(4901) Non-Jewish Christians bound for second-tier heaven

The Christian god was first the god of the Jews, and only the Jews, even to the detriment of all other people. So it makes sense that if Christianity is true, and Christians will go to heaven, that this same god will favor the Jews who have converted and place them a tier above all others.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1es9rc2/non_jewish_believers_of_christianity_is_setting/

Non Jewish Christian believers are setting themselves up for becoming at best second tier people in the afterlife.

So long before Jesus is born we have Judaism with their god Yahweh, in their scripture we generally have selection of stories where the protagonists are Jewish, or at the very least traces their descendants down to the Jewish people. This is not particular surprising, since Yahweh is specifically the god of the Israelites. Sure enough, anybody who pays attention can clearly see that Yahweh is incredibly biased when it comes to who he chose to support. Out of the numerous cultures & peoples across the globe he favors one particular group of people at all times, and his sphere of operation is also greatly restricted to the general area where these people live. Reading the Torah there’s no question about which people is the chosen people, and it’s also clearly stated, this is not meant as particular criticism of Judaism because it’s very atypical of ethno-religions.

Now long later Yahweh feels that it’s time to spawn on the material plane, and out of all the different people across the globe not surprisingly he chose to spawn as a Jew. Jesus also makes it clear that, yes, I’m related to Yahweh ( distinction of is or son of a bit unclear ). Now he goes around & essentially 2.0s Judaism, but make no mistake, this is still confirming Judaism. Long after he’s dead we also get a revision, the Old Testament. Some of the racism is scrubbed & some new material is added, but still we can’t escape the fact that if we believe in Jesus, we must also believe in the original which he confirmed & followed.

Now God is a bit more hands off in the New Testament, and after all he’s pretty interchangeable with Jesus anyway which he has spawned as. But make no mistake, according to Christian belief God is unchanging, even the notion that he’s left his racist bias behind goes against the very basis of Christian belief. Sure enough, never does he care about whatever happens to people in the Americas for example, there he goes with a more hands off approach.

So, if we assume that there’s some sort of undefined afterlife, which people do you think he’ll ultimately favor there? The very same people he has since the beginning of time favored, or will he for the first time be unbiased? Even in Judaism the racist belief that the Jews alone are chosen & above the gentiles is not unheard of. Remember, God in no uncertain terms requires absolute obedience, but the consequences of being at best the second tier among the mortals from this world is left unaccounted for.

This is the inevitable result of tacking Christianity on the back end of Judaism, or, in other words, failing to jettison the Old Testament. Isn’t it obvious that God would favor the Jews who came to believe in Jesus, over the Gentiles, who, at best, Jesus himself took a dim view? Of course, all of this is ridiculous and just shows how much Christianity is absurd.

(4902) Reasons why 2 Peter should be removed

The inclusion of 2 Peter in the Bible is unjustified. It is clearly a forgery and was written well after the real Peter had died. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1enrb8i/why_do_most_scholars_say_2nd_peter_is_a_forgery/

Here are some of the reasons why basically all critical scholars agree that 2 Peter was not written by Peter:

• • Peter was probably illiterate, or at least wasn’t able to compose a letter like 2 Peter.
  • 1&2 Peter were written by two different authors. The style of the language isn’t even close. However, the author of 2 Peter does claim to be the same author who also wrote 1 Peter (2 Peter 3:1).
  • It was probably written very late, perhaps as late as the beginning of the third century. 2 Peter isn’t mentioned by anyone in the second century, as David Litwa mentioned in the recent AMA (here).
  • The author of 2 Peter considers the letters of Paul scripture (2 Peter 3:16). It also uses the letter of Jude and refers to 1 Peter, and 2 Peter 1:17 cites Matthew 3:17. These are additional indications that 2 Peter was written very late.
  • The author no longer believes in the imminent end of the world. This shows that the first generations of Christians have already died and that the theology has developed.
  • 2 Peter deals with theological developments of the second century.
  • Jörg Frey has argued that 2 Peter depends on the Apocalypse of Peter in his book The Letter of Jude and the Second Letter of Peter: A Theological Commentary, which dates 2 Peter after the Apocalypse of Peter.

Any inspiration from a supernatural source would preclude a problem such as this. But a human-controlled project would be subject to it. 2 Peter does not belong in the Bible.

(4903) Parable of the sower is a poor analogy

Christians often extol the parables of Jesus as recounted in the gospels, as though they are too brilliant to have come from a human mind. This is, of course, ridiculous. A good counter-example is one of the faithful’s favorites- the Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:1–23, Mark 4:1–20, Luke 8:4–15). The following explains why this parable is problematic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1eum2mm/the_parable_of_the_sower_is_a_poor_analogy/

If you are not familiar with the parable of the sower, it is a story Jesus tells in the Bible about a farmer who scatters seeds on different types of ground. Some seeds fall on a path and are eaten by birds; others fall on rocky ground where they sprout quickly but wither due to shallow roots. Some seeds land among thorns that choke the plants, and others fall on good soil, where they grow and produce a bountiful harvest. The parable illustrates how people receive and respond to the message of the Kingdom of God, with the good soil representing those who understand and live out the teachings, leading to fruitful lives.

