{"id":7404,"date":"2017-08-03T08:09:12","date_gmt":"2017-08-03T12:09:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=7404"},"modified":"2025-01-21T12:56:05","modified_gmt":"2025-01-21T17:56:05","slug":"1601-1650","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=7404","title":{"rendered":"1601-1650"},"content":{"rendered":"

(1601) The Fourth Dimension<\/strong><\/p>\n

Given our understanding of physics, the qualities of space-time, and the limit to the speed at which information, or light, can travel, a problem exists for defining the location of the Christian god.\u00a0 Any assumption that places God in a specific location in the universe results in the impossibility of this god being able to see and control everything at once.\u00a0 This leaves scientifically-literate Christian apologists with two options: God is everywhere or he is lurking in a fourth spacial dimension.<\/p>\n

The idea that god is everywhere leads to the rather un-Christian-like meme that the universe IS God, but few would think that the universe as a whole can hear and answer prayers. There has to be something more concrete. So this leads to the last line of defense- God inhabits a fourth dimension that humans cannot see or access, but from which God can see and manipulate events at will. To get some idea of what this might entail, watch the following video where Carl Sagan explains the relationship between two and three-dimensional space:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=N7K5KjOdLD8<\/a><\/p>\n

As can be deduced from this video, even if God or his angels live in the fourth dimension, they would be expected at times to enter into our three-dimensional space and manifest as objects that suddenly appear out of nowhere and then disappear into thin air.\u00a0 Aside from unverified anecdotal claims, these types of events are not occurring. But if God actually inhabits this extra dimension and has before and presumably continues to materially affect our existence, this seemingly magical phenomenon should be a common occurrence. Thus, we have evidence that God is not a 4-dimensional creature, and the conundrum of his location continues to haunt <\/a>Christianity.<\/p>\n

(1602) The evolution of Yahweh<\/strong><\/p>\n

Few Christians understand or even care to understand the historical development of the Christian god.\u00a0 In fact, they purposely avoid any type of critical investigation into their god belief.\u00a0 It is simply taken as a \u2018given\u2019 about which all of the other aspects of reality revolve.<\/p>\n

However, it takes only the use of a few hours of unbiased study to realize that the god that Christians worship is actually a mental construct of humanity that has evolved over time to take on greater and more impressive attributes.\u00a0 Thus it is with Yahweh, the incompetent and limited deity that eventually gave birth to the all-powerful \u2018God\u2019 that Christians revere. One thing is for sure- gods don\u2019t evolve, but human imaginations certainly do. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2014\/08\/the-evolution-of-god-from-yahweh-in-box.html?m=1<\/a><\/p>\n

The God of modern Christian theology is a\u00a0philosophically supercharged God\u00a0far removed from the physically limited and dimwitted\u00a0Yahweh\u00a0whose identity has as much in common as a horse and buggy does with a Lamborghini\u00a0Aventador LP 700-4.\u00a0\u00a0 Ironically, Christian apologists such has WL Craig totally ignore this primitive and limited tribal God in favor of the easy to defend modern concept of a nameless figure that has evolved from the New Testament whose image is rooted in the pagan\u00a0Classical Tradition.<\/p>\n

\u00a0When a person \u201cbecomes a Christian\u201d, it\u2019s not the ancient Near Eastern tribal\u00a0Yahweh\u00a0they are presented with, but a slick modern super deity with few links to the Old Testament . . . known simply as\u00a0God\u00a0with a capital \u201cG\u201d who is really an anthology of\u00a0Classical\u00a0pagan attributes taken on after having absorbed the myths of other ancient Near Eastern Semitic gods.\u00a0 This\u00a0apologetically hopped up deity\u00a0which grew out of the ideals of Neo-Platonism is constantly gathering apologetic power be they from the\u00a0Summa Theological\u00a0concepts of Thomas Aquinas to Karl Rahner\u2019s\u00a0Systematic Catholic Theology\u00a0to\u00a0Barth\u2019s Protestant\u00a0Church Dogmatics\u00a0and on to Alfred North Whitehead\u2019s\u00a0Processed Reality.\u00a0 The evolution of God is now considerably much like the woman\u00a0Lucy\u00a0in the current hit movie of the same title or a God who continues to acquire any philosophical protection the best apologists can mentally bestow upon him.<\/p>\n

Though many conservative Christians don\u2019t believe in evolution, they truly hold a double standard as most don’t seem to realized how evolved and philosophically advanced\u00a0their God has apologetically traveled from an ancient tribal confused deity whose mental ability lost the first two humans he created in the small garden of Eden (Genesis 3:\u00a0 8-9) to presently a hopped up revolutionary polytheistic (Trinitarian) Father figure.<\/p>\n

Gone are the direct syncretic links to\u00a0Classical religions\u00a0which required God to breed with a human (the\u00a0Virgin Mary) in order take on humanity, to be sacrificed as a\u00a0blood atonement\u00a0only then to\u00a0reabsorb himself\u00a0back into an indefinable\u00a0Trinity\u00a0concept.\u00a0 The illogical is made logical though an uncritical line of reasoning called\u00a0theology which continues to use\u00a0confused ignorance\u00a0running under the rubric of\u00a0faith\u00a0to explain how a single God can now exist both in Heaven and on earth at the same time while its third appendage (the\u00a0Holy Spirit) can actually live inside the physical hearts of billions of believers as they fight amongst themselves over who and what\u00a0God really is\u00a0and\u00a0what theological doctrines he really wants.\u00a0 Truly, the Christian God has become much like a\u00a0Harley Davidson\u00a0motorcycle which basic model is advertised along with hundreds of (theological) add-on accessories to make your\u00a0Harley bike\u00a0(your God) a real extension of yourself and a God that can never be apologetically outdated due to an endless supply of custom accessories (apologetic\u00a0add-ons).<\/p>\n

Indeed, this tribal deity has come a long way from the highly crude and limited anthropomorphic god which at one time lived in a box (3) being so limited in power and knowledge he had to be carried from place to place so as to know what was happening, to an ever-evolving mental concept that has mega functioning super hero powers so great he is said to now be\u00a0indefinable\u00a0and\u00a0incomprehensible\u00a0by the very Christians who believe in him.\u00a0 Should an atheist ever be able\u00a0to get one over\u00a0on this supreme mega superhero, there\u2019s always the waste basket figure of\u00a0Satan\u00a0created as god\u2019s\u00a0personal\u00a0historical escape dumpster.\u00a0 For Christians (since God is constantly in the\u00a0process of becoming)\u00a0he should doctrinally carry the modern commercial disclaimer; \u201cSubject to change without notice!\u201d<\/p>\n

In the final analysis, this\u00a0Super Mega God\u00a0(as\u00a0defended by Christian apologists today) has been\u00a0synthesized\u00a0in the philosophical test tubes of countless thinkers from the primeval Hebrew scribes to the complex mental sophistications of full time Christian philosophers whose income is directly proportional to the non-stoppable\u00a0God\u00a0they create.<\/p>\n

The evolution of Yahweh is an incontrovertible sign that he is a fictional figure thrust upon a gullible population that is either too lazy or too indifferent to figure out that they have been scammed.\u00a0 This god that can\u2019t be seen or heard, has no specific location or size or shape, who never answers prayers or does anything at all, nevertheless enslaves the minds of billions of people. It is really quite <\/a>ridiculous.<\/p>\n

(1603) Magic<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are countless claims among religious traditions, as well as unspecified anecdotal accounts, of magic- where something has happened that violates some physical law of the universe.\u00a0 The parting of the Red Sea in Exodus is a good example.\u00a0 And there has been an army of magicians who have entertained audiences for millennia. But what has never happened to date is a scientifically proven instance of magic. And it\u2019s not that scientists or lay persons have not been looking, hoping, and being somewhat biased in the search for it. It remains the privilege of a reasonable, intelligent person to assert that magic has never been demonstrated to exist.\u00a0 This is a problem for Christianity- for it would take just that, that we live in a magical world, for a rational person to take the magic-laden claims of Christianity seriously.\u00a0 The following quote of Timothy R Campbell was taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n

I am not sure that one can utilize math or reason or probabilities when dealing with claims of miracle or magic. After all, any event that can be seen as statistically possible would then not be magic. Resurrection -and John flying to the moon through self-propulsion- are impossible without magic, but would certainly be possible if magic was possible. Once someone shows definitively that magic is possible, THEN the statisticians can review their estimates!<\/p>\n

There are too many interactive agents of magic in Christianity, with angels and demons, a god and a devil, exercising their influence, to believe that not even a single, provable, peer-reviewed, magical event has ever occurred. Christians can cling to their anecdotal stories, but justifiably skeptical persons will remain on the sidelines until that first undeniable demonstration that\u00a0something magical has actually <\/a>happened.<\/p>\n

(1604) Men twice as likely to be atheist as women<\/strong><\/p>\n

A Pew Research Center survey in 2016 revealed overall that men versus women tend to identify as atheist by a margin of 59 to 41, whereas, in the United States, the margin was even wider (68 to 32).\u00a0 There may be many causes for this disparity, including perhaps that men tend to be more outspoken (though many studies suggest that women are more likely to reveal their inner feelings). But this raises the question: why should there be any difference at all?\u00a0 Assuming Christianity to be true, is being born a male a liability, predisposing you to a greater chance of being sent to Hell? The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.pewforum.org\/2016\/03\/22\/women-more-likely-than-men-to-affiliate-with-a-religion\/<\/a><\/p>\n

More than two-in-three atheists are men in the United States (68%) and Uruguay (69%). Men also represent a clear majority of the atheist population in Germany (62%) and Spain (61%). However, in France, China, Australia and the United Kingdom, the gender gap among atheists is smaller (and not statistically significant). Across all eight countries, the average share of atheists who are male is 59% if the atheist numbers from each country are given equal value.<\/p>\n

\"Atheists<\/p>\n

This is precisely what you would not expect of an all-powerful god- to set up a system of eternal reward and punishment that is non-negligibly contingent on the sex of the person.\u00a0 In game theory, the list of winners and losers should be independent of any variable that is not under the control of the individual, and, clearly, gender status is in that arena.\u00a0 If the Christian god does not exist, and Christianity is a human-constructed myth, then what is observed makes sense- a difference in males and females could be expected to produce this <\/a>result.<\/p>\n

(1605) The evolution of Jesus<\/strong><\/p>\n

Whoever Jesus was, assuming he was a unique individual, what he has become, at least in the minds of his most rabid followers, is an unsavory reflection of his iconic reputation.\u00a0 This is the evolved Jesus, the one that doesn\u2019t have much to do with the gospels, that has been distorted to meet the needs of a conservative brand of politics as well as to support a subtle expression of racism, xenophobia, and just plain selfishness.\u00a0 The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/brucegerencser.net\/why-i-hate-jesus\/<\/a><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t hate the flesh and blood Jesus who walked the dusty roads of Palestine, nor do I hate the Jesus found in the pages of the Bible. These Jesuses are relics of the past. I\u2019ll leave it to historians to argue and debate whether these Jesuses were real or fiction. Over the centuries, Christians have created many Jesuses in their own image. This is the essence of Christianity, an ever-evolving religion bearing little resemblance to what it was even a century ago.<\/p>\n

