{"id":8454,"date":"2018-11-12T08:36:27","date_gmt":"2018-11-12T13:36:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=8454"},"modified":"2021-11-23T10:01:27","modified_gmt":"2021-11-23T15:01:27","slug":"1851-1900","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=8454","title":{"rendered":"1851-1900"},"content":{"rendered":"

(1851) Christian euphemisms<\/strong><\/p>\n

Listening to Christians make excuses when the world doesn\u2019t unfold in a manner consistent with their beliefs illuminates the extreme likelihood that there is something seriously wrong with their beliefs. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/new.exchristian.net\/2011\/04\/christian-euphemisms.html<\/a><\/p>\n

I have often heard various phrases used over and over again to obscure the unexplainable Christian \u201ctruths.\u201d But what do they really mean? Let\u2019s look at some:<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is a deep spiritual truth, too complex for us to grasp.\u201d<\/p>\n

Translation: \u201cI don\u2019t know what the fuck this means, but I am going to believe it anyway.\u201d<\/p>\n

This euphemism is commonly used to explain bullshit theology that any normal, thinking person would immediately chalk up to being ridiculous such as the trinity (1+1+11), a “loving and just” god\u2019s cruel actions in the bible, predestination vs. freewill, eternal torturing of good people who don\u2019t bow down and worship a megalomaniac god, etc.<\/p>\n

\u201cGod works in mysterious ways.\u201d<\/p>\n

Translation: \u201cWow! We didn\u2019t see that coming and we can\u2019t explain it to save our lives, but\u2026\u201d
\nThis is usually used when the reality doesn\u2019t match up with what a christian would assume would happen according to god\u2019s will.<\/p>\n

\u201cGod doesn\u2019t give us more than we can bear.\u201d<\/p>\n

Translation:\u00a0\u201cSuck it up and deal with it. We don\u2019t want to have to think about why god would allow such a horrible thing to happen so stop your bellyaching.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hey, if you are breathing, you are bearing it, so there you go. Case closed.<\/p>\n

\u201cGod\u2019s ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts.\u201d<\/p>\n

Translation:\u00a0\u201cWe know this looks like he is a bad god, but we just have to believe he is doing this for a good reason otherwise…\u201d
\nChild abuse, starving people, suffering, etc, can all be explained by god being so smart as to have a perfectly good reason for it all. Yeah, right.<\/p>\n

\u201cGod is testing you.\u201d<\/p>\n

Translation:\u00a0\u201cYou must have pissed god off and now you are going to pay.\u201d<\/p>\n

Why in the world would an all-knowing god have to test anyone? Doesn\u2019t he already know if they will pass or not?<\/p>\n

\u201cGod is so good!\u201d<\/p>\n

Translation:\u00a0\u201cA random event has resulted in my good fortune. Gotta be god!\u201d<\/p>\n

It couldn\u2019t possible be due to hard work, luck, determination, or any other plausible explanation. When bad things happen we never hear, \u201cGod is so bad.\u201d (see \u201cGod is testing you\u201d above)<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is god\u2019s will.\u201d<\/p>\n

Translation:\u00a0\u201cI don\u2019t know what else to say, but this sounds good.\u201d<\/p>\n

When anything happens to a believer it is god\u2019s will. It is god\u2019s will I have cancer\/my child died\/I won the lottery \u2013 you name it. After all, his ways are not our ways (yeah, sometimes the euphemisms overlap).<\/p>\n

\u201cTheir faith is weak.\u201d<\/p>\n

Translation:\u00a0\u201cUh-oh. They are starting to think rationally.\u201d<\/p>\n

Anyone who doesn\u2019t abide by the blind-leading-the-blind philosophy of Christianity has weak faith. Never, ever, question god. Period.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are praying for you.\u201d<\/p>\n

Translation:\u00a0\u201cWe don\u2019t want to go out of our way to actually help you, but we will say a five-second prayer for you once a month. This makes us feel really, really good about doing absolutely nothing for you. Don\u2019t call us, we\u2019ll call you.\u201d<\/p>\n

Nuff said on that one.<\/p>\n

I know there are tons of these, but you get the idea. Christianity is a made up, superstitious, cult that can\u2019t stand on its own. Without these euphemisms, people might be force to just blurt out, \u201cHoly crap!! That doesn\u2019t make any goddamn sense at all! What kind of god would do that?\u201d<\/p>\n

