{"id":6944,"date":"2017-03-01T08:07:48","date_gmt":"2017-03-01T13:07:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=6944"},"modified":"2017-05-25T16:23:02","modified_gmt":"2017-05-25T20:23:02","slug":"1501-1550","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=6944","title":{"rendered":"1501-1550"},"content":{"rendered":"

(1501) Christianity\u2019s use of the hero\/villain mythotype<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fictional literature from the earliest days of mankind\u2019s written history is full of stories of heroes who must confront an antagonist, a villain, an evil being who is trying to thwart the benevolent mission of the champion. In Christianity, this role i filled by Satan, Lucifer, or the devil, who along with his demon followers are a figurative thorn in the side of God. This evil empire of beings is what is commonly used to deflect the blame away from God for many of the malevolent things that happen.<\/p>\n

But would we expect a universe with a real god to also have an opposing supernatural evil entity? Is there some specific reason why this is necessary?\u00a0 The answer is no. Christianity could have skipped the antihero motif and simply revealed a god who made his presence felt and his standards understood.\u00a0 A god who does not interfere with the natural physical forces, implying that random events, sometimes of an unpleasant nature, will occur.<\/p>\n

The people who wrote the Bible didn\u2019t understand that earthquakes, hailstorms, diseases, and lightning were natural processes but rather thought that they must have been produced by sentient beings- either an angry god or an evildoer.\u00a0 Thus, they invented the person of Satan to satisfy their ignorance.<\/p>\n

So, it\u2019s not enough to say that Satan is a highly improbable being, based on a modern scientific viewpoint. It is also true that he is totally irrelevant based on that same perspective.\u00a0 The fact that Christianity used the hero\/villain mythotype, common to all other fiction of its day and beyond, is strong evidence that it is fictional as <\/a>well.<\/p>\n

(1502) The existence of debates<\/strong><\/p>\n

The internet is full of debates between theists and atheists arguing for and against the existence of the Christian God. It should impress both parties as to the significance of this situation. We are not talking about an observer god who creates the universe and then stands back and watches what happens. \u00a0No, the Christian god is supposedly all-seeing and all-powerful, and is interested in what everybody is doing. \u00a0He is fully interactive, answers prayers, and is known to have flooded the earth, raining down locusts on his enemies, slaying people right and left, and manipulating the rotation of the earth.\u00a0 This is not a hands-off kind of god.<\/p>\n

So why, twenty centuries after this concept was fully presented, with billions of people living in the wake of this belief, with this interactive god putting his fingers into every situation, are we still debating his existence?\u00a0 His reality should be blatantly obvious. We should be no more debating the existence of this god than we do of the sun, or the moon, or camels.<\/p>\n

To put this in perspective, borrowed from a commenter on reddit.com: We don\u2019t need apologetics for houseflies. You simply point to them and say \u201cthere\u2019s one now.\u201d Apparently the mightier you are, the more you need middle-aged pseudo-academics to \u2018demonstrate\u2019 your existence. Quite a <\/a>paradox.<\/p>\n

(1503) The Bible\u2019s many gods<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judeo-Christianity makes a claim that there is only one god.\u00a0 Although Satan has supernatural powers, he is for some reason not considered a god, albeit an evil one.\u00a0 But evidence from the Old Testament reveals that monotheism was an evolved concept that emerged from polytheistic beginnings. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.firstthings.com\/web-exclusives\/2014\/01\/the-bibles-many-gods<\/a><\/p>\n

The idea that there are other \u201cgods\u201d who exist as real supernatural beings, albeit infinitely inferior to the only Creator and Redeemer, pervades the Bible. The Psalms fairly explode with evidence. \u201cThere is none like you among the gods, O Lord\u201d (86:8); \u201cFor great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; he is to be revered above all gods\u201d (96:4); \u201cOur Lord is above all gods\u201d (135:5); \u201cAscribe to Yahweh, [you] gods, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength\u201d (29:1, my trans.); \u201cHe is exalted above all gods\u201d (97:7); \u201cFor Yahweh is a great god, and a great king above all gods\u201d (95:3, my trans.). And so on.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s not just the Psalms. In Exodus Yahweh predicts that he will execute judgments \u201con all the gods of Egypt\u201d (12:12). The author of Numbers then declares that that is indeed what happened: \u201cYahweh executed judgments against their gods\u201d (33:4). There is no hint that Yahweh is the only God. Instead it is clearly implied that Egypt has her own gods, and Yahweh will defeat them.<\/p>\n

When Yahweh gives his people the Ten Commandments, the first commandment implies the existence of other gods: \u201cYou shall have no other gods before me\u201d (Exod. 20:3; see also Deut. 5:7). In Exodus 23:32\u201333 Israel is told not to covenant with or worship other gods; there is no suggestion that the gods of Israel\u2019s neighbors do not exist.<\/p>\n

In Deuteronomy 4:19 the Israelites are forbidden from worshipping \u201cthe sun, the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven . . . [which] Yahweh your god has allotted to all the peoples everywhere under heaven.\u201d In other words, they were told not to worship other gods, not because those gods did not exist, but because they were supposed to rule other peoples, not Israel.<\/p>\n

Yahweh himself, who created and rules the other gods, would rule Israel directly. He would rule the nations indirectly through the delegated authority of other gods. This, apparently, was the original intent behind the strange passage regarding the \u201cprince of Persia\u201d in Daniel 10: \u201cThe prince of Persia withstood me [perhaps the angel Gabriel] twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me\u201d (v. 13).<\/p>\n

Something had gone terribly wrong in Psalm 82. The supernatural beings He had appointed to rule the nations justly had failed to perform. They were supposed to rule with justice, executing judgments on behalf of the poor, the widows and the rest of the nations. But because they did not judge properly, Yahweh would judge them. And the punishment was ferocious.<\/p>\n

[Yahweh] has taken his place in\u00a0the divine council,
\nIn the midst of the\u00a0gods\u00a0he passes judgment. . . .
\nAnd all of you, sons of Elyon [God Most High]
\nInstead\u00a0like Adam you shall die,
\nAnd like one of the \u2018Shining Ones\u2019 you shall fall.\u201d
\n\u201cArise, O Yahweh; Judge the earth!
\nMay you take possession of all the nations!\u201d<\/p>\n