The Jesus I hate is the modern, Western Jesus, the American Jesus, the Jesus who has been a part of my life for almost fifty-eight years. The Jesuses of bygone eras have no power to harm me, but the modern Jesus \u2013 the Jesus of the three hundred thousand Christian churches that populate every community in America \u2013 he has the power to affect my life, hurt my family, and destroy my country.\u00a0 And I, with a vengeance, hate him.<\/p>\n

Over the years, I have had a number of people write me about how the modern Jesus was ruining their marriage. In many instances, the married couple started out in life as believers, and somewhere along the road of life one of them stopped believing. The still-believing spouse can\u2019t or won\u2019t understand why the other spouse no longer believes. They make it clear that Jesus is still very important to them and if forced to choose between their spouse and family, they would choose Jesus. Simply put, they love Jesus more than they love their families.<\/p>\n

Sadly, these types of marriages usually fail. A husband or a wife simply cannot compete with Jesus. He is the perfect lover and perfect friend, one who is always there for the believing spouse. This Jesus hears the prayers of the believing spouse and answers them. This Jesus is the BFF of the believing spouse. This Jesus says to the believer,\u00a0you must choose, me or your spouse. It is this Jesus I hate.<\/p>\n

This Jesus cares nothing for the poor, the hungry, or the sick. This Jesus has no interest in poor immigrants or unwed mothers. This Jesus cares for Tim Tebow more than he does a starving girl in Ethiopia. He cares more about who wins a Grammy or ACM Award than he does poverty-stricken Africa having food and clean water. It is this Jesus I hate.<\/p>\n

This Jesus is on the side of the culture warriors. This Jesus hates homosexuals and demands they be treated as second class citizens. This Jesus, no matter the circumstance, demands that a woman carry her fetus to term. Child of a rapist, afflicted with a serious birth defect, the product of incest or a one night stand? \u00a0It matters not. This Jesus is pro-life. Yet, this same Jesus supports the incarceration of poor young men of color, often for no other crime than trying to survive. This Jesus is so pro-life he encourages American presidents and politicians to slaughter innocent men, women, and children. This Jesus demands certain criminals be put to death by the state, even though the state has legally murdered innocent people. It is this Jesus I hate.<\/p>\n

This Jesus drives fancy cars, has palaces and cathedrals, and followers who spare no expense to make his house the best mansion in town. This Jesus loves Rolexes, Lear jets, and expensive suits. This Jesus sees the multitude and turns his back on them, only concerned with those who say and believe \u201cthe right things.\u201d It is this Jesus I hate.<\/p>\n

This Jesus owns condominiums constructed just for those who believe in him. When they die, he gives them the keys. But, for the rest of humanity, billions of people, this Jesus says\u00a0no keys for you. I have a special Hitler-like plan for you. To the ovens you go, only unlike the Jews, I plan to give you a special body that allows me to torture you with fire and brimstone forever.\u00a0It is this Jesus I hate.<\/p>\n

It is this Jesus who looks at Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Universalists, Secularists, Humanists, and Skeptics, and says to them\u00a0before you were born I made sure you could never be in the group that gets the condominiums when they die. This Jesus says,\u00a0and it is your fault, sinner man. It is this Jesus who made sure billions of people were born into cultures that worshiped other Gods. It is this Jesus who then says it is their fault they were born at the wrong place, at the wrong time.\u00a0Too bad, this Jesus says,\u00a0burn forever in the Lake of Fire. It is this Jesus I hate.<\/p>\n

This Jesus divides families, friends, communities, and nations. This Jesus is the means to an end. This Jesus is all about money, power and control. This Jesus subjugates women, tells widows it\u2019s their fault, and ignores the cry of orphans. Everywhere one looks, this Jesus hurts, afflicts, and kills those we love. It is this Jesus I hate. What I can\u2019t understand is why anyone loves this Jesus? Like a clown on a parade route, he throws a few candies towards those who worship him, promising them that a huge pile of candy awaits them when they die. He lets his followers hunger, thirst, and die, yet he tells them it is for their good, that he loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life. This Jesus is all talk, promising the moon and delivering a piece of gravel. Why can\u2019t his followers see this?<\/p>\n

Fear me, he tells his followers.\u00a0I have the keys to life and death. I have the power to make you happy and I have the power to destroy your life. I have the power to take your children, health, and livelihood. I can do these things because I am the biggest, baddest Jesus ever. Fear me and oppress women, immigrants, orphans, homosexuals, and atheists. Refuse my demand and I will rain my judgment down upon your head. But, know that I love you and only want is best for you and yours. It is this Jesus I hate.<\/p>\n

Perhaps there is a Jesus somewhere that I could respect, a Jesus who might merit my devotion. For now, all I see is a Jesus who is worthy of derision, mockery, and hate. Yes, hate. It is this Jesus I hate. When the Jesus who genuinely loves humanity and cares for the least of these shows up, let me know. In the meantime, I hate Jesus.<\/p>\n

It seems obvious that if all of this about Jesus is true, and that God has some sort of ability to shape the minds and attitudes of his followers, that such a dramatic change in the way Jesus is expressed in the truly faithful would not have happened. Rather, it would have retained the tolerance, forgiveness, kindness, and empathy of the Jesus who is painted in <\/a>scripture.<\/p>\n

(1606) Luke and Josephus<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christians like to think that the biblical authors wrote words that came to them, not from any internal source, but rather from the Holy Spirit, or God himself. This is an essential meme to convince themselves that the Bible is divinely-inspired and not just the work of fallible humans. \u00a0This becomes a problem with the Gospel of Luke. It can be shown that Luke borrowed extensively from the works of Josephus, who, being a non-Christian, was probably not under the dictational influence of the Lord.\u00a0 The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/infidels.org\/library\/modern\/richard_carrier\/lukeandjosephus.html<\/a><\/p>\n

There has long been the observation that Luke-Acts contains numerous parallels with the works of Josephus, generating three different theories to account for this: that Josephus used Luke, that Luke used Josephus, or that they both used some common but now lost source. Steve Mason has reviewed the arguments\u00a0and in summarizing the evidence concludes that, besides generic parallels of genre and form and the use of identical historical events, which are inconclusive as proofs, the “coincidence … of aim, themes, and vocabulary … seems to suggest that Luke-Acts is building its case on the foundation of Josephus’ defense of Judaism,” and therefore that Luke is consciously and significantly drawing on Josephus to supplement his use of Mark and Q and to create the appearance of a real history, a notable deviation from all the other Gospels which have none of the features of a historical work.<\/p>\n

This thesis, if correct, entails two things. First, it undermines the historicity of certain details in the Christ story unique to Luke, such as his account of the Nativity, since these have been drawn from Josephus, who does not mention them in connection with Jesus, and thus it is more than possible that they never were linked with Jesus until Luke decided they were. This does not prove, but provides support for the view that Luke is creating history, not recording it. Second, it settles the\u00a0terminus post quem\u00a0of the date Luke-Acts was written: for in order to draw material from the\u00a0Jewish War, Luke could not have written before 79 A.D., and could well have written much later since the rate of publication in antiquity was exceedingly limited and slow, requiring hand copies made by personal slaves (though at first oral recitations would be more common than written copies); and in order to draw material from the\u00a0Jewish Antiquities, as he appears to have done, Luke could not have written before 94 A.D., and again could have written much later for the same reason.<\/p>\n

The Gospel of Luke has the earmarks of having been written by a person who clumsily attempted the deception of creating an authentic historical account while at the same time making up stories that fit his agenda. It has no more factual credibility than a Charles Dickens <\/a>novel.<\/p>\n

(1607) Jesus returns<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sometimes a parody is the best way to expose the incongruity of Christianity. Despite the silliness of the following, the points are valid and condemning.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/halfwaypost.com\/2017\/08\/19\/jesus-christ-returns-demands-to-know-who-decided-christians-didnt-have-to-be-jewish\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Jesus Christ miraculously returned today, and when he toured Earth 2,000 years after his life and crucifixion, his first question stunned many of the Christian fans he had gathered around him.<\/p>\n

\u201cWho the fuck decided\u2014how you say, \u2018Christians\u2019\u2014didn\u2019t have to be Jewish?\u201d Jesus reportedly exclaimed. \u201cWhen did I say you didn\u2019t have to be Jewish? Oh, that\u2019s right, I didn\u2019t! I ate boring kosher food, I couldn\u2019t eat pork or shrimp, and I even got my dick cut\u2026and not at birth like you little snowflakes, I got mine cut at 13 like a real Jew! Seriously\u2014was it Judas? Did Judas tell you all that you didn\u2019t have to be Jewish. I bet it was Judas\u2014that asshole.\u201d<\/p>\n

Several bystanders reportedly didn\u2019t know what to say, so they waited for Jesus to talk again.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd what\u2019s this Catholic stuff? When did I do any of that stuff? The Vatican?! I was very clear\u2014no, painfully clear\u2014that you couldn\u2019t be rich. Why doesn\u2019t the Catholic Church just sell all their art and buildings and stockpiled gold and help the poor\u2026 you know, like I\u00a0said\u00a0to do. I was very clear about that. And what\u2019s all this shit about Latin rituals. I don\u2019t know who invented this stuff, but it seems to be getting in the way of sharing everything you have with the less fortunate, doesn\u2019t it?\u201d<\/p>\n

The Catholics in the audience shuffled their feet.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd don\u2019t even get me started on evangelicals. Evangelicals are seriously messed up. I don\u2019t remember saying that the kingdom of Heaven was only obtainable if you stopped using your brain. And, for the record, Donald Trump was a test by Me for all of you evangelicals, and you failed. Epically. You guys fell for the Antichrist, way to go. You know who didn\u2019t fall for Donald Trump? Black churches. All you white evangelicals who are racist\u2014and I know who you are\u2014can think about that while you burn in Hell for a bit and black people get into Heaven first. You know what, scratch that. From now on the Kingdom of Heaven is \u2018Blacks Only.\u2019 Whites need not apply. Ha! You like that? Do you? Fucking racists.\u201d<\/p>\n

The evangelicals in the audience started to tear up.<\/p>\n

\u201cI swear to Me,\u201d Jesus said. \u201cLiberal atheists are straight up the moral center of America. They\u2019re the only ones who give a shit about the poor and the sick anymore. Oh, and by the way, evolution is real, so quit it with this creationism thing. It\u2019s like you idiots don\u2019t believe Me and God are capable of coming up with natural selection. Some reverent children you are. Christians make me sick. And for real, start doing Jewish stuff or We\u2019ll send down more pestilence. Think We won\u2019t?! Think We won\u2019t?! Try Us. Oh, and quit it with the polyester clothing, that wasn\u2019t a fucking suggestion!\u201d<\/p>\n