If Christianity were true, Christians would rarely resort to using euphemisms, instead they would be reassured daily as everything would happen in way that reaffirms their core beliefs. Their use of these illogical excuses is a defense mechanism to protect them from facing <\/a>reality.<\/p>\n

(1852) God\u2019s plan in action<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is enlightening to recount God\u2019s plan for the world in a condensed and slightly irreverent manner\u2026. that is, to expose the utter ridiculousness of it all. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/new.exchristian.net\/2011\/05\/holey-fairy-tale.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Once upon a time there was nothing. But in that nothing was an omnipotent god. This god wasn\u2019t made by anything – he was just always there — hanging out in nothingness for eternity ( Don\u2019t spend a lot of time wondering how this could be, just believe it). You might think he was bored, lazy, or unimaginative because he didn\u2019t do anything, but he was thinking of what he was going to do. It just took him a really long time to come up with a good plan. He thought of talking snakes, talking donkeys, superhuman men who lost their power when their hair was cut, killing people for picking up sticks on his day, making a lot of stupid rules that would be really hard to follow so he could punish them for not following them, wiping out whole communities of men, women, and children, and \u2013oooh!! the best part!! \u2013 he would make an evil, powerful angel who would tempt people and cause people to turn away from god so he could put those people in a place of torment for all eternity.<\/p>\n

After god decided on a plan of action he got right to work. He made the earth and planets and stars. He added plants and animals and made a man out of dirt. Then he made the man fall asleep and he made a woman out of the man\u2019s rib. They lived happily in a garden where everything was perfect. But one day a talking snake tricked the woman into eating fruit off of a magic tree that god had told them not to eat. This made god mad even though he knew ahead of time they would do that. That was the whole point of god making the magic tree and the talking snake. Duh! So he kicked them out of the garden and labeled every descendant of theirs a big piece of worthless\u00a0shit<\/a>, which god called \u201csinners.\u201d But god was nice enough to let them live for hundreds of years and have tons and tons of worthless shit babies. God knew they were all going to be worthless and he had already preplanned a giant flood to drown them all, except for one family. He had to save one family to start all over again, even though he knew they were going to have tons of worthless shit babies, too.<\/p>\n

God had an ingenious plan to help all the worthless shit people in the world and make them think he was really a nice, loving god. He was going to make a virgin 12-year-old girl pregnant with himself!!Deep down god really liked to kill and torment people. He told them how he was a loving god and they had to follow hundreds of stupid rules he made up or he would be well within his power as god to kill them. He made up rules about what they could eat, how to cut their penises, how to wear their sideburns, killing their kids if they talked back, having feasts, washing, working, having sex, and lots, lots more. He knew they couldn\u2019t remember all the rules, much less follow them, so he would have lots of opportunities to kill and torment. Fun!!<\/p>\n

Along the way he had a little fun with some of the worthless people. He messed with their minds by allowing the evil angel to kill all the kids of one guy who followed god\u2019s rules really good , he told an old man to kill his son and burn him, told another guy to lay on his side for months and make a fire using human shit, and he told another guy to marry a prostitute even though he had told people before that was a bad thing.<\/p>\n

God had an ingenious plan to help all the worthless shit people in the world and make them think he was really a nice, loving god. He was going to make a virgin 12-year-old girl pregnant with himself!! Then god would split into two different entities and be a man and a god. He would go around praying to himself, and tell people how worthless they were and they could either worship him or be eternally tormented. Then he would let himself be tortured and nailed to a cross and his body would die (but he wouldn\u2019t really die because he is god) and then he would come back to the worthless people in two days (though it is supposed to be three days by his prophets, but never mind the technicalities), and tell more people how worthless they were. He would tell them that he was going to split into yet another form (a magic ghost!!) and if they actually believed this bull shit and telepathically communicated with him all the time, they could spend eternity\u00a0worshipping<\/a>\u00a0at his feet. What could be more fun?? Well, the alternative was\u00a0eternal torment<\/a>\u00a0in a fiery hell, so worship it is! Finally he would rise up and disappear never to be seen or heard from again.<\/p>\n