If these \u201cgods\u201d were really human beings, verse 7 would not make sense, for all humans die like Adam. Why would this be a special punishment? Instead, there is a hint in this verse of cosmic rebellion against Yahweh. It calls to mind Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, where the king of Babylon and prince of Tyre are condemned for their rebellious pride. In Isaiah 14:13\u201314, the rebellion is explicit. The \u201cShining One, son of Dawn\u201d (the same phrase used here in Ps. 82:7) tried to place himself above \u201cthe stars of El [the highest God, or Yahweh]\u201d to \u201csit enthroned in the Mount of Assembly (of the gods),\u201d to \u201cbe like Elyon [the fuller name for the Most High God].\u201d<\/p>\n

The drift of these passages is that the gods\u2014which are sometimes regarded in the Hebrew Bible as fallen angels and arguably are the genesis of Paul\u2019s \u201cprincipalities and powers\u201d\u2014are condemned to death not simply because of their failure to rule with justice, but more importantly, for their rebellion against their Maker, Yahweh. Their unjust rule of the nations was simply one of many expressions of their rebellion, which was the principal reason for Yahweh\u2019s discipline.<\/p>\n

Christians later came to see these two stories in the prophets as allusions to Satan\u2019s fall from grace. Once created as God\u2019s most gifted and beautiful supernatural being, Satan abused his authority and then led a rebellion against Yahweh. God punished him by limiting his authority on earth; he is still the \u201cgod of this world\u201d (2 Cor. 4:4) but his authority is checked by God\u2019s sovereign purposes, and his final destruction is decreed.<\/p>\n

T. Wright calls this \u201ccreational monotheism,\u201d which means that Yahweh rules over a cosmos thick with not only good angels but also fallen angels masquerading as the true God. Wright insists that \u201cwe have very few examples of \u2018pure\u2019 monotheism anywhere, including in the Hebrew Bible.\u201d<\/p>\n

For the biblical authors, these weak and beggarly \u201cgods\u201d helped explain why this cosmos seems to be at war, both spiritually and politically. They believed the ancient pagan religions were animated by powers hostile to Yahweh, actively fighting Yahweh\u2019s control of the cosmos. It was no surprise to them that history is full of conflict, because its driving animus is conflict between supernatural forces, which are visibly represented by both religious and political communities.<\/p>\n

In other words, wars between nations were really only the shadowy surface of the deeper and more fundamental combat between spiritual powers. So Samuel Huntington, the Harvard political scientist whose\u00a0Clash of Civilizations\u00a0claimed the real inspiration for modern wars would be cultural and religious, was making what might be seen as a biblical argument.<\/p>\n

If originally Yahweh was considered to be just one of many gods, then the belief in these \u2018other\u2019 gods must have been fallacious. That being the case, it is an easy extension to assume that Yahweh is a false god as <\/a>well.<\/p>\n

(1504) Math of the Great Flood<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Genesis, Chapter 7, the particulars of Noah\u2019s flood adventure are spelled out. We are told that it rained for forty days and nights and that all of the mountains of the Earth were covered to a depth of more than 15 cubits. Dr. Marty Leipzig worked out the math to determine the amount of water needed to accomplish this feat. It was calculated to be 4.525 billion cubic kilometers:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.holysmoke.org\/cretins\/fludmath.html<\/a><\/p>\n

The surface of the Earth is 510 million square kilometers. The highest recorded precipitation in one hour ever measured on Earth was 0.305 meters (about 12 inches) in Holt, Missouri, USA, on June 22, 1947.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/List_of_weather_records#Rain<\/a><\/p>\n

Now we have all of the information needed to compute the strength of rainfall needed to cover the mountains on Earth during a 40 day rainfall and to compare that to the highest ever recorded rainfall intensity.\u00a0 The first assumption is that the rainfall was constantly hard over the entire surface of the Earth for the entire 40-day period.<\/p>\n

The formula for X= required rainfall intensity is:<\/p>\n

4,525,000,000 km3<\/sup>= (510,000,000 km2<\/sup>) (40 days) (24hr\/day) (X)<\/p>\n

X = 0.00924 km\/hr = 9.24 meters\/hr, or about 363 inches per hour<\/p>\n

So to produce the amount of flooding described in Genesis, it would have to rain over the entire surface of the Earth continuously for 40 days at an intensity of 363 inches per hour, or at a rate that is more than 30 times the highest hourly rainfall rate ever recorded.\u00a0 The rain would deliver an inch of precipitation every 10 seconds- an intensity that would have overwhelmed and capsized the Ark, reduced visibility to zero, and suffocated any living thing <\/a>exposed.<\/p>\n

(1505) Summary of Christianity\u2019s problems<\/strong><\/p>\n

A religion based on a real god would be expected to produce a tableau of lofty ideals, graceful behaviors, and beneficent works.\u00a0 Some of these attributes can be ascribed to Christianity\u2019s history, but there is a dark flip side to this equation. The following website summarizes some of the problems associated with Christianity and the deeds and conduct it has engendered:<\/p>\n