Very few Christians are aware that the way they practice their faith would be foreign to the person they worship. The irony of this situation is thick.\u00a0 Christians today worship a fictionalized version of a fictional <\/a>person.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(1608) Bible not meant to be taken literally<\/strong><\/p>\n

The discovery of a 4th<\/sup> Century commentary of the Bible has provided evidence that the gospels were understood early on to be allegorical treatises and not literal accounts of history as assumed by most contemporary Christians. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/news\/2017\/08\/22\/dont-take-bible-literally-says-scholar-brought-light-earliest\/<\/a><\/p>\n

The earliest Latin interpretation of the Gospels has been brought to light by a British academic \u2013 and it suggests that readers should not take the Bible literally.<\/p>\n

Lost for 1,500 years, the fourth-century commentary by African-born Italian bishop Fortunatianus of Aquileia interprets the Gospels as a series of allegories instead of a literal history.<\/p>\n

Dr Hugh Houghton, of the University of Birmingham, who translated the work, said it was an approach which modern Christians could learn from.<\/p>\n

The find adds weight to the idea that many early biblical scholars did not see the Bible as a history, but instead a series of coded messages which represented key elements of Christianity, he said.<\/p>\n

“There’s been an assumption that it’s a literal record of truth – a lot of the early scholars got very worried about inconsistencies between Matthew and Luke, for example.<\/p>\n

“But for people teaching the Bible in the fourth century, it’s not the literal meaning which is important, it’s how it’s read allegorically.<\/p>\n

“In contemporary Biblical scholarship a lot of the gospels are written with symbolism in mind.<\/p>\n

“They are not setting out to be literal accounts but they are set out to be symbolic.”<\/p>\n

He said that the Bible had to be “understood in the context that the authors were working in.”<\/p>\n

The approach differs from the trend of biblical literalism adopted by modern evangelical and fundamentalist Christians,\u00a0which interprets the Bible as the literal word of God<\/a>\u00a0which is not open to interpretation.<\/p>\n

This has been the basis for beliefs such as the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old and that it was created in seven days.<\/p>\n

Modern archaeologists have also used the Bible to search for evidence about the life of Jesus, with mixed success.<\/p>\n

The 100-page document examines the Gospel of Matthew in great detail and also examines part of the Gospels according to Luke and John.<\/p>\n

It is most probably that scholars who lived closer to the times that produced the gospels would have had a better understanding of the literary standards that existed at that time.\u00a0 Given this commentary, it is evident that the concept of literalism is a recent phenomenon that represents an erroneous characterization of the <\/a>gospels.<\/p>\n

(1609) No prophecies of a resurrected Christ<\/strong><\/p>\n

The central feature of Christianity is that a man was executed and then was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven.\u00a0 And this drama was produced as a means of forgiving the sins of whoever believed in their heart that this actually happened.\u00a0 Given the extreme importance of this event, it would seem that the Old Testament prophets would have spoken of it in detail. But they didn\u2019t. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateAChristian\/comments\/6vti17\/no_prophecies_of_a_resurrected_messiah\/<\/a><\/p>\n

The resurrection is essential to Christianity. Paul himself says that “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile”. It seems to me that if the Messiah was supposed to rise from the dead, that would be something the OT prophets wouldn’t have left out.<\/p>\n

And yet, the prophets seem to make no mention of it. The Messiah is clearly described as a king who will usher in an age of world peace. But nothing about a resurrection. At best, Christians have pointed to a few cherry-picked verses from Psalms, but these verses are just David thanking God for prolonging his life & preserving him during war. Where is the resurrection in OT prophecy?<\/p>\n

If the crucifixion and resurrection of the messiah had been God\u2019s plan, why wouldn\u2019t he have informed the Old Testament prophets of the same, such that the Jewish nation would have been on board with the passion drama, and remained unified with the group that later became known as Christians? \u00a0Even if it assumed that the Old Testament depicts an actual interaction between a universal god and the Jews, the lack of a definitive prophetic connection to the Christian movement reveals the latter to be a fraudulent extension of the <\/a>former.<\/p>\n

(1610) The God command conundrum<\/strong><\/p>\n

If a mother killed her child and was in a court of law presided over by an evangelical judge and a jury of similar composition, would her claim that God had commanded her to kill the child be considered on its merits or would it be summarily dismissed?\u00a0 That is the dilemma that faces Christians who hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible.<\/p>\n

The Bible recounts many occasions where God speaks directly with humans, instructing them to do all sorts of activities, including to kill other people. The story of God instructing Abraham to kill his son Isaac is the one that is most analogous to the example above.<\/p>\n

Christianity is constructed in such a manner that it must be assumed that God on occasion will directly communicate with a person and instruct them to take some sort of action.\u00a0 However, there is no way to verify that this has in fact happened.\u00a0 It leaves wide open the possibility that people will make this up as an excuse for their actions or else be a victim of an hallucination. And so, the mother is prosecuted despite her claim of a divine command, and despite the jury\u2019s belief that such a command was possible.<\/p>\n

This is the reason that much of the Bible cannot be trusted as it claims to contain thousands of such instructions from God, but only as received by a single person and with no means of verification. This sets up the ultimate non sequitur: Christians fully accept the biblical claims of God talking to people long ago while dismissing similar claims made by people <\/a>today.<\/p>\n

(1611) Sweating blood<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Luke 22:43-44, we read:<\/p>\n

An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.\u00a0And being in anguish, he (Jesus) prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.<\/p>\n

Christian apologists like to argue that this rare, though not medically unheard of condition (hematidrosis), was reported only by the author of Luke to the exclusion of the other three gospel writers because he was some sort of a physician. This argument might hold water except for one big problem: Luke 22:43-44 does not appear in the earliest manuscripts \u2013 it was not written by Luke but rather by a subsequent forger.<\/p>\n

The fact that none of the original gospel authors mentioned this incident is strong evidence that it never happened, even if we assume Jesus to have been a real person who was in some degree of anguish before his arrest and crucifixion. But then, the question comes \u2013 for what purpose was it added?<\/p>\n

The most plausible explanation is that these two verses were added to quash a growing consensus that Jesus was a spirit and not a flesh and blood person.\u00a0 Some of this was spawned by the writings of Paul, which by and large posit Jesus as a spirit, and the verse in John where Jesus passes through a locked door into the disciple\u2019s enclave (John 20:26).<\/p>\n

Another possibility is that it was added to adumbrate the blood sacrifice that was soon to follow. Either way, these forged verses indicate that the gospels were not written to precisely describe historical events, but rather to present a spiritually-driven theological <\/a>revelation.<\/p>\n

(1612) What did Jesus look like?<\/strong><\/p>\n

There exists no documentation or depiction of what Jesus looked like. This is a curious omission, given his alleged fame that extended throughout the regions of Judea and Galilee.\u00a0 The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.nobeliefs.com\/exist.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

Interestingly, almost all important historical people have descriptions of what they looked like. We have the image of Augustus Caesar cast on denarius coins, busts of Greek and Roman aristocrats, artwork of Napoleon, etc. We have descriptions of facial qualities, height, weight, hair length & color, age and even portraits of most important historical figures. But for Jesus, we have\u00a0nothing. Nowhere in the Bible do we have a description of the human shape of Jesus. How can we rely on the Gospels as the word of Jesus when no one even describes what he looked like? How odd that none of the disciple characters record what he looked like, yet believers attribute them to know exactly what he said. Indeed, this gives us a clue that Jesus came to the gospel writers and indirect and through myth. Not until hundreds of years after the alleged Jesus did pictures emerge as to what he looked like from cult Christians, and these widely differed from a blond clean shaven, curly haired Apollonian youth (found in the Roman catacombs) to a long-bearded Italian as depicted to this day. This mimics the pattern of Greek mythological figures as their believers constructed various images of what their gods looked like according to their own cultural image.<\/p>\n

The lack of any descriptions or drawings of Jesus\u2019 appearance leaves a hole in the Christian claim that he was both a real person and a famous one to boot.\u00a0 It\u2019s unlikely that both of these assertions are true. Which is to say: If he was a real person, he lived in relative obscurity, known by only by a small segment of the <\/a>populace.<\/p>\n

(1613) The fallacy of the empty tomb argument<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christian apologists often refer to the empty tomb of Jesus as evidence for the resurrection. This is one of the most insipid arguments for the Christian faith, simply for the reason that the entire story might have been fabricated. There is little evidence that Jesus existed in the first place, that he was actually placed in a tomb (rather than a mass grave as was the Roman policy for crucifixion victims), or that the tomb was found to be expectantly empty.\u00a0 These are stories written long after the fact by biased non-eyewitnesses of events that seemed to have escaped the notice of anybody else who was actually there at that time.<\/p>\n

In the following excerpt, Dr. Richard Carrier shreds the empty tomb argument:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.richardcarrier.info\/archives\/12959#body<\/a><\/p>\n

First, if the body was lost, misplaced, or stolen, or Jesus never really died, the tomb\u00a0would\u00a0have been empty. And when bodies disappear, all known evidence establishes it\u2019s vastly more commonly by being lost, misplaced, or stolen, or the body not actually being dead, than by magic. So this isn\u2019t even a logically valid argument for the resurrection. But it\u2019s\u00a0also\u00a0factually uninformed\u2026<\/p>\n

Second, under Jewish law, bodies were legally unrecognizable after the third day. It\u2019s thus tellingly\u00a0convenient\u00a0that we are told that\u2019s how long Christians waited before claiming to \u201csee\u201d him risen. Indeed, they didn\u2019t even tell\u00a0anyone else\u00a0this for\u00a0a whole fifty days<\/a>! By which time, identifying a body was impossible. It was totally inadmissible in court, and thus entirely deniable by anyone who was as committed or deluded as these Christian fanatics were; and entirely useless to anyone else, who wouldn\u2019t be able to tell.<\/p>\n

Third, it was a capital crime to desecrate the dead. No one could have dug the body up or paraded it outside its tomb (until a year had passed, authorizing ossuary reburial of the denuded bones). And proving any body, in what would have been a mass grave, was Jesus, and not someone else, would not have been possible by the forensic and legal means then available. The Gospels are simply lying when they claim Jesus was given an illegal burial in a special tomb; all Jewish convicts were buried together in a graveyard or tomb complex owned by the Sanhedrin, as specifically part of their sentence, and to prevent defiling innocent corpses (by segregating criminals from them).<\/p>\n