And everyone who believes this will live happily ever after.<\/p>\n

The story of Christianity is so absurd that it takes childhood indoctrination, peer pressure, mental instability, unbridled wishful thinking, or severe credulousness to believe it. Yet billions of people fall into one or more of these categories. The question that should be asked is \u2018could a god be this insanely stupid?\u2019 The reasonable answer is <\/a>\u2018no.\u2019<\/p>\n

(1853) Visualizing the carnage God ordered<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is easy for some Christians to gloss over uncomfortable scriptural descriptions of the atrocities that God allegedly ordered his chosen people to perform. They can say that God must have had a good reason for it. But when such a scene is presented from the side of the victims of this carnage, it changes the perspective in a way that should open the eyes of the faithful.\u00a0 The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/new.exchristian.net\/2011\/06\/questions-christians-cant-answer.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Throughout the OT, god kills and orders the killing of MILLIONS of people. Not just \u201cwicked\u201d adults but innocent babies and children and condones the raping of children. How can this be?<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s look at a few verses:<\/p>\n

Numbers 31:17<\/a>: \u201cNow therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who is not a virgin. \u201c<\/p>\n

l Samuel 15:2-3<\/a>: “Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which\u00a0Amalek<\/a>\u00a0did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”<\/p>\n

Psalm 137:9:<\/a>\u00a0\u201cHappy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock.\u201d<\/p>\n

Numbers 31:18<\/a>: \u201cBut all the young girls who have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here is a little scenario of how it might have happened:<\/p>\n

For men to go in and kill EVERYONE with a sword had to have been unimaginable for us today. But the really chilling part is that god ordered it. A terrified family cowers in a corner of their home as they listen to the cries and screams of their neighbors and friends being murdered. Wild-eyed Hebrew warriors, covered in blood, bursts into their home and spy a mother with an infant in her arms and her other four children huddled around her. A pregnant woman is sobbing beside her. The father tries to shield his family and grabs a piece of firewood to fight off the intruders. The women beg the soldiers to stop and be merciful. The women and children watch in horror as the warriors brutally murder their protector, but what comes next is even more nightmarish. The Hebrew men shout that they are doing this in the name of their god\u00a0YHWH<\/a>\u00a0then began slaughtering the screaming, frightened children. Blood is everywhere, tiny little limbs are severed, and one by one the screaming stops. The women tried in vain to defend their little ones, but they, too, are brutally murdered. The pregnant woman watches with dying eyes as the soldiers cut her unborn baby out of her womb and behead it. The only one spared is a pretty little 11-year-old girl that one leering warrior claims as his own.<\/p>\n

There is no pretty way to put child killing and child rape. For men to go in and kill EVERYONE with a sword had to have been unimaginable for us today. But the really chilling part is that god ordered it. God, the Creator of the Universe, who proclaims to love us so much ordered the brutal murder of innocent children, infants, and pregnant women — on several different occasions. Wouldn\u2019t a loving god suggest they spare the lives of the children? How can you rationally think god is against abortion if he ORDERS pregnant women and unborn children murdered?<\/p>\n

Again I ask, how can a god that is described as loving, merciful, righteous, good, perfect, and just order his people to do unspeakable evil like murdering infants with a sword and letting soldiers rape young girls? It is insanity to suggest that you could reconcile this.<\/p>\n

I challenge any Christians reading this to answer me. When is it OK to kill babies and children or rape young girls? Would you kill babies and children for god? It is not unthinkable that god might ask you to do that because it is written in his bible that he has done so before. How do you know that the horrible stories you hear on the news where someone murdered a child because \u201cgod told them to\u201d isn\u2019t true? How can you worship a baby-killing god? That is beyond absurd.<\/p>\n

If nothing else in the bible gives you reason to question the authenticity of a loving god, this should. These horrendous acts were common for primitive man and reflect the culture of the time. Primitive men wrote the bible, not an omniscient loving god. Does this reflect the actions of a primitive warrior culture or of a loving, merciful, perfect, good god?<\/p>\n

Any Christian would have to admit that based on the luck of the draw, they could have been a member of the family slaughtered above. Would they in that circumstance accept their deaths as being necessary for the aims of God? It is interesting that when you place yourself in the position of the victims, the impression you get of God suddenly becomes dark.\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t really matter if God actually ordered these killings or if his people on their own took matters too far. The fact that he allowed such atrocities to become part of his holy book is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he is either evil or <\/a>non-existent.<\/p>\n