\u00a0http:\/\/www.fight-religion.com\/christianity-s-problems<\/a><\/p>\n

This list is partly taken from Chapter 10, \u201c20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity\u201d from Chaz Bufe’s\u00a0book, Provocations. I have condensed his list. See Reviews, Books under Bufe.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Christianity is based on fear: The faith preaches fear of death, fear of Hell, and fear of Satan. Innocent children are taught that if they don\u2019t obey their parents (who, of course, speak for God) they will be captured by Satan and sent to eternal torture. This is a particularly evil form of child abuse. Even adults can find it very difficult to shed this terror.<\/li>\n
  2. Christians are unsure of their faith: if they were as confident of it as, for example, the appearance of the sun in the morning, they would not have to proselytize and use threats to persuade the unpersuaded. The greater their efforts, the less sure they are of their beliefs. Hence, Christianity is dishonest. No believer will admit to being unsure. Note the loud, insistent, angry tone of so many TV preachers!<\/li>\n
  3. Christianity is egocentric and arrogant: It is infantile for any human to believe that he or she is personally attended to or monitored by God. It is even more arrogant to think that humanity is specially favored by the God of the universe. It is almost beyond imagining that people pray for their team to win or to find a parking spot. To think that God cares about such things is to render him trivial.<\/li>\n
  4. Christianity trivializes real life: believers both care intensely that others follow their moral standards, yet claim that the afterlife is the only important thing. And why do many believers try so hard to accumulate earthly wealth? Jesus said to sell your possessions and give the money to the poor. Almost no Christians do that, proving that they are hypocrites to the core. (Not to mention voting for Donald Trump!)<\/li>\n
  5. Christianity favors a we-vs.-them attitude: saved or unsaved, eternally damned or eternally blessed. How can a believer have real feelings for someone who will be damned for eternity?<\/li>\n
  6. Christianity favors cruelty: The Crusades, the Inquisitions, the witch-hunters, and the evil doings of the conquistadors are only the most famous examples. Inquisitors would torture \u201cheretics\u201d until they confessed, with the idea that a heretic who admitted the Church\u2019s \u201ctruth\u201d would be saved from hell. The Bible never condemns torture or cruelty. Religious thinking is mass insanity.<\/li>\n
  7. Christianity rejects critical thinking: Tertullian and Luther, among many other authorities, said that reason is the greatest enemy of faith. That\u2019s true: someone who thinks is much less likely to swallow Christian garbage. As we see in the current fight over evolution, believers still think that the Bible is a science textbook. If so, it\u2019s the worst one ever written. The world would be much better off if the Bible had never existed (unless even worse religious texts took its place). Christianity has never contributed to objective knowledge, but has consistently opposed advances in science and medicine. Having intolerant evangelicals in charge of war and nuclear weapons is a menace to human life.<\/li>\n
  8. Christian morality is misdirected: Believers are enraged at gays, premarital sex, and any erotic behavior that they do not approve of (even while some are doing it). This distorted morality makes their moral views void. They hate abortion even when it\u2019s a matter of a few cells, but they do not care for actual children, or childhood poverty or disease. Some Catholic charities are an exception, but their efforts are ruined because of the Church\u2019s insane attitudes toward contraception and abortion. The Church is not pro-life, proved by their opposition to condoms, which can prevent the spread of AIDS.<\/li>\n
  9. Christianity favors secular powers: Paul said that obeying the secular powers is equivalent to obeying God because he put the powers in place. The result is that the Church sucks up to governments so long as they favor the faith. Consequently, powerful religious establishments ignore the poor and downtrodden. Billy Graham was a prime example of this.<\/li>\n
  10. Christianity disfavors the natural world: James Watt, Reagan\u2019s Secretary of the Interior, said that it\u2019s proper to rape and pillage nature because the Rapture would arrive soon. He, along with all other prophesying idiots, was wrong. Nature is still here but the Rapture is not.<\/li>\n
  11. Christianity neglects women, children, and slaves: Bible verses condemning women are too numerous to quote. Church officials Paul, Tertullian, and others maintained this prejudice. Children are treated as semi-human inferiors. The Bible never opposes slavery.<\/li>\n
  12. The Bible is an error-filled mess: There are literally thousands of contradictions, ambiguities, and mistakes of all kinds in the so-called Holy Book inspired by God. If he had anything to do with it, he\u2019s a moron. He also failed to teach Jesus anything about how the world works.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Taken together, these points strongly suggest that Christianity is a man-made creation that was limited by the knowledge and mores of its creators. It has certainly motivating many people to take noble and charitable actions, but on balance, it has, arguably, produced more bad than good. This is not the scorecard of a faith that was created, monitored, and overseen by an omniscient, omni-benevolent, all-powerful deity who interacts with people on an individual <\/a>level.<\/p>\n

    (1506) The Great Schism of 1054<\/strong><\/p>\n

    In Matthew 16:18, Jesus appointed Peter to be the head of his church and included a prophecy about its future success:<\/p>\n

    And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.<\/p>\n

    Unfortunately, Jesus\u2019s prophecy failed. \u00a0In the Great Schism of 1054, Christendom was permanently split into two warring factions- The Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Church. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.dummies.com\/religion\/christianity\/catholicism\/the-split-that-created-roman-catholics-and-eastern-orthodox-catholics\/<\/a><\/p>\n

    Eastern Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics are the result of what is known as the East-West Schism (or Great Schism) of 1054, when medieval Christianity split into two branches.<\/p>\n

    The Byzantine split with Roman Catholicism came about when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne, King of the Franks, as Holy Roman Emperor in 800. From the Byzantine viewpoint, this was a slap to the Eastern Emperor and the Byzantine Empire itself \u2014 an empire that had withstood barbarian invasions and upheld the faith for centuries. After Rome fell in 476, Byzantium was the only vestige of the Holy Roman Empire.<\/p>\n

    Charlemagne\u2019s crowning made the Byzantine Emperor redundant, and relations between the East and the West deteriorated until a formal split occurred in 1054. The Eastern Church became the Greek Orthodox Church by severing all ties with Rome and the Roman Catholic Church \u2014 from the pope to the Holy Roman Emperor on down.<\/p>\n

    Over the centuries, the Eastern Church and Western Church became more distant and isolated for the following reasons:<\/p>\n

    Geography<\/span>:\u00a0The West encompassed Western Europe and the northern and western areas of the Mediterranean and the East took up Asia Minor, the Middle East, and Northern Africa.<\/p>\n

    Ignorance<\/span>:\u00a0The Byzantine Church knew less and less Latin and even less Latin tradition, and vice versa. So most patriarchs in Constantinople couldn\u2019t read any Latin, and most popes in Rome couldn\u2019t read any Greek. Byzantines in the East used leavened bread in their Divine Liturgy to symbolize the Risen Christ, and Latins in the West used unleavened bread as was used by Jesus at the Last Supper.<\/p>\n

    Different theologies<\/span>:\u00a0Both were valid, but each had its own perspective. The West (Latin) was more practical and, although fully believing in the divinity of Christ, put emphasis on his humanity when depicting Jesus in art \u2014 especially by making realistic crucifixes. The East (Byzantine) was more theoretical and, although fully believing in the humanity of Christ, focused on his divinity, which was much more mysterious.<\/p>\n

    Personalities and politics<\/span>:\u00a0Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope St. Leo IX weren\u2019t friends, and each one mistrusted the other. Cerularius crossed the line when he wrote in a letter that the Latin use of unleavened bread was Jewish but not Christian. He was denying the validity of the Holy Eucharist in the Western Church. Leo countered by saying that the patriarchs had always been puppets of the Byzantine emperors.<\/p>\n

    In the end, Pope Leo and Patriarch Michael excommunicated each other and their respective churches. But more than 900 years later, in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople removed the mutual excommunications.<\/p>\n

    Eastern Orthodox branches include the Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Greek Catholic, Melkite, Romanian, and Italo-Albanian Byzantine Churches. In addition to the Byzantine, Eastern Catholics also include Maronite, Coptic or Chaldean Catholic Churches.<\/p>\n