Fourth, Paul says the body that dies, is\u00a0not<\/a>\u00a0the body that is raised. He\u00a0describes<\/a>\u00a0a belief in 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5 that resurrection bodies are pre-assembled and waiting for us in heaven, and that our bodies of flesh will be cast off and destroyed. We will switch from one to the other, and rise in the new glorious body. Paul never mentions anyone believing the corpse of Jesus was what rose. He only mentions people believing he rose in a new, different body. And such a teaching is immune to presenting the body. That body was just a discarded shell. Jesus lived on in a new, fancier one. And if it came down to just the two options, which is more likely? That this\u00a0iswhat the first Christians taught, or that magic exists?<\/p>\n

Fifth, in the book of Acts, curiously, neither the Romans nor the Sanhedrin ever notice an empty tomb; nor is the existence of one ever used as an argument by any Christian missionary depicted. The latter is inexplicable enough. But to all the authorities, an empty tomb would be evidence of the capital crime of graverobbing or the escape of a convicted criminal. Yet no one ever investigates these crimes. No one ever mentions them. No one ever accuses the Christians of them. It\u2019s as if no one even knew there was an empty tomb. Gosh. Why do you think that is? Could it be\u2026that there\u00a0was\u00a0no empty tomb?\u00a0Ockham\u2019s Razor<\/a>, people.<\/p>\n

The myth of the empty tomb should be seen as analogous to the beanstalk that Jack climbed. It is just a fable designed to create artificial credence for a resurrection that never <\/a>occurred.<\/p>\n

(1614) God gives a sign that he withholds today<\/strong><\/p>\n

Elijah was in a bind and needed to convince his people that God was real and that he was his prophet. The Lord complied with this request:<\/p>\n

1 Kings 18:36-39<\/p>\n

At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: \u201cLord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command.\u00a0Answer me,\u00a0Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you,\u00a0Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.\u201d<\/p>\n

Then the fire of the\u00a0Lord\u00a0fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.<\/p>\n

When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, \u201cThe\u00a0Lord\u2014he is God! The\u00a0Lord\u2014he is God!\u201d<\/p>\n

Now we know that nothing of this nature is happening today. God is not sending any signs of his existence to anyone, at least in a way that can be objectively demonstrated to an indifferent observer. Why is this? There are two possibilities. Either God has decided in his old age to be stubborn and to place an additional burden on the faith of current believers, or the reports of such displays in 1 Kings and elsewhere in the bible are made-up stories. In either case, there is a problem for Christianity.\u00a0 Either God is unfair, or he is <\/a>unreal.<\/p>\n

(1615) Presuppositions for atheists<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is an enlightening comparison between the presuppositions that most atheists abide by and those employed by the majority of Christian apologists.\u00a0 Presupposition is a method of settling on a set of assumptions before analyzing evidence to make a determination of fact.\u00a0 The apologists pre-assume a god and the general historical integrity of the Bible and go from there.\u00a0 Atheists have a much more sophisticated and honest approach, as listed by Robert Conner:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n

The Ten Well-Founded “Presuppositions” of Atheism:<\/p>\n

1. We require sufficient objective empirical evidence before we will accept any claims of divine revelation.<\/p>\n

2. We accept the general principle that any specific miraculous claim must overcome the strong presumption that it didn’t occur based on the overwhelming cumulative evidence that miracles have not occurred.<\/p>\n

3. We accept the view that believers must shoulder the burden of proof as outsiders to show their faith is objectively true, given that learning a religion as an uncritical child from one’s parents in a religious culture is a notoriously unreliable way to know which religion is true, if there is one.<\/p>\n

4. We accept the results of scientific clinical studies that have shown petitionary prayers work no better than chance, and reject personal antecdotal unconfirmed stories told by believers.<\/p>\n

5. We accept that the laws of nature in the ancient pre-scientific world were the same as they are now, so we have a very strong presumption against accepting miraculous claims in the ancient superstitious world prior to the rise of modern science and the modern world.<\/p>\n

6. We accept that which is objectively probable, and reject that which is merely possible.<\/p>\n

7. We reject any and all double standards and special pleadings from religionists when they argue for their faith over the faiths of others.<\/p>\n

8. We accept the overwhelming consensus of scientists as the surest guarantee of what is true, over any and all claims by religious leaders, scholars and their holy books.<\/p>\n

9. We proportion what we conclude based on the strength of the objective evidence.<\/p>\n

10. We accept the approach of methodological naturalism in assessing miraculous claims, whereby we seek out natural explanations for any and all events in question, given that doing so is the best and only way to know the truth in the midst of so many religious frauds, fakes, liars and hucksters.<\/p>\n

It is certain that if First Century gentiles had employed these 10 precepts, Christianity would never have become a major religion and would be viewed today as a failed Jewish apocryphal sect. It was the gullibility of these people that allowed myth, visions, dreams, exaggeration, and deception to morph into a faith that would later be hugely magnified by political <\/a>expediency.<\/p>\n

(1616) The desire to believe<\/strong><\/p>\n

Much of the success of Christianity has been ascribed to political pressures and socially enforced orthodoxy, as well as parental inculcation of young minds. \u00a0It is further sustained by the common human proclivity to conform to social norms for the purpose of monetary, status, and sexual rewards. But there is another powerful element that is involved- the desire to believe a story that offers such an unbelievably stupendous reward- eternal life in a paradisiacal setting. This desire can often short circuit the logic centers of impressively intelligent brains. \u00a0Two such examples are described by Franz Kiekeben in the following:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2017\/09\/smart-people-saying-stupid-things.html#more<\/a><\/p>\n

Loftus\u2019s observation that faith makes smart people say stupid things reminded me of two instances I\u2019d previously come across. The first involves Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and the author of\u00a0The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. As some here may already know, Collins, a geneticist and defender of evolutionary theory, \u201cknelt in the dewy grass\u2026 and surrendered to Jesus Christ\u201d as a result of seeing \u201ca beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall\u201d while hiking in the Cascade Mountains. That he considers a purely emotional reaction like that as a reason for accepting the claims of Christianity shows just how unscientific a scientist can be. (How would he respond to someone who denied evolution based on nothing more than emotion?)<\/p>\n

Collins was also convinced by C. S. Lewis\u2019s \u201cliar, lunatic or Lord\u201d argument. Most readers here are probably familiar with this very weak argument: Lewis says that one cannot call Jesus merely a great moral teacher. For, if he wasn\u2019t who he claimed to be, then he was either lying or deluded. \u201cEither this man was and is the son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.\u201d So the only options are liar, lunatic, or Lord. But of course there is a fourth option: that Jesus didn\u2019t claim to be God at all. Thus the choices really are liar, lunatic, Lord, or legend (and in fact, probably a mixture of three of these).<\/p>\n

Lewis\u2019s argument is obviously flawed and very easy to refute \u2014 and yet Collins fell for it. Why? I think the answer is clear: because he wanted to believe it.<\/p>\n

My second example comes from William F. Buckley\u2019s\u00a0Nearer, My God. Buckley, father of the modern conservative movement, was \u2014 whatever you may think of him \u2014 obviously very smart. It is therefore fascinating seeing him try to defend claims that are clearly unfounded.<\/p>\n

One such claim is that of miracles at Lourdes. Buckley points out that nonbelievers (like one reportedly sent by a French \u201canti-religious organization”) have attempted to discredit the process by which miracles are verified \u2014 sometimes even by faking illnesses and then claiming cures. And yet, they all have failed, he informs us, for the process is very strict: \u201cthere are no tribunals in existence more skeptical than those through which you need to pass if your claim is to have been cured of illness at Lourdes.\u201d In fact, although millions of pilgrims have visited the sanctuary, \u201cfewer than one hundred \u2018cures\u2019 have been certified by the Church as miraculous.\u201d So you see, the verified ones must have been the genuine article.<\/p>\n

It never appears to have dawned on Buckley that odds this bad, though supporting the argument that the process of verification is strict, completely fail to support the claim of miracles in the first place. A “miracle” here just means that \u201cthere is no known or hypothetical scientific explanation\u201d for what the doctors have observed. The patient simply got better. But since cases of spontaneous remission of disease do occur from time to time, the fact that some of these occurred to people who visited Lourdes \u2014 and at a rate that does not appear to be greater than for others \u2014 proves exactly nothing.<\/p>\n

And why did Buckley fail to see this? Once again, it seems the reason is that he wanted to believe. Buckley admits that his visit to Lourdes left him \u201cprofoundly affected\u201d \u2014 maybe as much as Collins was by the frozen waterfall. In other words, his emotions got in the way of his better judgement.<\/p>\n

This phenomenon was likely also instrumental in the early recruitment of devotees as the faith struggled to gain traction against the many pagan mystery religions, most of which did not provide such a savory promise of afterlife bliss. In other words, the \u2018invention\u2019 of the Christian heaven might have been one of the critical factors that allowed it to become a dominant religion. In any case, the tendency for people to believe based on desire makes the claims of Christianity, the one faith that most exploits this effect, that much less <\/a>credible.<\/p>\n

(1617) Theism versus naturalism<\/strong><\/p>\n

The question that is most pressing for humankind is whether we live in a theistic world or a naturalistic world, whether we live among gods, devils, angels,and demons who are manipulating things\u00a0behind the scenes, or whether we live in a world devoid of such characters and are only influenced by the random and purposeless natural forces of nature. \u00a0To attempt to answer this question, it is instructive to consider the features we would expect of both of these worlds. The following table is inspired by Dr. Sean Carroll:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The expected world of theism<\/strong><\/td>\nThe expected world of naturalism<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
God is easy to find, his presence is well known to all.<\/strong><\/td>\nGod is obscured and hard to find, there is no objective evidence of his presence.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Religious beliefs are universal, all people agree on the identity of the god or gods.<\/strong><\/td>\nReligious beliefs disagree with each other and are each concentrated in isolated geographic pockets.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Religious doctrines are stable, rarely changing over time.<\/strong><\/td>\nReligious doctrines evolve over time adapting to changing conditions of civilization.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Moral teachings are transcendent, e.g.,sexism, slavery, discrimination are discouraged<\/strong><\/td>\nMoral teachings reflect the morality of the people of the times, and often conflict with the evolved attitudes of later society.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sacred texts provide knowledge unknown at the time, giving mankind a head start in understanding and managing their world.<\/strong><\/td>\nSacred texts contain no information unknown to people of the times.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Biological forms are designed in a way that optimizes all physical elements.<\/strong><\/td>\nBiological forms exhibit the twists and turns of an evolutionary process, with vestigial features and vulnerabilities that could have been avoided with a better design.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Minds are independent of physical bodies and function well despite injury or disease.<\/strong><\/td>\nMinds are vulnerable to injury and disease, memories and brain function can be decimated by such events, personality can change.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Random evil and suffering does not exist.<\/strong><\/td>\nEvil and suffering are widespread, visited on people without any specific reason.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Universe is perfect, all stars, planets, and moons are fashioned in an exquisitely ordered design, without collisions or disorder.<\/strong><\/td>\nThe universe is randomly chaotic, with stars exploding, meteors crashing, stars exploding.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Universe is small, compact, containing only those elements needed to stage a drama for humans to choose between good and evil. <\/strong><\/td>\nUniverse is vast; all theology is compressed into an infinitesimally small and inconspicuous spec in the heavens.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