(1854) Paul did not believe in a bodily resurrection<\/strong><\/p>\n

The oldest extent writing that refers to Jesus\u2019 resurrection is a portion of 1 Corinthians 15 written by the Apostle Paul around 55 CE, or about 25 years after the alleged resurrection of Jesus. Details of the resurrection were not fleshed out until about 15 years later in the Gospel of Mark and subsequent gospels. But what is revealing is that the resurrection described by Paul was very different than that of the gospels- Paul did not believe that a flesh and blood Jesus had been resurrected, or that he later appeared as a bodily man to his disciples or others. The following is taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/new.exchristian.net\/2015\/06\/an-unbiased-examination-of-resurrection.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Ah, but what about that passage in 1 Corinthians? Yes, let us now visit the\u00a0pi\u00e8ce de r\u00e9sistance.<\/em>\u00a0Chapter 15, verses 3 through 8, quoted here:<\/p>\n

\u201cFor what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

We must remember that this passage from Paul is by far the earliest mention of anything regarding a possible resurrection of Jesus, having been composed circa 55 CE. However, this account is possibly the most damning of all. First of all, Paul never actually says there was an empty tomb. He uses the word \u201cburied,\u201d and the Greek word in question is\u00a0etaph\u0113<\/em>, which refers to burial in the ground (which is how all crucifixion victims were treated\u2014they were given a mass grave), not a stone sepulcher, as the gospel stories suggest. When Paul speaks of Jesus having been raised from the dead, he does\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0use the Greek word for resurrection, which is\u00a0an\u00e1stasis<\/em>; he uses the verb\u00a0egeir\u00f3<\/em>, which means, \u201cto wake up from sleeping.\u201d This is the same Greek word used in the story of Jesus calming the raging sea (Matthew, chapter 8; Mark, chapter 4). In this story, Jesus was sleeping in the boat, and his disciples \u201cwoke\u201d (egeir\u00f3<\/em>) him. Now, if Paul means a bodily resurrection (and if God himself was writing\u00a0through<\/em>\u00a0Paul), why not use the word\u00a0an\u00e1stasis<\/em>\u00a0to convey the clearest, simplest meaning? For the sake we who are scrutinizing the text centuries later, why not remove any ambiguity, any mystery, any possibility of misconstruing the facts, and any hint of doubt? If God was inspiring the writers of the Bible, why not go for the gold, as the saying goes?<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s more When Paul speaks of Jesus having \u201cappeared\u201d to the various people in this passage, the word for \u201cappeared\u201d is\u00a0\u014dphth\u0113<\/em>, which specifically means a\u00a0spiritual vision<\/em>. This is the\u00a0exact same<\/em>\u00a0word Paul uses when describing the \u201cvision\u201d he sees on the Damascus road. There were other words Paul could have used that would have conveyed a more direct meaning regarding a bodily appearance, but Paul chose to use a word that conveyed an ethereal image rather than a literal, physical image. But why? The only logical reason is because Paul meant something other than what modern Christians think he meant. The only logical reason would be that Paul clearly did\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0mean a \u201cbodily\u201d resurrection.<\/p>\n

I like to think of this passage as the proof of what Paul\u00a0didn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0say. Here he has a chance to mention an empty tomb and fails to do so. Here he has a chance to use the word\u00a0an\u00e1stasis<\/em>, an act which would have left us in no doubt whatsoever regarding his meaning. But does he do this? No. He uses the word\u00a0egeir\u00f3<\/em>, which cannot help but suggest that perhaps Jesus was not actually dead but merely sleeping. Here he has a chance to use any other word that would have implied a physical representation of a bodily resurrection, and yet Paul chooses to use the word\u00a0\u014dphth\u0113<\/em>, which can only mean a spiritual and therefore\u00a0ethereal<\/em>\u00a0representation, like a ghost or any manner of non-corporeal entity.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s also interesting is that scholars have identified the passage of 1 Corinthians 15 as having been a hymn already in use at the time Paul included it in his letter. Songs point more to legend than to fact, a point which very, very few Christians will concede. For us, however, in our investigation, we must be responsible to add a final checkmark under the heading \u201cunlikely.\u201d We now have six check marks under \u201cunlikely\u201d and none under \u201clikely.\u201d<\/p>\n