    In any event, the schism that divided Christendom right down the middle exists to this day. Although both sides accept the validity of each one\u2019s orders and sacraments, no inter-Communion exists between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox. That means that normally speaking, Catholics aren\u2019t allowed to receive Holy Communion in Orthodox Churches, and conversely, Orthodox shouldn\u2019t receive Holy Communion in Catholic Churches.<\/p>\n

    It is difficult to believe that a god who set up a church and promised to protect it against malevolent factions would sit by and watch as it split in two, then go another thousand years without any effort to restore it to its previous unity.\u00a0 Jesus\u2019s alleged promise to Peter was not met. God failed to maintain his church when he supposedly had that ability to do so, but human endeavors have a history of this kind of fracturing, and this looks to be just one <\/a>more.<\/p>\n

    (1507) Dissociative Identity Disorder\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), previously known as multiple personality disorder, presents a difficulty for the Christian reward and punishment scheme.\u00a0 Persons afflicted with DID can exhibit varying degrees of religiosity from fundamentalism to atheism, depending on which personality is dominant at the time. This would tend to negate a fair assessment of their post-life assignment to either heaven or hell.\u00a0 The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

    https:\/\/www.psychologytoday.com\/conditions\/dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder<\/a><\/p>\n

    DID reflects a failure to integrate various aspects of identity, memory, and consciousness into a single multidimensional self. Usually, a primary identity carries the individual’s given name and is passive, dependent, guilty, and depressed. When in control, each personality state, or alter, may be experienced as if it has a distinct history, self-image and identity. The alters’ characteristics\u2014including name, reported age and gender, vocabulary, general knowledge, and predominant mood\u2014contrast with those of the primary identity. Certain circumstances or stressors can cause a particular alter to emerge. The various identities may deny knowledge of one another, be critical of one another or appear to be in open conflict.<\/p>\n

    If one aspect of an individual\u2019s personality worships Jesus, while another considers Jesus to be a myth, how can this person be fairly judged for the afterlife?\u00a0 Would their time be split between the two places? To be fair, most Christians who are not afflicted with DID, in the strictest sense, often waver between belief and doubt. Is their eternal destiny determined by the chance state of their mindset at the moment of death?\u00a0 These questions expose the arbitrary and unworkable elements of the Christian reward and punishment <\/a>scheme.<\/p>\n

    (1508) The blindness of early conversion<\/strong><\/p>\n

    It is very common for ecstatic feelings to accompany initial experiences of what people feel is God or Jesus. Similarly, when someone falls hopelessly in love, and experiences the elation and hormones of being loved, it is difficult for them to see the faults in that person that friends and family may try to point out. The same is true for Christianity- one can and does dismiss, minimize, and ignore facts that may contradict the religion they have fondly embraced. This intrinsic \u2018blindness\u2019 is why it is so difficult to de-convert an individual who has recently converted to a religion or cult.<\/p>\n

    Religious clergy, and especially evangelical preachers, exploit this human susceptibility to their advantage. They play up the emotional aspect of the conversion experience while dialing down any appeal to hard facts and evidence supporting the reality of the faith. Once ensconced, the initiate will inevitably come down off from the initial high, but will then be socially and financially invested in the new belief system, fortified with an information filter that deflects all contrary evidence.\u00a0 The person has thus become captured into a belief scheme that defies logic, history, science, cosmology, and common sense.<\/p>\n

    Christianity is not the only religion that indulges the vulnerabilities of the human mind, but it perhaps does it better than any others. By imposing the ridiculous idea of having a \u00a0\u2018personal relationship\u2019 with a being who cannot be seen, heard, or felt, it uses the blindness of love to its advantage. And this distinctly anti-intellectual strategy is a good clue that it doesn\u2019t have any legitimate legs to stand <\/a>on.<\/p>\n

    (1509) Why does God no longer speak audibly?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    In the Bible, God spoke audibly to Adam and Eve, to Abraham, to Moses, to Job, to Jesus at his baptism, to Jesus and his disciples at the transfiguration, and to Paul on the road to Damascus, to name a few.\u00a0 These were voices that could be heard by any bystanders- in other words, they involved the vibrations of air molecules that could be detected and understood by human ears.\u00a0 If the technology had existed at this time, the voice of God could have been recorded.<\/p>\n

    Although many contemporary Christians claim that God or Jesus talks to them, none of them have provided recordings of these conversations.\u00a0 It seems that God no longer talks in a manner that involves sound waves moving through the air.\u00a0 These days, he only communicates within the brains of his followers. In other words, he only communicates in a way that could be\u2026 just could be\u2026nothing more than voices in their heads- placing select words in \u2018God\u2019s\u2019 mouth to say what they want him to say.<\/p>\n

    So, why does God no longer speak audibly? Could it be that he doesn\u2019t want to be recorded? Or could it be because he never really spoke that way in the first place? Or better yet, because he never actually <\/a>existed?<\/p>\n

    (1510) Musical instruments in\u00a0heaven<\/strong><\/p>\n

    In Revelation 14:2, the author discusses the use of harps in heaven:<\/p>\n

    And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps.<\/p>\n

    As discussed below, this projection of contemporary societal culture onto heavenly activity is evidence of the human origin of scripture:<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.humanreligions.info\/heaven.html#Heaven_Instruments_Bible<\/a><\/p>\n

    The Bible’s description of\u00a0musical instruments\u00a0in heaven gives us more evidence that scripture is human-made and bound by human imagination rather than being divinely inspired. It is well enough that the Hebrews wrote about holy men and other people playing the\u00a0lyre\u00a0and other precursors to the harp, as, those instruments were growing in popularity since their adoption from Syrian culture. But it just so happens that\u00a0Revelation 14:2<\/a>\u00a0says that these instruments emanate from\u00a0heaven<\/a>\u00a0itself, from the angels! Is it coincidence that heavenly beings play\u00a0exactly the same\u00a0instruments as popular at the time of the formation of the\u00a0Jewish<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Christian<\/a>\u00a0holy texts? Why do the hosts of heaven not play a\u00a0Chinese<\/a>,\u00a0Australian<\/a>\u00a0or even an electronic or modern instrument?<\/p>\n

    The answer to these questions is that the description of\u00a0heaven<\/a>\u00a0is\u00a0culturally sourced\u00a0in the time of the Hebrews and early Christians, and is therefore human and not divine in nature. The description of heaven takes elements of Human culture and\u00a0projects\u00a0them on to the divine. This can hardly be a phenomenon just of\u00a0Jewish<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Christian<\/a>\u00a0holy texts, but is a feature of religion worldwide. Consciously or subconsciously, the details of “divine truth” are simply made up: a form of subconscious, accidental\u00a0homocentricity<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