None of these arguments by themselves is especially convincing, but all of them taken together provides extremely compelling evidence that we live in a naturalistic world, which by definition excludes the authenticity of <\/a>Christianity.<\/p>\n

(1618) Paul was a crazy person<\/strong><\/p>\n

Although Paul has been traditionally revered throughout Christian circles as a saint and God\u2019s specially selected theological genius, a more careful analysis of his writings indicates something different- he was likely a crazy fanatic who unfoundedly imagined himself to be receiving direct communication signals from God. \u00a0In other words, the type of person who today would be considered in need of professional help. In the following excerpt, David Madison identified four examples to support this view:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2017\/09\/where-bible-gets-it-really-wrong.html#more<\/a><\/p>\n

Batshit Crazy Text # 1:\u00a0I Thessalonians 4:15-17: Jesus re-inters the atmosphere<\/p>\n

Paul\u2019s gullible converts took him at his word that Jesus was due to come floating down through the clouds \u201cany day now\u201d\u2014and some were distressed that a few of their fellow converts had already died. They would miss out on all the fun. But the crackpot mind that came up with the floating Jesus, well, he had a handy answer to their worries:<\/p>\n

\u201cFor this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel\u2019s call and with the sound of God\u2019s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.\u201d<\/p>\n

How cool is that! Dead believers will beat everyone else to meet Jesus up in the air,\u00a0and\u00a0there will be musical accompaniment. This was not a far-off event\u2014certainly not millennia: \u201c\u2026we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together.\u201d Weird cults have thrived on this text for hundreds of years.<\/p>\n

Are there many Christian apologists who fess up that Paul was just dead wrong\u2014and that his credibility is irreparably damaged by this loony-tunes prediction? And please, let\u2019s have no sophistry about the text\u2019s \u201cdeeper meaning.\u201d And No, it\u2019s not that Paul was just off with the timing. His Christology depended on Jesus showing up soon and rewarding the simple-minded folks whom he\u2019d coaxed into the fold. Paul wasn\u2019t counting on Jesus knocking out Satan \u201cany century now\u201d (cf. Romans 16:20, \u201c\u2026the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet\u201d).<\/p>\n

Of course, when you tell a really big lie, some folks may raise their eyebrows: How can that be true? So then you have to tell\u00a0another\u00a0big lie\u2026<\/p>\n

Batshit Crazy Text # 2. I Corinthians 15:42-52: Would you believe \u2018spiritual\u2019 bodies?<\/p>\n

Of course, it\u2019s a really disgusting thought: rotting bodies popping out of their graves for their come-to-Jesus meeting in the sky. So, naturally, Paul had to work\u00a0that\u00a0out:<\/p>\n

\u201cSo it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.\u201d (I Cor. 15:42-44)<\/p>\n

\u201cListen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality.\u201d (I Cor. 15: 51-52)<\/p>\n

Again with the music. \u201cSpiritual body.\u201d What does that even mean? (Of course, theologians don\u2019t have to make sense\u2014as long as the folks in their target markets are impressed.) In all fairness, Paul\u2014along with John the Baptist and Jesus\u2014bought into the apocalyptic nonsense that had seeped into Judaism. Nonetheless, Paul set a high standard for thousands of Christian theologians to follow\u2026for making things up.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.\u201d How could he possibly know that? One thing that does come to mind for me: Nearly Headless Nick and Moaning Myrtle in the Harry Potter films\u2014hey, those are pretty convincing spiritual bodies. If anyone believed Paul\u2014well, it\u2019s a measure of their debilitating gullibility.<\/p>\n

Batshit Crazy Text # 3: I Corinthians 6:1-4: Angels will soon be under your jurisdiction<\/p>\n

If you have any doubt that Paul knew that Jesus\u2019 kingdom was just around the corner, this text is big clue about his full-blown delusional thinking:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels\u2014to say nothing of ordinary matters?\u201d (I Cor. 6:1-3)<\/p>\n

Ask the next ten Christians you meet if they know they\u2019ll soon be judging angels.<\/p>\n

Batshit Crazy Text # 4: I Corinthians 7: Marriage happiness blasted by bad theology<\/p>\n

Christians are fond of using the apostle Paul as one of their hired guns in condemning gay sex (e.g., Romans 1:26-27)\u2014without noticing that he wasn\u2019t keen at all on straight sex either. Welcome to I Corinthians 7: surely most Christians would agree that here, above all, the Bible\u00a0gets it really wrong.<\/p>\n

Paul\u2019s certainty that Jesus will bring his kingdom to earth any day now\u2014with swift retribution to sinners\u2014left him with little patience for marriage. His advice: get over such earthly preoccupations. At the end of Romans 13 he states his case bluntly: \u201cFor salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers\u2026put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and\u00a0make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.\u201d That\u2019s not the way life works. A lot of Christians, we can be sure, have sensed that Paul might have had \u201cintimacy issues.\u201d<\/p>\n

Try to wrap you mind around these verses from Chapter 7\u2014notice especially the words in bold:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Verse 1: Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: \u201cIt is well for a man not to touch a woman.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2022 Verses 7-9: I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind.\u00a0To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it\u00a0is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Verses 25-29: Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord\u2019s mercy is trustworthy. I think that,\u00a0in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free.\u00a0Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin.\u00a0Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Verses 30-31 I mean, brothers,\u00a0the appointed time has grown short;\u00a0from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.<\/p>\n

\u201cFrom now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none.\u201d\u00a0Who would urge Christian couples to take Paul\u2019s marriage advice? Yes, Paul\u2019s advice was \u201ccontext specific\u201d\u2014namely his urgent appeal for people to drop everything to be ready when Jesus arrived. But Paul was wrong about that;\u00a0the context was his bad theology.<\/p>\n

We can put I Corinthians 7 in the trash. But once we\u2019ve taken this first step, we\u2019re not that far from realizing that Paul himself was batshit crazy. It turns out to be rather fun to read Paul\u2019s letters (well, okay, not really) when that change of perspective has been adopted.<\/p>\n

Once it is realized the type of person Paul was, it is only a short step further to understand that a huge portion of Christianity\u2019s foundation is being supported on the shaky pillars of a deluded individual.\u00a0 Without Paul, it is doubtful that Christianity would have survived, for his influence alone posthumously kept it from collapsing after the Roman decimation of Judea by taking it into gentile territories.\u00a0 And without his letters, even if it did survive, much of Christian theology would be a mish-mash compilation formed from the contradictory gospels and other epistles. In fact, without Paul, the gospels might not have been written. It is these facts that give pause to skeptics who see that modern Christianity is a descendant of the sect that owes its existence to a hallucinating egoist who never even met the man <\/a>himself.<\/p>\n

(1619) Sybil Ludington<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sybil Ludington was reported to have taken a dramatic horse ride during the American Revolutionary War to warn militiamen of the impending approach of the British army.\u00a0 Her ride was an analog to the more famous ride of Paul Revere.\u00a0 The following is taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sybil_Ludington<\/a><\/p>\n

Sybil Ludington\u00a0(April 5, 1761 \u2013 February 26, 1839), daughter of Colonel\u00a0Henry Ludington<\/a>\u00a0and his wife, Abigail Ludington, has been celebrated as a heroine of the\u00a0American Revolutionary War<\/a>\u00a0since about 1900. On the night of April 26, 1777, at the age of 16, she rode her horse, Star, on a night ride to alert militia forces in villages of\u00a0Putnam County, New York<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Danbury, Connecticut<\/a>, to the approach of the British regular forces. The ride was similar to those performed by\u00a0William Dawes<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Paul Revere<\/a>\u00a0(Massachusetts, April 1775<\/a>), and\u00a0Jack Jouett<\/a>\u00a0(Virginia, 1781<\/a>), although Ludington rode more than twice the distance of Revere and was much younger than the men. Known locally to neighbors and friends, her story was first published in 1880 by local historian Martha Lamb.<\/p>\n

This is a statue of Ludington in Carmel, New York:<\/p>\n

\"Image<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, this flowery and inspirational history suffers from a dearth of documentation contemporary to the alleged event.\u00a0 The following is taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.trend-chaser.com\/history\/famous-historical-figures-that-may-have-never-existed\/3\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Sybil Ludington has been considered as a forgotten heroine of the Revolutionary War. Some have referred to her as the female Paul Revere who rode a total of 40 miles in the rain to warn the Connecticut Yankees that the British were coming. She is noted to have only been 16 years old, dodging the English and managing to sound the alarm in Putnam County, Mahopac, and Stormville.\u00a0Yet, why was she forgotten if she supposedly rode twice as far as Revere? Or did she never even make the ride we are told she did?<\/p>\n

According to\u00a0Smithsonian Magazine,\u00a0there was no mention of Sybil\u2019s ride until 1880, over a century after the war. This seriously questions the validity of the original story, because there is no reliable source. Also, there was no account of any records from anybody that Ludington would have warned claiming that she did what we have been told. Now, she has become a mascot to feminists and other certain political factions. Although her existence is questionable, it has provided the United States with a story that we can tell to inspire others regardless if it is true or not.<\/p>\n

The story of Sybil is similar to what we know about Jesus.\u00a0 Just as in her case, there is no mention of Jesus in any document until about 52 CE (Paul\u2019s letters), or two decades after the alleged date of the crucifixion. And beyond that, it was an additional 20 years later, in the gospel of Mark, before any details of Jesus\u2019s life and ministry were written down.\u00a0 What separates the analog is that it is well documented that Sybil Ludington was a real person, while the existence of a unique individual as being Jesus is under significant debate. But the example of how the exploits of Sybil Ludington were easily adopted as being historical despite the lack of reliable contemporaneous accounts is very telling. It shows what probably happened in Jesus\u2019s case, whether or not he was a real <\/a>person.<\/p>\n

(1620) God\u2019s emotional dilemma<\/strong><\/p>\n

Assuming that Christianity\u2019s standard characterization of God\u2019s attributes is correct- that he is omniscient and omnipotent, then it becomes evident that God has deliberately placed himself in an uncomfortable position that results in an unsettling feeling of continuous remorse. This is because he must be viewing every act of evil while simultaneously withholding his ability to stop it.<\/p>\n

By analogy, imagine a person is placed in a room with a button. The button is programmed to stun a person who is wearing an electrified vest.\u00a0 The person is told to refrain from pushing the button no matter what happens.\u00a0 The person is allowed to watch the vested individual and see what he is doing. The vested person begins to molest, rape, and strangle a child.\u00a0 He does as he is told and does not push the button. The child dies. Later, the person feels extreme regret for not pushing the button and saving the child.<\/p>\n