The reason that this is significant is that Paul was the leading Christian promoter of his time and that he allegedly interfaced with Jesus\u2019 disciples as well as others who supposedly were witnesses to the events of Jesus\u2019 life. If he saw the resurrection in the terms as implied by his letter to the Corinthians, then it makes it much less likely that the gospel renditions, which were written after Paul had died, are historically <\/a>accurate.<\/p>\n

(1855) God is a reflection of those who invented him<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the beginning, man created its gods. Every one of them. But Christians believe that their god is real while acknowledging that all of the other gods are fake. \u00a0One good way to test their claim is to examine the characteristics of their god as portrayed in the Bible. This one true god should stand out as being above human frailties and reflecting an ethereal demeanor that transcends that of those who worship him. The Christian god fails this test. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/new.exchristian.net\/2014\/11\/a-creator-being-vs-biblical-god.html<\/a><\/p>\n

In addition, hasn’t it ever struck you as particularly interesting that the God described in the pages of the Bible sounds remarkably human? This God is, at times, almost too human. The Christians will say, “Well, it’s not that he is like us, it’s that we are like him because he created us in his image.” Well, being as objective as we can possibly be, let us ask which is more likely: that God in all his perfection still somehow displays remarkably human traits such as jealousy, irritation, racism, homophobia, forgetfulness, waffling decisions (his conversation with Lot, for example), political agendas, pettiness, impatience, and impulsive actions (I can produce the scripture to back all of these adjectives up, if you so challenge me to do so)…OR that this entity isn’t really “God” at all but is rather a human manifestation of a God, no different than Zeus or Thor or any of the rest of them? Furthermore, if this image of God as portrayed in the Bible is accurate, is this really the image you want to be created in? Do you really want to be created in the image of a bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser? (Perhaps you do. If so, cheerio, my good man.)<\/p>\n

A true god would have no need to express human emotions that are the result of humans having limited knowledge, power, skill, and composure. On the other hand, an invented god would be expected to exhibit the same small-minded and short-sided characteristics of its <\/a>creators.<\/p>\n

(1856) The gospels are products of their time<\/strong><\/p>\n

The mistake that most Christians make is that they read the gospels as they would read any modern historical account- by taking everything at face value.\u00a0 We are accustomed to relying on the accuracy of what we read. But this was not the situation in biblical times, in fact, quite the opposite. What you read then and what actually happened were most often two different things. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/new.exchristian.net\/2010\/04\/jesus-nobody-ever-knew.html<\/a><\/p>\n

When the Gospels were written (or rather compiled from several pre-existing sources), journalism did not exist, and historiography was new to the cultural scene.\u00a0 In place of objective reportage, ancient peoples were accustomed to reading books that were written in the guise of objectivity, but were nothing more than the religious imaginations of the author or, even worse, their religious delusions. The ancient market was saturated with tales that were allegedly written by Moses, or one of the Patriarchs, or any of the Old Testament characters, and on and on, so ancient readers didn’t even bother to consider whether or not they were being lied to when they picked up a book (or a scroll, as the case may be).\u00a0 The practice was so ubiquitous that we cannot even question whether or not the people of that time actually believed that Solomon wrote the Wisdom of Solomon (in Greek, Solomon was a Hebrew), because such a distinction would never have occurred to them.\u00a0 In fact, it took about 1,500 years after Christ for someone to begin to think critically about this issue, as\u00a0Baruch Spinoza<\/a>\u00a0famously, and thankfully, began to do.<\/p>\n

Almost all books that were circulated in the Ancient world were religious, and almost all (in fact, probably all) of these books were pseudepigraphical or pseudonymous.\u00a0 That means, when we get right down to it, they were lies.\u00a0 When someone writes a novel and pretends to be someone else, like when Samuel Clemens pretends to be\u00a0Mark Twain<\/a>\u00a0pretending to be\u00a0Huck Finn<\/a>, we don’t call it lying–we call it art.\u00a0 That’s because Mr. Clemens isn’t asking us to commit our eternal destiny to the dictates of young Mr. Finn.\u00a0 But, when someone does this with a piece of religious fiction and then expects their audience to actually believe that the book written by Joe Shlomo was actually written by Enoch, we have no choice but to call it lying.\u00a0 Of course “we” in this case can only refer to those of us who understand that the\u00a0Book of Enoch<\/a>, which was written in Greek, could not have been written by Enoch, who only appears in the Hebrew Bible, and who does so at a time before either the Greek or Hebrew languages would have existed, to say nothing of the invention of writing. \u00a0 The Ancients didn’t seem to trouble themselves much about the obvious.\u00a0 By extension, “we” in this case also refers to those of us who understand that the\u00a0Gospel of Mark<\/a>\u00a0could not be an “eyewitness” or historically reliable account of Jesus, since even if it was written by Mark (it wasn’t) it wouldn’t matter anyway, because Mark wasn’t even there during Jesus’ ministry, and so, at best, he’s passing on second hand information. But, of course, he’s not, and even calling the author “he” demonstrates our propensity to see ancient texts the way that we see modern texts, that is, as having an author.<\/p>\n