    The Bible is replete with homocentricity, and of a form that conforms uniformly to the state of human affairs at the time that it was written. This is precisely what would be expected of a holy text that was written solely by humans, whose knowledge, wisdom, and experience was limited by the boundaries of their contemporary <\/a>civilization.<\/p>\n

    (1511) Life after death fantasies<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The concept of life after death is a belief that has permeated nearly every human civilization dating to at least 50,000 years ago, back to the time of the Neanderthals. These fantasies have never been based on anything other than wishful thinking or the misinterpretation of dreams or other natural phenomena.\u00a0 The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/ladyatheist.blogspot.com\/2011\/06\/top-ten-reasons-why-religion-is.html<\/a><\/p>\n

    This is another commonality.\u00a0 Sure, we don’t want to die.\u00a0 We also\u00a0don’t want to believe that\u00a0our loved ones are truly gone when they die, but this life is very likely (like 99.99999%) all there is.\u00a0 Again, the fact that every culture has this fantasy and that none of them have the same fantasy is pretty good reason not to believe any of them.\u00a0 Notice that when people talk about Heaven they never mention anyone but the people they knew in life as hanging out there?\u00a0 And maybe their pets.\u00a0 They don’t think that their granny might be in Hell or that they’ll be sharing praise duty with millions of babies that died from cholera and dysentery before society started cleaning up water supplies.<\/p>\n

    The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.humanreligions.info\/afterlife.html<\/a><\/p>\n

    The idea of avoiding death through some kind of belief in the afterlife is one of the most powerful driving forces behind religious belief<\/a>. For many people, (1) the personal desire to survive death and (2) the personal desire for social justice both conspire to make belief in the afterlife\u00a0feel right. Some historians say that belief in an afterlife is one of the universal traits of primitive Human culture that led to the founding of our religions, and it continues to fuel the appeal of faith even today, in the 21st century. Actual beliefs have differed from culture to culture, based mostly on geographic location. Historically many cultures believed that all dead folk (good and bad) go to a single underworld, but\u00a0Christianity<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Islam<\/a>\u00a0developed their ideas of heaven and hell into a very black-and-white moralistic affair. Now, many people say their fear of hell is one of the reasons they follow their religion.<\/p>\n

    Most spiritual experiences throughout the rest of the world rest on the idea of continual reincarnation rather than on heaven. The concept of an ultimate scheme which redresses the moral imbalances of the world is common to religion both in the West and in the East. God, or Karma, works to make sure that good people are rewarded, and bad people taught a lesson. It teaches us that we have a powerful social instinct towards justice, and when we don’t find it in this life, it is very soothing for us to believe that it is found in the next. There is no actual evidence for any kind of afterlife\u00a0and in many countries where scientific knowledge is high, belief in the afterlife has heavily declined.\u00a0In 2013, only 33% of the British public said that they believe in an afterlife<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    The fact that afterlife beliefs have been so ubiquitous over the course of human history sheds much doubt that any of them are factual, given that at least all but one must be false.\u00a0 Adding to this is the absence of evidence supporting the idea. First off, there has been no verifiable contact with any dead persons. Perhaps the most famous attempt to communicate beyond the grave was a plan concocted by the great magician Houdini. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.npr.org\/templates\/story\/story.php?storyId=130890435<\/a><\/p>\n

    Ninety-year-old Sid Radner has had a lifelong fascination with Harry Houdini, the legendary escape artist and magician who died on Halloween.<\/p>\n

    And every year on the anniversary of Houdini’s death, Radner tries to contact his hero at the Official Houdini Seance.<\/p>\n

    “Houdini died in ’26,” Radner says, “and his wife tried to contact him on the anniversary of his death for 10 years.”<\/p>\n

    Houdini, himself, debunked mediums and proved most were frauds. He promised his wife, Bess, that if it were possible to communicate with the dead, he would come back to her, should he die first. And he gave her a code to help prove it.<\/p>\n

    But after 10 years with no success, Bess stopped trying to contact her husband. “At that point she said, ‘Ten years was long enough to wait for any man,'” Radner says.<\/p>\n

    The next problem with the afterlife theory is that science has concluded that every aspect of our consciousness is tied to the physical structures of the brain. This should not be the case if humans have a portion of their identity that survives death. \u00a0We know that the ability to see, hear, and think requires a physical structure of some sort, so the only way that we could survive death would be for some supernatural being to reconstruct us. But as discussed in #1375, this new person, however identical to our previous body, would not be us.<\/p>\n

    Christianity borrowed the afterlife concept from the many pagan religions that preceded it, even though it was not a particular aspect of Judaism, meaning that Jesus, if he was a real person, probably did not believe in it. But 40-60 years later, as the gospel authors wrote their accounts, Jesus was posthumously made to support the concept.\u00a0 All of this combined with the fact that promising eternal bliss is a great recruiting tool should make it obvious to any thinking person that heaven is nothing more than an empty <\/a>promise.<\/p>\n

    (1512) The demise of dualism<\/strong><\/p>\n

    One of the principal assumptions of Christianity and many other religions is that the mind and the body are not identical and that they have a separate essence. This is called dualism. This concept is instrumental in the belief that life continues after the death of the body.\u00a0 This theory has been damaged incrementally by continued scientific investigation of the brain, which has identified the neurological structures that account for memory, face recognition, emotions, etc. What has eluded scientists, though, is the mechanism of consciousness- how all of these inputs come together to develop a sense of \u201cI.\u201d That is, until now. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

    https:\/\/qz.com\/919819\/giant-neurons-from-the-claustrum-found-wrapped-around-mouse-brains-could-explain-the-biological-origin-of-consciousness\/<\/a><\/p>\n

    Nobody yet understands how a collection of mushy cells in the brain gives rise to the brilliance of consciousness seen in higher-order animals, including humans. But two discoveries give scientists vital clues to how human consciousness works.<\/p>\n

    In 2014, a 54-year-old woman went to George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates in Washington, DC, for epilepsy treatment. In extreme cases like hers, one option is to introduce electrodes into the brain regions that may be causing epileptic seizures. During the treatment, however, doctor Mohamad Koubeissi and his team\u00a0accidentally found<\/a>\u00a0what seemed to be a consciousness on-off switch in the brain.<\/p>\n