This is exactly what God must be feeling during millions of moments every day. Watching all types of evil events that he has the ability to stop, but, sticking to his pointless protocol, he simply lets it all happen anyway. To allow suffering that he can easily stop must be an agonizing ordeal. Being god is tough, and this is something that no reasonably sympathetic human could possibly stomach. On the other hand, this analogy suggests that a benevolent, all-knowing, all-powerful divine figure almost certainly does not <\/a>exist.<\/p>\n

(1621) Progressive revelation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Often when Christians are backed into a corner trying to explain some of the absurdities of the Old Testament, they will toss the question aside and say \u201coh, but that\u2019s in the Old Testament,\u201d as if it doesn\u2019t really count against the legitimacy of their beliefs.\u00a0 Or they will say, that is the \u2018Old Covenant\u2019 and we are now living under the \u2018New Covenant.\u2019\u00a0 It never seems to bother them to consider why God would execute a two-step covenantal process, or what might be termed \u2018progressive revelation.\u2019 The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/new.exchristian.net\/2017\/09\/why-old-testament-is-so-silly.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Progressive revelation doesn\u2019t work because by default the people on the earlier end of the revelation would take that revelation as final, so they would get all sorts of wrong-headed ideas wedged into their brains. In fact, final revelation is redundant. Why would a revelation be provisional? At least, it if was provisional, it should come with a warning, something like This revelation will lapse in 1,000 years.<\/p>\n

Also, progressive revelation just doesn\u2019t match the Old Testament text. The Old Testament takes itself very seriously\u2014so the Jews did, too.<\/p>\n

For example, there\u2019s nothing in the Old Testament to suggest that the sacrificial system was just symbolic\u2014a \u201ctype\u201d of the better sacrifice of Jesus that would come later. A religious Jew in the first few centuries would have said that was nonsense\u2014which is what a lot of them did in fact say to Christians would asserted this point of view. Still do. Read the Old Testament. It\u2019s pretty clear. Those slaughtered animals really did take away the Israelites\u2019 sins.<\/p>\n

\u00a0We get all tied up in our underwear because we\u2019re trying to defend the untenable assertion of divine revelation. Progressive revelation is just something we cooked up to explain away all the stupid stuff in the Old Testament.<\/p>\n

Isn\u2019t the Occam\u2019s Razor answer more satisfactory? The reason the Old Testament is ridiculous is that it was written by flat-earthers. God would really say that a woman will be unclean longer if she gives birth to a female child? Really? Doesn\u2019t that sound more like something someone with a trouser snake would say?<\/p>\n

Believers go to such lengths to prop up scripture, progressive revelation being just one example, ignoring the obvious truth that the Bible is just the words of men. So much is riding on scripture being God\u2019s word to us\u2014because we know that God\u2019s not speaking clearly to us in any other way. If God isn\u2019t talking to us through the Bible, does that mean He doesn\u2019t care about communicating with us at all?<\/p>\n

It takes an Olympics-worthy amount of\u00a0 mental gymnastics to explain why God dispensed his final revelation after offering for a thousand years only a partial revelation. It doesn\u2019t match up to the expectations of an omniscient divine being, while, on the other hand, matching perfectly what would be expected from an evolving human -created\u00a0<\/a>project.<\/p>\n

(1622) God orders adultery<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is well known that the Judeo-Christian god does not endorse adultery, and in fact, he specifically established an edict prohibiting it in the Ten Commandments. So, it may come as a shock to the faithful that God actually prescribed adultery, and for it to be performed out in the open, as punishment to David for his murder of Uriah the Hittite and subsequent marriage to his widow.<\/p>\n

II Samuel 12:11-12<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is what the\u00a0Lord\u00a0says: \u2018Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you [David]. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight.\u00a0You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.\u2019\u202f\u201d<\/p>\n

This is another of the verses that Christians will never hear in church. For God to force David\u2019s wives to have sex with a friend and for it to be done out in the open (so David can see it) is certainly not what would be expected of an all-knowing, benevolent deity. Especially one who chiseled in stone his abhorrence of the act of adultery.\u00a0 Christians must own this scripture- to dismiss it as a false attribution is to open a Pandora\u2019s Box that allows every other scriptural attribution of the Lord\u2019s words to be brought into <\/a>question.<\/p>\n

(1623) Forced Convergence<\/strong><\/p>\n

The scriptures are explicit when it comes to the powerful post-resurrection influence of the Holy Spirit on the followers of Jesus at the Pentecost:<\/p>\n

Acts 2:2-4<\/p>\n

When the day of Pentecost\u00a0came, they were all together\u00a0in one place.\u00a0Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.\u00a0They 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\u00a0and began to speak in other tongues\u00a0as the Spirit enabled them.<\/p>\n

The strength of the Holy Spirit was evidently strong enough to align all of these individuals into a consistent Christian theology. But this didn\u2019t last very long as many different versions of the faith soon emerged.\u00a0 Although some dispersion is expected from such seminal historical sets of events, the supposedly omnipotent third piece of the godhead should have continued<\/span> to align the followers in a manner similar to the Pentecost. This did not happen. It took a messy convention of politically-motivated humans to create this convergence, the Council of Nicea in CE 325. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/new.exchristian.net\/2017\/09\/paul-and-nicaea-creating-religious.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Before the Council, early Christian teachings about the nature of God, Jesus, the Spirit, what salvation means, etc., etc., were all over the place. Some names: Arianism, Patripassianism, the Gnostics, the Monatists, Ebionists, Cathari, and Paulinists; every opinion, given the available fantasy-worlds of the times. Add to this, many gospels. How could anyone know what’s true? And it didn’t look promising if factions came to blows over differences of opinions. (In fact, they did. Wars were fought over them.) Emperor Constantine wanted unity, and this included unity of belief. Hence the Council, a collection of bishops, to decide by vote what was true, what wasn’t. They came up with 20 canons. One result of their votes led to those disagreeing with them being labeled \u201cheretics,\u201d who were subsequently persecuted and killed. Even those who disagreed with their decisions paid lip-service, as they do today.<\/p>\n

So the convergence of Christian theology was executed by a council of disagreeing humans and subjected to a vote, rather than by the supposedly all-powerful Holy Spirit who, it would seem, retired to its comfortable seat in the heavens shortly after producing the dramatic Pentecost scene.\u00a0 Of course, even though this council, along with the persecution of anyone with an alternate belief system, did align Christianity into a cohesive set of beliefs, this tidy situation soon dissolved again into thousands of factions over the ensuing centuries. If ever there was a sign of a human-created religion, this is it. The Holy Spirit failed, and failed <\/a>miserably.<\/p>\n

(1624) Religion as a social construct<\/strong><\/p>\n

At its core, religion isn\u2019t about objective truth; rather, it is about social binds and tribalism, a way to differentiate one\u2019s group from the others. In this light, the tenets of faith are not allowed to be subjected to the normal tests of veracity- they exist instead as unassailable agreements of belief, a contract among the followers that \u2018we will believe these things no matter what.\u2019 And anyone who leaves the faith is seen as breaking this contract and damaging the entire group by doing so. This helps to explain how a demonstrably false religion, such as Christianity, has tenaciously held its position on the world stage for nearly 20 centuries. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/godlessindixie\/2017\/09\/29\/the-sociology-of-belief\/<\/a><\/p>\n

One explanation for the genesis and prevalence of religions in the world is that they help to organize communities and to codify the values and priorities we intend to pass on to successive generations. Religious beliefs and practices are a means of enculturation, a vehicle for communicating what matters to a community. They are also reliable identity markers by which a group can clearly delineate what puts you in\u2026or out of\u2026the group.<\/p>\n

Put differently, religion can be viewed as an outgrowth of\u00a0tribalism. It is a social tool, a sort of intangible technology that we developed for encapsulating and transmitting whatever matters most to our communities. We are a fundamentally social species, so it should come as no surprise that we would hold most dearly those practices which most effectively preserve our values and our collective identity.<\/p>\n

I can\u00a0think of no better way to keep a culture from changing too much, or too fast, than ascribing divine authority to it. When you think about it this way, a whole lot more things start to make sense. For starters, here are three things we learn from\u00a0thinking this way.<\/p>\n

1) Suddenly it makes sense why it\u2019s so hard to change a religious person\u2019s mind.<\/p>\n

The direct approach\u2014critiquing the beliefs themselves\u2014often produces little change in the thinking of the believer because the real strength of the belief system comes from something external to the beliefs themselves.\u00a0The real strength of our beliefs lies in their ability to hold together the tribal identity.<\/p>\n

Have you ever tried changing the mind of someone who believes things that are irrational or lacking in evidential support? The mental gymnastics they perform in front of you will leave you dizzy, especially if they are relatively intelligent (and yes, intelligent people\u00a0believe irrational things, too<\/a>). If they are less articulate, they will just dig their heels in and keep restating their belief, now in ALL CAPS, as if you didn\u2019t just expertly disassemble the entire narrative\u00a0undergirding their belief. It\u2019s like talking to a brick wall.<\/p>\n

But why? Why the backfire effect? Why is it so hard to change their minds about things that are so easily deconstructed?<\/p>\n

I recall an article\u00a0a few months back wondering aloud why Trump supporters seem convinced of everything the man ever says even after showing them he contradicts his own positions\u00a0three times\u00a0in a single week. They will defend anything he says or does, not because the actions or words themselves are rationally defensible, but because at some point the mantle for a particular group identity was placed on him and\u00a0from that point forward it became about the tribal identity, not the man himself.<\/p>\n

Would you go back and reread that last sentence? The reason Trump remains popular with his base no matter how dangerous or irresponsible (or demonstrably false) his tweets and off-script public statements become is that he\u2019s become a symbol for a group identity, like a team mascot strutting the sidelines during a football game. People will root for their team no matter how consistently poor their performance because it\u2019s not about the performance. It\u2019s about the group identity.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s why directly critiquing religious beliefs (much like critiquing political policies) so often gets you nowhere. The cognitive dissonance kicks in and suddenly it\u2019s like someone came through and deleted the last five minutes of conversation from the other person\u2019s memory banks. It\u2019s incredibly frustrating. But it makes more sense now.<\/p>\n

2) This also helps to explain why people take it so personally when they learn you no longer believe the same things they believe.<\/p>\n

How many of you had to break it to your parents that you no longer believe the central tenets of their religion? Did they react charitably, with sympathy, understanding, and grace? Or did they explode in anger, remorse, attempts at coercion, or possibly even a verbal assault because \u201cHow could you do this to us?!\u201d<\/p>\n

Wait, what? What do you mean \u201cdo this to us?\u201d From your perspective, this wasn\u2019t some kind of personal slight to them. It was an individual matter, an unavoidable consequence of following your own thought processes, your own search for truth, wherever it leads you.\u00a0But that\u2019s not how they experience it at all.\u00a0To them, this was a personal slap in the face.<\/p>\n