Most ancient texts evolved out of communities, so when they finally came to be compiled and committed to writing, they may have actually had dozens or hundreds of “authors” as traditions passed from one person to another until they became crystallized and standardized enough to warrant the waste of ink and paper involved in writing them down.\u00a0 This isn’t a skeptical opinion of the Gospels, it’s just how it was–ancient manuscripts didn’t even have titles, and it was several generations before anyone even thought to propose titles for them.\u00a0 Any modern day notions we have about “who” “wrote” “the” “Gospels” only shows that we are a culture that has authors (rather than communities that transmit stories and sayings), whose authors have access to writing materials and can afford to write things down (as most Ancients did not), who also happen to be literate (as most Ancients were not), who see books as completed artifacts that are self contained (rather than repositories of communal wisdom that is constantly evolving), and who who think the Gospels were the four books written about Jesus (rather than the four selected by a 4th century church council out of the dozens, if not hundreds, that were circulating at the time).<\/p>\n

Once you calibrate your understanding of ancient writings, you can see the gospels in the same vein as a Superman novel, which is what we might today call fan fiction. Any reality that seeps into the account of Jesus\u2019 life is likely to be <\/a>coincidental.<\/p>\n

(1857) Who needs gospels?<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is a case to be made that if the gospels are telling us the truth about the miraculous deeds of Jesus, then we wouldn\u2019t really need the gospels to know that they had happened.\u00a0 There would be a mountain of documentation surrounding these events, which were witnessed by many and retold undoubtedly to millions, along with the Roman infiltrators who were constantly monitoring the movement of Jewish religious leaders. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/new.exchristian.net\/2014\/07\/who-needs-gospels.html<\/a><\/p>\n

As a child, I was fascinated by the \u201cMiracles<\/a>\u00a0of the loaves and \ufb01shes.\u201d As an adult, I find the \u201cmiracles\u201d interesting. Consider the times in which they happened: the\u00a0Romans<\/a>\u00a0dominated over the\u00a0Jewish people<\/a>, the\u00a0Roman Empire<\/a>\u00a0was vast. Any and all unusual news would spread like wildfire. The first miracle, as recounted, is a report of a man who fed five thousand men alone, not counting the women and children, on this repast. Not just once, either; in a repeat performance, he fed four thousand-plus people. That\u2019s a hell of a lot of people. You can imagine how fast the news would have gotten around. Free food!<\/p>\n

Okay, so the Romans had spies among the Jews; for sure, you know, worries about rebellions and all that. And let\u2019s not forget the historians at the time: Jewish, Greek, Roman. Events such as these would be news, big time. So, in actuality, the Gospel accounts should be unnecessary.<\/p>\n

And can\u2018t you just see the Roman equivalent of a minister of agriculture racing into\u00a0Caesar<\/a>\u2019s presence to proclaim, \u201cThere\u2018s a Jew out there who\u2019s feeding around ten thousand with a few loaves of bread and a few fishes. And he has baskets filled with leftovers. And he changes water into wine!\u201d And Caesar would answer, \u201cHire that man!!!\u201d<\/p>\n

But Wait. There’s more. This makes sense: the great physicians have a meeting with Caesar. And they say, \u201cOur Roman and Greek and Jewish colleagues in\u00a0Rome<\/a>\u00a0and Galilee are up in arms because of this Jesus who is curing cripples, eliminating blindness, deafness, and boils, and restoring sanity to the mentally ill. Why, one of your own Centurions is telling everyone how this man brought his daughter back from the dead! This miracle worker spends entire days in curing! If this keeps up, we will all be out of business.\u201d To which Caesar replies, \u201cBring in those he is reported to have cured. There must hundreds by now, then shall I hire him and he will teach his healing, or tricks, to all physicians so that the entire empire shall prosper. And I shall write of all these things in my memoirs.\u201d<\/p>\n

