bible in its entirety for the first time. Growing up Mormon, I was familiar with the Bible, but had never read it cover-to-cover (my focus was always on the Book of Mormon). At this point, I’ve read through the first five books (the Torah\/Pentateuch) and am in the middle of Joshua. One thing stands out: the god of the Israelites doesn’t care about “free will.”<\/p>\n

          This surprised me, given how central free will is to Christian apologetics. For example, many Christians simply dismiss the problem of evil\/suffering by arguing that suffering is necessary for free will to exist. Yet, the Old Testament contains numerous examples where god completely disregards free will. These aren’t just cases of god issuing commands and punishing disobedience (though there are a\u00a0<\/span>ton<\/span><\/em>\u00a0of stories where god mistreats or kills people for what seem like relatively insignificant “offenses”). Instead, these are situations where god actively\u00a0<\/span>forces<\/span><\/em>\u00a0humans to behave in a certain way, just so that god can show off his own power. I’ll put two very clear examples below.<\/span><\/p>\n

          God<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0<\/span>forces<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0<\/span>Pharaoh to keep the Israelites enslaved<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

          My main exposure to the book of Exodus, prior to actually reading it last week, was the animated “Prince of Egypt” movie, which I watched virtually every Sunday as a child (because it was the only thing my parents allowed me to watch on Sundays). I was surprised to see how incredibly different the actual Exodus story is from that movie, but I won’t get into those details here. As an overview, the Israelites are enslaved in Egypt, and have been for like 400 years. Moses tries to get Pharaoh to release the Israelites from slavery, but god keeps intervening to prolong Pharaoh’s suffering.<\/p>\n

          God\u00a0<\/span>really<\/span><\/em>\u00a0wants to show off his powers, so he sends 10 plagues against the Egyptians, including turning water to blood, sending swarms of frogs and locusts, and killing every firstborn son. At least seven times (Ex. 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; and 11:10), god is directly responsible for “hardening” Pharaoh’s heart, preventing him from freeing the Israelites.<\/span><\/p>\n

          For example, before the 8th plague, god tells Moses:<\/p>\n

          >Go to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his officials, in order that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I have made fools of the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them — so that you may know that I am the LORD<\/p>\n

          (Ex. 10:1-2).<\/p>\n

          Pharaoh might have freed the Israelites earlier, but god wanted to prolong the suffering of the Egyptians just to demonstrate his power. Even after the final plague, where god kills all of the firstborn sons, god isn’t finished. The Israelites are set free, but a few days later, god hardens Pharaoh’s heart again, so that he chases the Israelites into the Red Sea, where god tosses the Egyptian army into the sea, drowning them (Ex. 14:4).<\/p>\n

          God could have avoided ample destruction and death. But the Bible’s wording is clear: god controls Pharaoh’s choices in order to show off his power. Doesn’t this seem like any other story of ancient gods, where the gods treat humans as pawns in their power plays?<\/p>\n

          God<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0<\/span>forces<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0<\/span>kingdoms to fight against Israel<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

          Another example comes in the book of Joshua, where the Israelites, led by Joshua, conquer the promised land. This book is brutal, filled with mass killings of men, women, children, and animals. Joshua himself orders multiple cartel-style executions.<\/p>\n

          God tells the Israelites that he’s given the land to them. The only problem: there are quite a lot of people already living on that land… But god has a plan for that! He tells the Israelites to “not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them…” (Deut. 20:16-17).<\/p>\n

          The Israelites ultimately annihilate 31 kings\/kingdoms (Joshua 12). But were all of these kingdoms truly intent on fighting Israel? No – they only fought because controlled their will:<\/p>\n

          >It was the LORD’s doing to harden their hearts so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed, and might receive no mercy, but be exterminated, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.<\/p>\n

          (Joshua 11:20).<\/p>\n

          In other words, god manipulated these kingdoms into resisting Israel, ensuring their complete destruction. God has no concern over the supposed “free will” of these nations.<\/p>\n

          It’s possible that later in the Bible, god cares a lot more about free will. However, from what I’ve read so far, god is completely fine with violating human autonomy when it allows him to show off his power. These examples should cast serious doubt on any apologetics that rely on the idea of free will being of paramount importance to god’s plan. If free will is so important, then why does god violate it so often – and seemingly just so that he can show off?<\/p>\n