That doesn\u2019t make any sense until you realize that religious beliefs are\u00a0social constructs\u2014they are the scaffolding around which communities organize themselves such that your departure from their belief system means you are undermining the social fabric through which their entire identity is woven. What will everyone think of them now?<\/p>\n

There is virtually no unoffensive way to tell friends and family you no longer believe in their religion. To do so automatically takes something out from under their social edifice and makes the whole thing feel like it\u2019s wobbling a little. That\u2019s why they get so angry. That\u2019s why they take it so personally. In their moments of greatest insecurity the nicest people in the world will say the meanest, most careless things because your departure fundamentally threatens their tribal identity. They almost can\u2019t help it.<\/p>\n

3) It also explains how positions on issues that are non-essential to a religion (like same-sex attraction) can become the hill they are ready to die on.<\/p>\n

This one keeps surprising me. I\u2019ve personally taken part in quite a number of discussions through the years about which beliefs are truly essential to the historic Christian faith\u2014what C.S. Lewis called \u201cmere Christianity\u201d\u2014and yet I cannot recall a single one of those discussions including \u201cfighting the gays\u201d as a key component to the gospel.<\/p>\n

And yet. Disapproving of same-sex attraction has become a litmus test for evangelical and fundamentalist Christians the world over. Scrolling through your newsfeed, you could be forgiven for\u00a0concluding that\u00a0this is why Jesus came to earth\u2014to rid the world of\u00a0homosexuality\u2014despite the fact that the man never said a single word about the subject. I guess it never came up. But still, you would think someone with a direct line to Heaven would have included\u00a0at least one quick mention for future reference.<\/p>\n

For the life of me, I cannot explain theologically how disagreeing on this single issue could equal a\u00a0betrayal of the entire Christian faith. It doesn\u2019t really add up in my mind. Except that it does once you realize that at some point in the recent past it was decided that this would be an identity marker for the tribe itself, and that was the end of the discussion. Once that association was made, the battle lines were drawn and now they\u2019re willing to go down fighting over this.<\/p>\n

One could argue that the key issue with this particular point is really family structure itself. Modern American churches are built around meeting the needs of the traditional American family, which means one man married to one woman with at least two or three kids needing entertainment, character formation, and good friends to play with. That\u2019s the target audience for the evangelical and fundamentalist church (too bad if you\u2019re single and way worse if you\u2019re gay). That is the family structure they will fight to the death in order to preserve. Their survival depends on it.<\/p>\n

Incidentally this would also explain the church\u2019s over-the-top obsession with sex in general, or rather\u00a0controlling how people do it. If you let people have sex outside of wedlock they may never get around to marrying and having those kids you need them to have so that they\u2019ll start coming to church again (because who will teach the children morals?). If you allow the family to start looking like something other than the template around which their subculture is built, what will happen to the tribe as a whole? It would likely dissolve into the surrounding world and the identity would be lost forever.<\/p>\n

This tribalistic nature of religion helps to destroy the argument that a successful faith that lasts a long time and has lots of followers must have a kernel of truth attached to its claims.\u00a0 Rather, it is simply those belief systems that withstand a \u2018survival of the fittest\u2019 competition that tend to dominate the sectarian world. Truth has little to do with it, it is all about a synergistic gathering of minds around a set of traditional beliefs that binds a community of disparate people into a cohesive <\/a>whole.<\/p>\n

(1625) An observer god is the same as no god<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christian apologists often advance arguments for their god that take the form of \u201chow come there is something instead of nothing?\u201d or \u201chow could the universe have made itself? This \u2018point of creation\u2019 argument seems to be the go-to strategy when every other attempt at demonstrating god\u2019s existence is effectively defused by atheists. And it usually results in a standoff, ending with the atheist asking \u201cwell, then who made god?\u201d<\/p>\n

But even if the point is conceded- that god made the universe, does it really matter if this god is not interacting with his creation?\u00a0 If he is simply letting it go according to the immutable laws of nature? This is the point that should be made in these debates- a universe with an observer god is the same as a universe without a god. The atheist position is still effectively correct. All religions are based on imaginary beings. We live our lives and die and cease to exist, god or god- it is all the same.<\/p>\n

So, what does the evidence suggest? Never in the history of the world has there been a verifiable disturbance to the natural physical laws of nature. If supernatural beings are among us and pulling strings, it is impossible to believe that all of this would have escaped our attention, especially in a highly technical world of seven billion people.<\/p>\n

So, the question of whether or not a god made the universe is irrelevant.\u00a0 Either way, it is all the same for our world and our lives.\u00a0 You could believe in a god who created the universe. You could believe that this god is all-seeing. You could even believe that this god is all powerful. But given that, if this god has chosen, as it appears that he has (assuming he exists), to remain in a strict observer mode, then being an atheist is still the correct point of view.<\/p>\n

In summary, even if it is conceded that an omniscient, omnipotent god exists, if it is only watching,\u00a0then consequently, all religions that claim supernaturality are false and those following them are in a state of delusion. And there is no strategic reason for an atheist to argue against the existence of such a <\/a>god.<\/p>\n

(1626) Jesus birth stories cast doubt on his existence<\/strong><\/p>\n

As the scholarship surrounding Christianity continues to trend toward doubt about the historical reality of Jesus, it is instructive to look no further than the two birth stories contained in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Perhaps there lies the \u2018Rosetta Stone\u2019 for understanding the true origins of the Christian religion. \u00a0The clues contained therein are troubling to any Christian literalist. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

“The Birth of Jesus and the Christmas Story: Pagan and Unhistorical” by Vexen Crabtree<\/a>\u00a0(2014).<\/p>\n

The\u00a0stories about Jesus’s birth in the Bible are contained in the Books of Matthew and Luke. These two accounts contradict each other in many places<\/a>. Many elements are certainly untrue. There are no Roman records attesting to the birth (or life) of Jesus. Events such as\u00a0King Herod’s killing of every male child<\/a>\u00a0simply did not occur\u00a0– none of Herod’s enemies mention it, for example, despite their routine documenting of his many misdeeds of a much lesser nature. Also unhistorical is the curious Roman census that required (for what reason?) everyone to go to cities associated with their ancestors. But\u00a0similar stories are found about previous pagan god-man saviours<\/a>. Likewise with the Virgin Birth, which has now been shown to simply be a mistranslation deriving from the Septuagint. And what of the 3 wise men who follow the bright star to Jesus’s birthplace, bearing gifts? Other star gazers of the time, who meticulously recorded many stellar events, did not notice it. It is a\u00a0Zoroastrian<\/a>\u00a0story, even down to the details of the 3 gifts, copied by\u00a0Christians<\/a>\u00a0and made to be about Jesus. The stories of Jesus’s birth are rewrites, modernisations, of previous stories from older pagan myths. These facts have led\u00a0some scholars to cast doubt on Jesus’s entire existence<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The standards for determining historical validity have become more stringent over time and this has led to the recent questioning of the truth of Christianity.\u00a0 What has developed is not so much a firm case against the existence of Jesus, but rather a rock solid demonstration that IF HE EXISTED, he was certainly not the miracle-working, death-defying god-man portrayed in the scriptures.\u00a0 This alone is sufficient to dismiss the dogmatic elements of the faith; permitting, at the most, an acknowledgement of the philosophical value of some of its <\/a>precepts.<\/p>\n

(1627) The Bible is not perfect nor otherworldly brilliant<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christian doctrine assumes that the Bible is the handiwork of God, or, even more bluntly, a book written by (and only by) God through the use of the hands of about 40 men. Despite all of the shenanigans carried out by various kings, scribes, and priests during the centuries-long process of its development, the Bible is still allegedly the inspired work of God, who, according to conventional dogma, had total control over all of these processes. This is a testable claim. Given this hypothesis, the Bible should be perfect and brilliant on a hyper-human scale.<\/p>\n

And, of course, it is neither of these things. It is both highly imperfect and well within the genius displayed by human literature both of its time and of the present. This is not really an arguable point except to those who live in a fantasy world of willful ignorance.\u00a0 So, this leaves two explanations- (1) God deliberately allowed human error and ignorance to pollute his book, leaving it in a fashion that creates confusion and disagreement among the faithful, leaving it with gaping contradictions, and worst of all, failing to define precisely the basis of salvation, or (2) the Bible is the work of humans, devoid of divine inspiration.\u00a0 There is no middle ground, though many Christian apologists attempt to claim such. To say that God inspired the writers of the gospel, but then let human editors defile and convolute it makes no logical sense.<\/p>\n

Option (1) above leaves us with a god who is incompetent and a bit malicious, with the apparent intent to muddy the waters and make sure that his message to mankind will be confounding enough to result in thousands of warring factions, as well as to make sure that his writings match but do not exceed human literary capabilities. Option (2), on the other hand, requires no explanation, and is therefore obviously <\/a>correct.<\/p>\n

(1628) The murderer\/victim paradox<\/strong><\/p>\n

The theology espoused by most Christians includes the possibility of a murderer being forgiven of this grievous sin and gaining entry into heaven. The same theology generally assumes that once a person has died, the judgement of their souls takes place without additional adjustments.\u00a0 This means that a person who has been murdered is immediately out of options and must face the music without any chance for further reflection.<\/p>\n

This brings us to the murderer\/victim paradox. \u00a0For example, in the tool box serial murder case in California in 1979, where two men raped, tortured, and killed 5 teenage girls, both defendants, although given a capital punishment sentence, were still in prison almost 40 years later. They had time to reflect on their deeds, get involved with prison ministries, and confess their sins, and accept Jesus as their savior. On the other hand, the murdered girls did not have this opportunity. If they had not yet accepted Jesus, it was too bad for them- game over, and it\u2019s off to hell.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lawrence_Bittaker_and_Roy_Norris<\/a><\/p>\n

So, the paradox is simply this- within the confines of conventional Christian doctrine, there must be many cases where a murderer eventually gains entry to heaven, while the person he has murdered is sent to hell. How can this form of cosmic justice possibly be fair?\u00a0 Why does the murderer get a second chance, but the victim does not?\u00a0 This commonly leads to an apologetic defense that involves a special exemption allowing the victim to accept Jesus posthumously- very nice, but this leads to a big bag of worms.<\/p>\n

If a murder victim has a post-death chance to accept Jesus, then this same accommodation must also be available to anyone who dies suddenly, such as in a car crash, or from a heart attack.\u00a0 Anyone who dies in this manner and is offered an easily evident chance to accept Jesus would enjoy a tremendous advantage over everyone else who must somehow accept Christianity on faith.\u00a0 This would seem to mean that dying quickly is far more favorable than suffering a long, slow death.\u00a0 Considering we are talking about an eternity of bliss versus an eternity of lament and possibly torture, the manner in which you die should not be a determining factor, and, therefore, this apologetic line of defense can be dismissed.<\/p>\n