As a child, I was fascinated by the \u201cMiracles of the loaves and \ufb01shes.\u201d As an adult, I find the \u201cmiracles\u201d interesting.\u201cBut there is a catch to allowing him to teach us,\u201d say the physicians. \u201cHe is using his powers to preach a new version of Judaism, one which teaches people to sell everything they have and give the money to the poor, to trust in their god to provide for their needs exclusively, and to nevertheless keep paying taxes to Caesar from what money they do have. Although, he does say his kingdom is not of this world.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cNo problem there, says Caesar. \u201cNo threat to me. And the less Rome has to pay to provide services, the better for Rome. What are we waiting for? And what\u2019s the problem with yet one more religion? Rome welcomes them all. Whatever he\u2019s selling is probably being bought. Hell, if he\u2019s that good, I myself might be tempted to join with him. Together, we could save the world!\u201d<\/p>\n

To give you an idea of the impact an actual historically authenticated miracle such as feeding thousands would have in Roman times, you only have to compare it to something in our own. Supposing you\u2019re researching UFOs on the Web, and you read: \u201cTwo days ago, a \ufb02ying saucer miraculously landed in a suburb of\u00a0New York City<\/a>, and several aliens exited it, distributing food to thousands.\u201d Of course, you turn on the news networks for verification. No mention. You check out the newspapers, especially those in New York. Nothing. Wouldn\u2019t you question the truthfulness of the source, the tellers? (Some wouldn’t, if it’s a miracle-matter of \u201dfaith.\u201d)<\/p>\n

Are \u201cmiracles\u201d proof that the\u00a0Gospel writers<\/a>\u00a0are telling the truth, as they say, telling you to take their word for them on faith? Are they just conning you? If they do so with an obvious lie as the loaves and fishes tale, what about the whopper about a resurrected man? Just because that \u201cmiracle\u201d tells many what they want to hear, is the story any less false?<\/p>\n

The lack of any extra-biblical documentation of these miracles and the absence of historical events that should have occurred as a result of them gives significant evidence that they didn\u2019t happen. And if these miracles are fabrications, then the entire story of Jesus is dubious at <\/a>best.<\/p>\n

(1858) Challenging questions concerning the Bible<\/strong><\/p>\n

When viewed objectively, the Bible invites questions for which most Christians fail to have adequate answers. Being taught to avoid any controversy surrounding their faith, they dismiss these issues with simple platitudes. The following lists a sample of how Christians apply superficial thinking to legitimate conflicts in their scriptures:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/articles.exchristian.net\/2007\/06\/questions-your-pastor-will-hate.html<\/a><\/p>\n

“Why did God not like Cain’s vegetable sacrifice but loved Abel’s cooked meat?” Answer…Vegetarians are weak Christians.<\/p>\n

“Who was Cain afraid would kill him when God put him out of the Garden for killing Abel? There were mom, dad, bro and himself on the whole planet at the time.” Answer…He must have known his sisters were going to have kids with dad, no not that. He was speculating. Cain wasn’t thinking very clearly that day.<\/p>\n

“Why would God stop the whole earth for a day so Israelites could finish a genocide against the enemy?” I mean, I can see stopping it so there is more time to hug, or feed the hungry, or plant the crops, but more time to kill? Dumb story. Answer…God hates sin and had to kill the bastards, he just needed more time than he planned on.”<\/p>\n

“How come the horses in the Exodus die twice in the Ten Plagues and still survive for Pharaoh to mount a final attack against the Israelites, and then die again.” Answer…Where do you get this stuff?<\/p>\n

“Why, no matter what, is it always the human’s fault and God never gets any blame for not making good on his promises?” Answer…It’s a mystery. Have faith. God’s ways are not your ways.<\/p>\n

“Why does the Apostle Paul, who writes most of the New Testament, NEVER quote Jesus, tell a story of his life or death, discuss a miracle or teaching?” Answer…Where do you get this stuff?<\/p>\n

“Why does neither Mark nor John know anything about Jesus birth, while Matthew and Luke do but tell contradictory stories?” Answer…Because the Gospels are like four people who see a car wreck…<\/p>\n