    When electrodes near a region called the claustrum were stimulated in the woman\u2019s brain, she stopped reading and blankly stared into space. She didn\u2019t respond to calls or gestures, and her breathing slowed down. When the stimulation was stopped, she regained consciousness and had no memory of the lost period. This only happened when the stimulation was to the claustrum, and no other region.<\/p>\n

    The woman\u2019s case proved to be just the evidence that Christof Koch of the Allen Institute for Brain Science was looking for to advance his understanding of consciousness. Koch believes that the densely connected claustrum is the \u201cseat\u201d of consciousness in the brains (of at least humans and mice, which he has studied extensively).<\/p>\n

    The three giant neurons that encircle a mouse brain.\u00a0(Allen Institute for Brain Science)<\/p>\n

    Now, in\u00a0an announcement<\/a>\u00a0first reported in Nature, Koch has found additional evidence that supports his hypothesis. While studying imaging techniques on mouse brains, Koch uncovered three giant neurons\u2014brain cells that transmit signals\u2014emanating from the claustrum and connecting to many regions in both hemispheres of the brain. One of those neurons wraps around the entire brain like a \u201ccrown of thorns,\u201d Koch told Nature. He believes that the giant neuron may be coordinating signals from different brain regions to create consciousness.<\/p>\n

    The neurons have remained hidden so far, because imaging techniques used to study individual neurons are still quite rudimentary. The most commonly used method involves inserting a dye into a single neuron and tracing its path by hand. The labor-intensive method has only yielded a handful of neurons mapped this way.<\/p>\n

    To make his discovery, Koch developed a method where only neurons of the claustrum were activated, in the presence of a drug. He could then study them under UV light, which caused those specific neurons to emit fluorescent light.<\/p>\n

    The 20th century has a seen a lot of progress in brain science, and some of it has been in assigning brain functions to biological parts of the organ. Consider\u00a0face blindness<\/a>, a condition that can prevent sufferers from remembering even what their parents or their spouses look like. We\u2019ve learned that these people have a problem in a specific region in the brain called fusiform face area, which stops them from forming the face-to-person connection that most people take for granted.<\/p>\n

    But solving the problem of consciousness, and finding its physical pathways, has eluded scientists thus far. Though Koch\u2019s hypothesis about the claustrum will need a lot more research to be proven, his is one of the most advanced theories pinpointing the biological origins of consciousness. If he is correct, it will be a big step forward towards understanding what makes the human experience so unique.<\/p>\n

    This is as close as science has ever come to destroying the theory of dualism and to demonstrating that life after death is highly unlikely. As such, it is a further blow to the possibility that Christianity is grounded in <\/a>reality.<\/p>\n

    (1513) Sermon on the Mount was plagiarized<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The Sermon on the Mount is often touted by Christian apologists as evidence for Jesus\u2019s divinity, given that the quotations were allegedly both original and beyond anything a human would be capable of communicating.\u00a0 Both of these claims are groundless. At the following website, the sermon is shown to be an exercise in plagiarism by the author of Matthew from the Old Testament and the Talmud:<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.jdstone.org\/cr\/files\/thesermononthemount.html<\/a><\/p>\n

    Proverbs 29:23 || \u2026he who is lowly in spirit shall obtain honor.<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:3 || Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom.<\/p>\n

    Psalms 147:3 || He heals the brokenhearted, and binds up their wounds.<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:4 || Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.<\/p>\n

    Psalms 37:11 || The meek shall inherit the earth, and delight themselves in the abundance of peace.<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:5 || Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.<\/p>\n

    Psalms 5:13 || You do bless the righteous, O Lord; You do encompass him with favor as with a shield.<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:6 || Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Shabbath 151b || Rabbi Gamliel said: \u201cWhoever has mercy upon creatures will be granted mercy from heaven\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:7 || Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.<\/p>\n

    Psalms 24:3–4 || Who shall ascend the mount of the Lord, and who shall stand in His holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart\u2026<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:8 || Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.<\/p>\n

    Psalms 34:15 || \u2026seek peace and pursue it.<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:9 || Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Baba Kamma 93a || Rabbi Abbahu said: \u201cA man should always try to be among the persecuted rather than the persecutors\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:10–11 || Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness\u2019 sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Aboth 5:14 || \u2026hard to anger and easily reconciled is a kindly man.<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:24 || \u2026leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Kallah, Chapter 1 || He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he had already had relations with her.<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:28 || But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Gittin 90a || The school of Shammai said: \u201cA man should not divorce his wife unless he finds her guilty of an unseemly thing.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:32 || But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress\u2026<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Baba Mezia 49 || Rabbi Judah said: \u201c\u2026your \u2018yes\u2019 shall be true, and your \u2018no\u2019 shall be true.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:37 || Let what you say be simply \u201cYes\u201d or \u201cNo\u201d\u2026<\/p>\n

    Lamentations 3:30 || Let him offer his cheek to him who smites him\u2026.<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:39 || \u2026but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also\u2026.<\/p>\n

    Psalms 37:21 || \u2026the righteous deals graciously and gives.<\/p>\n

    Psalms 37:26 || All day he deals graciously and lends\u2026<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:42 || Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.<\/p>\n

    Proverbs 25:21 || If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink\u2026.<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:44 || But I say to you: \u201cLove your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you….\u201d<\/p>\n

    Ecclesiastes 9:2 || All things come alike to all; there is one event for the righteous and for the wicked\u2026<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:45 || \u2026so that you may be sons of your Father Who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Shabbath 133b || Abba Saul said: \u201cBe like Him\u2026just as He is gracious and compassionate, so you be gracious and compassionate.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:48 || You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Baba Bathra 9b || Rabbi Eleazar said: \u201cA man who gives charity in secret is greater\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

    Matthew 6:3–4 || But when you give charity, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your charity may be in secret\u2026<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Berakoth 61a || Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Meir: \u201cA man\u2019s words should always be few in addressing God\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

    Matthew 6:7 || And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words.<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 17a || Whose sin does He forgive? Him who forgives transgression\u2026.<\/p>\n

    Matthew 6:14–15 || For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Baba Bathra 11a || After King Monbas\u2019 family rebuked him for giving away all the family\u2019s treasures, he answered: \u201cMy ancestors stored treasures here below, and I store treasures in heaven…My ancestors stored treasures in a place that could be reached by human hands, but I have stored [them] in a place that can be reached by no human hand…\u201d<\/p>\n