So if EITHER Lawrence Bittaker or Roy Norris (see link above) is going to heaven while ANY of their 5 raped and tortured victims is in hell, then Christian justice is an unmitigated sham.\u00a0 This absurdity can only result from a theology created by the minds of men, not that of an infinitely intelligent <\/a>being.<\/p>\n

(1629) Believers tend to have a poor understanding of the physical world<\/strong><\/p>\n

Although not surprising, studies have found that believers in supernatural phenomena, including gods, angels, and demons, tend to be poor achievers in the academic arena of what is termed \u2018systemizing,\u2019 as discussed at this website:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/reasonandscience.heavenforum.org\/t2487-does-poor-understanding-of-physical-world-predict-religious-and-paranormal-beliefs<\/a><\/p>\n

The results showed that supernatural beliefs correlated with all variables that were included, namely, with low\u00a0systemizing<\/a>, poor intuitive physics skills, poor mechanical ability, poor mental rotation, low school grades in mathematics and physics, poor common knowledge about physical and biological phenomena, intuitive and analytical thinking styles, and in particular, with assigning mentality to non-mental phenomena.<\/p>\n

Another potential indication of believers\u2019 poor understanding of the physical world is a tendency for low\u00a0systemizing<\/a>. In the Empathizing\u2013Systemizing theory, people who are poor at\u00a0physical cognition\u00a0are called low systemizers because they have poor abilities and low interests in such things as map-reading, mathematics, intuitive physics, or technical and motor systems.<\/p>\n

Cognition is “the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.<\/p>\n

In other words, theists are so because they are stupid , or less intelligent…. just expressed more sciency or academical.<\/p>\n

We know only one study where intuitive physical skills and supernatural beliefs have been addressed: found that belief in God was negatively correlated with scores obtained from the Intuitive Physics Test. In addition, two studies have examined the relationship between\u00a0systemizing<\/a>\u00a0and supernatural beliefs but both assessed\u00a0systemizing<\/a>\u00a0only with a self-report questionnaire. \u00a0However, another study suggests that low\u00a0systemizing\u00a0may be common among supernatural believers. \u00a0 The most consistent difference between believers and skeptics was that all believer subgroups were average or lower in\u00a0systemizing, whereas all skeptic subgroups were average or higher in\u00a0systemizing.\u00a0Finally, one hint in the same direction is scientific education. Supernatural believers are more often students of humanities and social science than science students, and they have more evolutionary misconceptions than skeptics.<\/p>\n

So, because evolution is true, God does not exist….<\/p>\n

The more the participants believed in religious or other paranormal phenomena, the lower their intuitive physics skills, mechanical and mental rotation abilities, school grades in mathematics and physics, and knowledge about physical and biological phenomena were; the less they reported interests and skills in\u00a0systemizing<\/a>; and the more they regarded inanimate targets as mental phenomena.<\/p>\n

It should be obvious that those who are more engaged in the logical and mentally challenging fields of math and science and who have flexible minds capable of addressing and conceptualizing ideas from multiple angles would be better equipped to assess the truth of supernatural claims. Therefore, the correlation discovered in this study suggests that believers are ill-equipped to perceive <\/a>reality.<\/p>\n

(1630) American Revolution was fought in violation of Paul\u2019s letter to the Romans<\/strong><\/p>\n

(Although this point is focused on United States history, it can similarly apply to many other countries<\/em>.) Religious conservatives in America often refer to the founding of the United States as being a purposeful emanation of God\u2019s will, who, according to them, wanted to create \u201cGod\u2019s Country.\u201d In the same vein they misleadingly state that the founding fathers of the United States were deeply religious Christians, just like them. Of course, this assertion is very far from the truth. Most of these men were deists, believing in a distant, non-intervening god, and many were weary of the tyranny of the Christian church.<\/p>\n

Although these same Christians see the American cause in the Revolutionary War as having the full support of God, almost all of them fail to understand that this war was fought in direct violation of scripture, which they believe is God\u2019s inalterable word. Consider the following:<\/p>\n

Romans 13:1-7<\/p>\n

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.\u00a0For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.\u00a0For the one in authority is God\u2019s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God\u2019s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.\u00a0Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.<\/p>\n

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God\u2019s servants, who give their full time to governing.\u00a0Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.<\/p>\n

According to this scripture, King George of England was placed in his position by God, and that anyone who wished to follow the Christian faith, and not bring judgment upon themselves, should obey the edicts of this ruler.\u00a0 The revolutionaries dismissed this scripture and did the opposite.\u00a0 Certainly, apologists will try to claim that this scripture was meant only for the Roman church of its time and did not necessarily apply for all of history to follow. But once this concession is made, it opens up ALL of scripture to the same rationalization, meaning that, according to individual interpretation, all scripture still applies today or else, going to the other extreme, virtually none of it remains <\/a>relevant.<\/p>\n

(1631) The moral priorities of the Bible are\u00a0senseless<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is astounding to see Christians hold up the Bible as being the moral standard that all of us should live by.\u00a0 They cannot be serious. The moral priorities in the Bible are not workable from the perspective of a civil society.\u00a0 The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateAChristian\/comments\/7af510\/gods_moral_priorities_in_the_bible_are_absurd_if\/<\/a><\/p>\n

God positively prescribes slavery, allows for the beating of slaves, orders death for rape victims, requires the striking of children, commands his favorite tribe to slaughter all their neighbors, requires blood sacrifices, declares homosexuality evil, calls for stoning to death as a punishment – and that’s just the instructions.<\/p>\n

God himself also directly destroyed entire cities including children and livestock, rejoiced at the death of infants, decimated the Egyptian population, cursed the entire Universe, punished an innocent man for the crimes of the guilty, used bears to maul children to death, killed to prove points, and once flooded the entire planet, killing nearly every man, woman, child, and animal on it.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, God positively forbade wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork and catfish, being around men when you’re on your period, disobeying your slaveowner, refusing to have sex with your husband, and working on the weekend.<\/p>\n

All of this ungodly, obviously human-generated nonsense is contained in the same book that is carried around by every Christian, which is often used as a cudgel to castigate non-Christians or those who somehow fail to conform to the contorted priorities of their imagined deity.\u00a0 No matter how hard apologists work to sanitize the god of the Bible, these pearls of immoral edicts will remain in this book until the last Christian becomes the world\u2019s newest <\/a>atheist.<\/p>\n

(1632) Hell was not invented until after 70 CE<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Christian doctrine of hell is extremely important to the faith because it claims that an unspeakably horrible fate awaits those who don\u2019t toe the line and accept the sacrifice of Jesus, or whatever other criteria that various denominations apply. Yet, in the seminal adoption of Paul as Christ\u2019s apostle and communicator to the world beyond Judea, Jesus failed to inform him of this horrific place that God has prepared for the bulk of humanity. Paul was not aware of hell and never wrote about it, despite the fact that Jesus himself would later be purported to have described its existence numerous times within the first gospel (Mark), written in approximately 70 CE, and subsequently in the later (copycat) gospels. \u00a0The following is taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateAChristian\/comments\/7cgnqe\/paul_never_uses_the_greek_words_translated_hell\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Although he never mentions hell there is a strong doctrine of victory over\u00a0death(“Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” from 1 Corinthians 15:55). In 2 Thessalonians 1:9 we see the idea of everlasting destruction for those who do not accept Jesus but, again, equating this with eternal torment in the fires of hell (as opposed to death and dust and therefore separation from God) is a later invention. In Paul’s mind the ungodly will be destroyed but Christians will be given eternal life. Paul was a Jew and, thus, would have had no conception of a place of eternal hell fire and torment for the dead which us nowhere to be found in the Old Testament\/ Hebrew Bible. What Paul taught was that by being a disciple and true follower of Christ you will be in the good graces of God and have LIFE, even after death.<\/p>\n

We are left with two possibilities- either God did not think that hell was important enough to inform either the Jews (it is not described in the Old Testament) or Paul, or the concept of hell was made up by the person who wrote the Gospel of Mark.\u00a0 And if it is the latter, which is by far more probable, the entire edifice of Christianity falls <\/a>apart.<\/p>\n

(1633) Why God allows churches to be destroyed<\/strong><\/p>\n

Given the fact that churches are often destroyed by wind, fire, and flooding, combined with the Christian belief that God favors these buildings and has complete control over everything that happens- leads to the following effort to explain why churches are destroyed.\u00a0 Note that as you go down the list the explanations become increasingly plausible:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.jamesrobertwatson.com\/religionabsurdity.html<\/a><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n
      1.God decides that there are too many ‘bad’ people in the congregation and wants to annoy them by having them suffer and raise money for a new structure.<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
        \n
      1. \n
          2. God wants to kill some of the church members (as he killed many ‘sinners’ in ancient times). This seems unlikely since most church destruction occurs while the buildings are empty and God would certainly know that.<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
            \n
          1. \n
              3. He may be pissed at the pastor\/priest\/bishop and want to make him\/her suffer. This seems odd since there are more loving, more humane, and less destructive ways of annoying church leaders.<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                \n
              1. \n
                  4. God can just no longer stand an ugly building. Since God is the Intelligent Designer, he may just choose to destroy those structures he deems to be too ugly. But, I don’t know why he waits until structures are completed since he certainly can see the plans and renderings that are proposed.<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                    \n
                  1. \n
                      5. According to the photos above, God is pissed at how fat Americans have become. This doesn’t make much sense since many destroyed churches don’t have fat pastors and there should be better ways to punish fat people.<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                        \n
                      1. \n
                          6. We can’t truly understand God or His motives – He may destroy things just out of spite or just for His own amusement – I suspect He gets bored watching us mortals screw around all day. Watching a fire or tornado and watching people panic could be a real hoot for Him.<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                            \n
                          1. \n
                              7. God goofed and allowed a fire or tornado to get out of his control. This seems unlikely since He is All-Powerful and All-Knowing.<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                                \n
                              1. \n
                                  8. The church buildings are destroyed by naturally occurring events (tornadoes, fires, lightning strikes, etc.) and God decides not to intervene (see reasons stated above).<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
                                1. \n
                                    9. Churches are destroyed by naturally occurring events, arson, or accidents and God has nothing to do with it since He is just a figment of belief in the minds of delusional people.<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                    The only logical explanation for why churches are destroyed at the same frequency as secular building is #9 above. This provides a key piece of evidence that Christianity is false, and it represents a missed opportunity for evidence in support of its <\/a>truth.<\/p>\n

                                    (1634) Free will cannot absolve God from evil<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                    Christians often answer the question of why there is so much evil and misery in the world by claiming that humans have free will and that their evil choices are the cause of the trouble. This represents a desperate effort to absolve God of any of the blame. The problem with this argument is that it flies in the face of scripture, which consistently suggests that people are predestined to be either good or bad and that free will does not exist. The following is a sample of such scriptures:<\/p>\n

                                    The Bible is Wrong: “Free Will” ? “God’s Plan” ? Predestination?<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n