“Why does Paul only say Jesus was born of a woman like everyone else?” Answer…Paul was concerned about the risen Jesus, not the earthly one. He was too busy to check up on the details.<\/p>\n

“Did Paul ever spend five minutes with the real human Jesus?” Answer..well no, but Paul’s Jesus is the risen Jesus, it doesn’t matter.<\/p>\n

“Isn’t it strange the man who writes most of the New Testament and tells us all how to live, think and believe about Jesus, never met him, while the Twelve who did, vanish into thin air and write nothing\/” Answer…You ain’t from around these parts are you boy.<\/p>\n

“How come Jesus never wrote anything himself while alive, but then writes perfect Greek after he is dead in the form of the Book of Revelation?” Answer….He finished his PHD in Heaven.<\/p>\n

“If Herod killed all the little children under two to get at Jesus, who escaped, can we not say the little children had to die for Jesus before he died for them?” Answer…No we can’t, sheesh.<\/p>\n

“How come Herod couldn’t follow the Star of Bethlehem himself to find Jesus, but sent others to report back when they found him?” Answer…He was busy.<\/p>\n

“How could Mary leave town after being warned of Herod’s intentions and never tell the women in the town, their kids were about to be butchered?” Answer…she was under oath not to tell the Angel story.<\/p>\n

“Do you think Mary thought, ‘I know something you don’t know,’ as she left town?” Answer…you’re sick.<\/p>\n

“How could Jesus family flee to Egypt sometime during the first two years in one story but go home to Nazareth quietly after 40 days in the other?” Answer…It’s a miracle.<\/p>\n

“How come in Mark 3 Mary and his brothers came to get Jesus and take him home because they thought he was “mad” which I assume means insane. Did Mary forget who he was and how he got here?” Answer…shut up.<\/p>\n

“How come Matthew uses the Old Testament to weave a story of Jesus, where every quote he uses has absolutely nothing to do with the point he is making about Jesus birth?” Answer…While we might flunk you for such methods, we give Matthew an A, because, well, he’s Matthew. Bible guys get to do and say things you’re not allowed to.<\/p>\n

“If Jesus was asked ‘who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?’, would that not imply the man had sinned before his birth, perhaps in a previous life, if his blindness at birth was some kind of punishment? I mean, the blindness was from birth, so the sin had to be before that.” Answer…Ummm.., no. Whatever the answer, it’s definitely not that one.<\/p>\n

It would seem that a book written by a real deity would not tax the faithful with the daunting task of defending so many nonsensical discrepancies in the text. Rather, it would stand the test of logic and would more or less stand on its own without the need for Christians to continually explain why, at face value, it doesn\u2019t seem to make <\/a>sense.<\/p>\n

(1859) John makes a mistake in logic<\/strong><\/p>\n

The author of the Gospel of John made what can only be construed as an error in logic in the following verse:<\/p>\n

John 9:1-2<\/p>\n

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth.\u00a0His disciples asked him, \u201cRabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?\u201d<\/p>\n

Although it might follow that the sins of the parents could have caused their child to be born blind, it would be inconceivable that the blind man\u2019s sin could have caused him to be born blind. That would imply that the man had a previous life in which he sinned and later was born a second time with the resulting defect. Although some religions incorporate the doctrine of reincarnation, Christianity does not. The scripture above makes no sense and should have been written differently, such as:<\/p>\n

\u201cRabbi, who sinned, this man\u2019s mother or his father, that he was born blind?\u201d<\/p>\n

To Jesus\u2019 credit, he dismissed the idea that sin had caused the man\u2019s blindness, but the problem for Christianity is that the author did not pay attention to what he was writing and made a mistake, suggesting that he was not guided by the Holy <\/a>Spirit.<\/p>\n

(1860) The Wet Monkey Theory<\/strong><\/p>\n

A population of animals can be conditioned to respond in a certain way by applying a stimulus to either reinforce or preclude a certain behavior.\u00a0 This is obvious, but what is not so obvious is that you can withdraw the stimulus at some point and as long as the population is slowly replaced, the conditioned response can remain indefinitely, even when the animals are not aware of why they are responding as they are. This has analogous implications for Christianity and other religions. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/new.exchristian.net\/2011\/09\/christian-banana.html<\/a><\/p>\n

The Wet Monkey Theory<\/p>\n