    Matthew 6:19–20 || Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.<\/p>\n

    Proverbs 30:8–9 || …give me neither poverty nor riches….Lest I become full and deny You, and say: \u201cWho is the Lord?\u201d…<\/p>\n

    Matthew 6:24 || No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [riches].<\/p>\n

    Psalms 147:9 || He gives to the beast his food, and to the young ravens that cry.<\/p>\n

    Matthew 6:26 || Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them…<\/p>\n

    Psalms 37:4 || Delight yourself in the Lord, and He shall give you the desires of your heart.<\/p>\n

    Matthew 6:33 || But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Sotah 48b || Rabbi Eliezer said: \u201cHe who has only a morsel of bread in his basket, and asks: \u2018What shall I eat tomorrow?\u2019 is a man of little faith.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Matthew 6:34 || Therefore, do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself….<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Berakoth 9b || Moses said to God: \u201cLord of the universe, sufficient is the evil in its time!\u201d<\/p>\n

    Matthew 6:34 || …let the day\u2019s own trouble be sufficient for the day.<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Shabbath 127b || Our Rabbis taught: \u201cHe who judges his neighbor favorably is himself judged favorably.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Sotah 8b || Rabbi Meir said: \u201cThe way one measures others will be meted out for him.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Matthew 7:1–2 || Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Arakin 16b || Rabbi Tarfon said: \u201c…for if one says to him: \u2018Remove the speck from between your eyes,\u2019 he would answer: \u2018Remove the beam from between your eyes!\u2019\u00a0\u201d<\/p>\n

    Matthew 7:3–5 || Why do you see the speck that is in your brother\u2019s eye, but do not notice the beam that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother: \u201cLet me take the speck out of your eye,\u201d when there is the beam in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother\u2019s eye.<\/p>\n

    Proverbs 23:9 || Do not speak in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words.<\/p>\n

    Matthew 7:6 || Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.<\/p>\n

    Jeremiah 29:13 || You shall seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.<\/p>\n

    Matthew 7:7 || Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.<\/p>\n

    Talmud, Shabbath 31a || Rabbi Hillel said: \u201cWhat is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Law; the rest is its commentary. Go and learn it!\u201d<\/p>\n

    Matthew 7:12 || So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.<\/p>\n

    Psalms 6:9 || Depart from me, all you workers of evil…<\/p>\n

    Matthew 7:23 || And then I will declare to them: \u201cI never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.\u201d<\/p>\n

    The Sermon on the Mount appears again in Luke, but not in Mark or John.\u00a0 It is certain that Luke copied it from Matthew. This means that the most revered story in Christian literature is the plagiaristic contrivance of one man. Jesus, if he existed, never made this <\/a>speech.<\/p>\n

    (1514) Timing of receiving the Holy Spirit<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Christianity celebrates the holy day of Pentecost as the occasion when the disciples were infused with the Holy Spirit as described in Acts 1:1-4:<\/p>\n

    When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.\u00a0Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.\u00a0 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.\u00a0All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues\u00a0as the Spirit enabled them.<\/p>\n

    This alleged event occurred after Jesus had ascended to heaven. However, in the Gospel of John, before Jesus ascended, it is documented that he \u2018breathed\u2019 the Holy Spirit onto his disciples, and that they received it at that time.<\/p>\n

    John 20:19-23<\/p>\n

    On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said,\u00a0\u201cPeace be with you!\u201d\u00a0After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.<\/p>\n

    Again Jesus said,\u00a0\u201cPeace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.\u201d\u00a0 And with that he breathed on them and said,\u00a0\u201cReceive the Holy Spirit.\u00a0If you forgive anyone\u2019s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.\u201d<\/p>\n

    It is evident that the authors of John and Acts did not get their signals straight, and thus they produced a discrepancy in the Christian story. The apologist will simply claim that the disciples received a second and more powerful dose the second time around, but one must wonder why Jesus failed to deliver the full dose when he was right there physically with <\/a>them.<\/p>\n

    (1515) Paul acknowledges Jesus was not historical<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Historian Richard Carrier has demonstrated that Paul, according to words he wrote in his letter to the Romans, did not believe that Jesus was an historical figure. In the following excerpt, he is refuting apologist Jimmy Akin on this point:<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.richardcarrier.info\/archives\/4573<\/a><\/p>\n

    Akin closes by claiming my statement that \u201cPaul says no Jews could ever have heard the gospel except from the apostles (Romans 10:12-18)\u201d is false. Well, this is easily tested. Let\u2019s look at what Paul says there:<\/p>\n

    [H]ow are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?<\/p>\n

    \u201cSent\u201d in that last sentence being apostal\u00f4sin, the verb form of \u201capostle.\u201d Paul is thus saying there is no way anyone can ever have heard of Jesus unless they hear it through an apostle.<\/p>\n

    This entails they can\u2019t have heard it from Jesus\u2013as for example supposedly thousands of Galilean and Jerusalemite Jews had done (according to the Gospels). Paul is adamant here, and absolute. He thus is not aware of anyone having heard the preaching of Jesus from Jesus himself (except the apostles). Paul therefore has no knowledge of Jesus having a ministry, or preaching to anyone except his apostles. Which Paul only ever says Jesus accomplished by revelation (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:3-8; Gal. 1; 1 Cor. 9:1; Rom. 16:25-27; etc.).<\/p>\n

    Indeed, Paul basically says here that it is impossible for anyone to have heard of Jesus (and what he preached) except from apostles (and those who heard it from apostles). In the very first line he says the Jews never even heard of Jesus (or from Jesus, depending on the meaning of the genitive) until the apostles preached him. So even the knowledge that Jesus existed could only be reported by apostles. Paul evidently couldn\u2019t imagine Jews having heard about Jesus from anyone else, like the thousands of supposed non-apostolic witnesses to his ministry, or having heard of Jesus directly from Jesus, such as having seen him and heard him in person, as many Jews of Paul\u2019s day would have\u2026if Jesus existed in the ordinary historical sense.<\/p>\n

    Note that Akin again betrays his lack of knowledge of Greek here, or else his failure to check the Greek before pontificating an ad hoc argument, as his interpretation of this passage is not even remotely plausible. He weirdly thinks Paul is making a distinction between preachers and apostles, when in fact he is equating them. Indeed, no such distinction exists anywhere in Paul, nor makes any sense in the context of Paul\u2019s understanding of the gospel.”<\/p>\n