          Obviously, there is no god anyway, so in a sense this is a silly argument. But it does offer an effective critique against the internal consistency of Christian arguments.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

          The Bible delivers mixed messages about the subject of free will, and that is no surprise. It was created by various human authors, each acting on their own. There was no god to ensure a consistent <\/a>product.<\/p>\n

          (5061) Followers of Jesus stayed in Jerusalem<\/strong><\/p>\n

          There is evidence that the followers of Jesus did not return to their homes in Galilee, but remained in Jerusalem, because they believed that Jesus would return very shortly, as in a few weeks or at most, months. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

          https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AcademicBiblical\/comments\/1i6jeou\/time_statements_in_bible\/<\/a><\/p>\n

          Many scholars also argue that Jesus himself probably had a strong apocalyptic emphasis in his discourses\/preaching \u2014which then, after Jesus’s death, would have sparked the conviction that he would return.<\/p>\n

          Elaine Pagels briefly summarises\u00a0here<\/a>:<\/p>\n

          Everything we know about Jesus was written about thirty or forty or fifty years after He died; but as far as you can tell from that, He looks like a Jewish prophet who thought that the end of the world was coming very soon, as John the Baptist said it was, and other Jews at the time, had that expectation.<\/p>\n

          I mean, we call it apocalyptic because it\u2019s about revelation of what happens at the end time. And, the first thing that the Gospel of Mark, which is the earliest account says, is that Jesus said, you know, good news, the Kingdom of God is coming soon and thought it would come within the lifetime of his disciples, which would have been, say, thirty years. So, if there\u2019s accuracy in that, we think he probably was somebody who thought the end time was coming right away.<\/p>\n

          On expectations after Jesus’s death, Dale Allison writes in\u00a0Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination and History<\/em>\u00a0(pp50-51):<\/p>\n

          The point is fortified by the fact that, to judge from the joint testimony of Paul and Acts, Christianity was, from the beginning, and at least for the first two or three decades, centered in Jerusalem. […]<\/p>\n

          Jesus was executed in Jerusalem, which means that Judea must have held some hostility for those associated with him, maybe even danger. So again, why did these people settle in the capital? Why did they not instead go back to their native Galilee, as we might well expect them to have done?<\/p>\n

          Although the extant sources fail to answer the question directly, the proposition that apocalyptic eschatology was part and parcel of the ideology of the earliest Christians provides the best answer. Many of them, to state the obvious, believed that Jesus would return quickly. If we then ask, Where did they think he was headed? the answer is equally evident: Jerusalem. The religious center of Judea was, in the eschatological imagination, the center of the endtime scenario. […]<\/p>\n

          It is only natural, then, that some followers of Jesus who were natives of Galilee took up residence in the capital. This is one more sign of their heightened eschatological expectation, of their sincere conviction that they were living in the \u201clast\u201d or \u201clatter days,\u201d at \u201cthe end of the age.\u201d They were like the Montanists in the next century, who encouraged people to gather to the cities of Pepouza and Tymion in Phrygia, where their movement was headquartered and where they expected the new Jerusalem to descend from heaven.<\/p>\n

          Apologists have attempted to water down the implications of scripture and the expectations of early Christian followers that Jesus would return \u2018shortly.\u2019 They have attempted to claim that the short time frame would come only after certain conditions were met, which are still in the process of forming. This denies the simple and direct reality of scripture and our knowledge of the expectations of First Century <\/a>Christians.<\/p>\n

          (5062) Why \u2018his ways are not our ways\u2019 doesn\u2019t work<\/strong><\/p>\n

          When confronted with difficult questions, Christian apologists often punt with the concession that God\u2019s ways are not our ways, and therefore we cannot expect to understand or explain the situation (but nevertheless trust that God is doing the right thing). The following discusses why this apologetic tactic is flawed:<\/p>\n

          https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/1i7hki2\/we_have_no_choice_but_to_judge_god_from_the_human\/<\/a><\/p>\n

          <\/a>We have no choice but to judge “God” from the human perspective<\/p>\n

          \n

          Religious believers often respond to criticisms of their faith with statements like, \u201cGod\u2019s ways are not our ways,\u201d implying that our human minds are too limited to judge God. I argue that this response is nonsensical because our human perspective is the only one we have to assess anything, including the existence and nature of a potential God.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

          There are several possibilities to consider about God or higher beings:<\/p>\n