    Consistently throughout his letters, Paul fails to establish Jesus as a flesh and blood historical figure, but rather as a spiritual being who is the subject of a celestial drama- a drama that includes him being crucified by demons and then resurrecting as a sacrificial lamb for mankind\u2019s salvation.\u00a0 The fact that Paul never referred to the events that would later be chronicled in the gospels indicates that he did not see Jesus in the way that practically all Christians do <\/a>today.<\/p>\n

    (1516) The Bible is not pro-life<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Christians carrying Bibles as they picket abortion clinics while carrying signs that say \u201cI\u2019m pro-life\u201d are probably unaware that they are walking contradictions. The Bible is not pro-life. The following examples are given at this site:<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/ultratechlife.com\/blog\/why-are-you-still-a-christian-after-reading-this-thorough\/<\/a><\/p>\n

    Kill People Who Don\u2019t Listen to Priests (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
    \nKill Witches (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
    \nKill Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
    \nKill Fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
    \nDeath for Hitting Dad. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
    \nDeath for Cursing Parents (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
    \nAll who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
    \nDeath for Adultery (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
    \nDeath for Fornication (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
    \nDeath to Followers of Other Religions. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
    \nKill Nonbelievers (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
    \nKill False Prophets (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
    \nKill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
    \nKill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
    \nKill Followers of Other Religions. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
    \nMention another God? Kill em! (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
    \nDeath for Blasphemy (simply speaking). (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)
    \nKill False Prophets (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT) (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)
    \nInfidels and Gays Should Die (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)
    \nKill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle (Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)
    \nKill People for Working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
    \nKill Brats (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)
    \nGod Kills the Curious (1Samuel 6:19-20 ASV)
    \nKill Sons of Sinners (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
    \nGod Will Kill Children (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)
    \nKill Men, Women, and Children (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
    \nGod Kills all the First Born of Egypt (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)
    \nKill Old Men and Young Women (Jeremiah 51:20-26)
    \nGod Will Kill the Children of Sinners (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)
    \nMore Rape and Baby Killing (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
    \nMass Murder (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)
    \nGod Kills Some More (Jeremiah 15:1-4 NLT)
    \nYou Have to Kill (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)
    \nThe Danites Kill the Next Town (Joshua 19:47 NAB)
    \nGod Promises More Killing (Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT)
    \nThe Angel of Death (Exodus 23:23 NAB)
    \nGod Kills an Extended Family (1 Kings 14:9-16 NLT)
    \nMass Murder (Judges 20:48 NAB)
    \nThe Angel of Death (2 Kings 19:35 NAB)
    \nKill Your Neighbors (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT)
    \nKill the Family of Sinners. (Joshua 7:19-26 Webster\u2019s Bible)
    \nKill Followers of Other Religions (Numbers 25:1-9 NLT)
    \nKill All of Babylon (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)
    \nMicah Kills a Whole Town. (Judges 18:27-29 NLT) (Note that God approves of this slaughter in verse 6.)
    \nDeath to the Rape Victim promoted\/commanded (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
    \nRape of Female Captives promoted (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
    \nRape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)
    \nGod Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
    \nExodus 32:27\u2026 In this scripture reference, God himself murders about 3,000 people for simply looking at a statue. Imagine going to a museum and looking in awe at a statue, then being executed for it\u2026 that is hateful! God did it! God is hateful.<\/p>\n

    Most of these Christians, when challenged, will claim that the Old Testament no longer applies, but virtually none of them realize that that is in direct contradiction of the words alleged to have been said by Jesus (Matthew 5:18) or have taken the effort to remove the Old Testament from their bibles. Any Christian who purports to be pro-life should immediately become a non-Christian or admit that they are first-class hypocrites for worshiping a god who is most definitively <\/a>pro-death.<\/p>\n

    (1517) A localized god cannot be the creator of the universe<\/strong><\/p>\n

    There exists a logical problem mixing the dual Christian beliefs that God was initially the god of the Jews and that he was the creator, not only of all humans, but of the universe as a whole. It is enlightening to note that the Roman Emperor Julian (CE 331-363) recognized this problem and wrote the following:<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.tertullian.org\/fathers\/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

    But that from the beginning God cared only for the Jews and that He chose them out as his portion, has been clearly asserted not only by Moses and Jesus but by Paul as well; though in Paul’s case this is strange. For according to circumstances he keeps changing his views about God, as the polypus changes its colors to match the rocks, and now he insists that the Jews alone are God’s portion, and then again, when he is trying to persuade the Hellenes to take sides with him, he says: “Do not think that he is the God of Jews only, but also of Gentiles: yea of Gentiles also.”\u00a0Therefore it is fair to ask of Paul why God, if he was not the God of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles, sent the blessed gift of prophecy to the Jews in abundance and gave them Moses and the oil of anointing, and the prophets and the law and the incredible and monstrous elements in their myths? For you hear them crying aloud: “Man did eat angels’ food.”<\/p>\n

    And finally God sent unto them Jesus also, but unto us no prophet, no oil of anointing, no teacher, no herald to announce his love for man which should one day, though late, reach even unto us also. Nay he even looked on for myriads, or if you prefer, for thousands of years, while men in extreme ignorance served idols, as you call them, from where the sun rises to where he sets, yes and from North to South, save only that\u00a0little tribe which less than two thousand years before had settled in one part of Palestine. For if he is the God of all of us alike, and the creator of all, why did he neglect us? Wherefore it is natural to think that the God of the Hebrews was not the begetter of the whole universe with lordship over the Avhole, but rather, as I said before, that he is confined within limits, and that since his empire has bounds we must conceive of him as only one of the crowd of other gods.<\/p>\n

    How is it that the god that favored the Hebrews and only them for tens of centuries is any different from the gods that did the same for other tribes and civilizations? As Julian says, it appears that such a god is just another one of the crowd of gods that have been worshiped throughout human history. Wouldn\u2019t the arrival of a \u2018real\u2019 god look different than the others? Wouldn\u2019t it be expressed by a planet-wide rather than a localized manifestation? The Emperor Julian figured this out, and it is lucky that we have any content from his writings as most of it was burned by the Christianized ecclesiastical forces that gained power shortly after he died. \u00a0His voice of reason reverberates to this <\/a>day.<\/p>\n

    (1518) Describing God<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Christians worship a god that they believe has three parts- a father, a son, and a spirit.\u00a0 The son took on an earthly body for about 30 years, and the spirit produced a wind at the Pentecost. The father walked around the Garden of Eden after the fall, and was seen by a few prophets in the Old Testament. \u00a0Let’s focus on him,, the father, and ask these questions about his characteristics:<\/p>\n