My problem with this story is this; if I recounted this story to you from a first person perspective as the sower, would you conclude that there is a problem with the conditions of the ground, or would you conclude that I am probably not very bright as a farmer? If I am a farmer, it is my responsibility to guarantee the conditions of the soil so that the seeds sprout, it is not the responsibility of the conditions of the soil to grow my crops for me. Let’s assume in this story that the farmer has authority over all the ground he sows over, because God has authority over the hearts of man(Proverbs 21:1). First of all why am I sowing over a path that people walk on? Why am I just throwing seeds willy-nilly rather than carefully planting them in ground that I have pre-prepared? Who does that? If I want to convert the path into farmland, it’s my job as the farmer to put down fresh soil, plant the seed carefully(NOT tossing it willy-nilly) and tend to them regularly, keep pests away from the plants, weed regularly, etc. Similarly, if I want to plant in an area that is rocky or that has thorns it is MY duty as a farmer to remove the stones and thorns, prepare the soil, plant the seed, water them, apply fertilizer, keep pests away, so on and so forth.

So much of Christianity crumbles when it is considered that God is purported to be omniscient. In that case, he would know exactly how and where to ‘plant the seeds’ for everyone to be saved.

(4904) Christianity and lust

Christianity took a sharp turn away from Judaism by stating that it is a sin for a man to look upon a woman and have a desire to have sex with her, or, in other words, to lust after her. Nothing like that appears in the Old Testament. The following addresses the Christian obsession with the concept of sexual lust:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1evhm30/a_theory_on_the_etymology_of_lust/

Lust is a strange word in the Christian vocabulary.  Christians use the word all the time, but the way the word is defined is rather broad, and there doesn’t seem to be any objective standard regarding what constitutes lust and what does not.  By contrast, we know fairly precisely what constitutes adultery, what constitutes incest, what constitutes sodomy, what constitutes bestiality.  Yet it’s interesting that many Christians consider lust not just as something that can lead or tempt one to commit a sin, but as a sin in and of itself.

Most dictionaries define “lust” as simply “a feeling of strong sexual desire for someone”.  At the outset, lust, as here defined, seems like a perfectly normal thing, and doesn’t seem like something that should be considered a sin.  So one is led to wonder why Christians choose to identify lust as a sin at all?  Nothing in the Old Testament or the Law of Moses explicitly says that it is a sin to have “a feeling of strong sexual desire for someone”.  None of the Ten Commandments stipulate that it is a sin to have “a feeling of strong sexual desire for someone”.  There is no single word in the Hebrew language that even suggests that having “a feeling of strong sexual desire for someone” is inherently a bad thing.  It would seem that the origin of this identification of lust as a sin can be traced back to a single verse in the New Testament, namely Matthew 5:27-28.  Here is the verse in the NKJV version:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Now what is interesting here is that the word that Jesus uses here for “lust” is not actually a sin or a bad thing in and of itself.  In the Greek, the verb epithymeo and the noun epithymia are typically the words translated into the verb “lust” and the noun “lust”, respectively. Matthew 5:28 itself utilizes the word epithymeo.

Moreover, this word is not even referring to anything specifically sexual. These Greek words are commonly used in biblical contexts which are clearly not sexual in nature.  Here are several examples:

• • Matthew 13:17 (KJV) — For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired [epithymeo] to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
  • Luke 16:21 (KJV) — And desiring [epithymeo] to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
  • Luke 17:22 (KJV) — And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire [epithymeo] to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
  • Luke 22:15 (KJV) — And he said unto them, With desire [epithymia] I have desired [epithymeo] to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
  • Hebrews 6:11 (KJV) — And we desire [epithymeo] that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:
  • 1 Peter 1:12 (KJV) — Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire [epithymeo] to look into.
  • 1 Timothy 3:1 (KJV) — This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth [epithymeo] a good work.
  • Acts 20:33 (KJV) — I have coveted [epithymeo] no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel.
  • Revelation 9:6 (KJV) — And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire [epithymeo] to die, and death shall flee from them.

As we can see, the original word that is equated with the word “lust” itself really means little more than to have strong desire, or to yearn for, or to long for.  The word is not inherently sexual in nature, nor is it inherently bad.

Obviously, this is not the way that Christians interpret the word “lust” as it appears in Matthew 5:28, as to interpret the word in that way would render the verse theologically absurd.  Obviously, it is not a sin for a man to look upon his wife and long to be with her; it is not a sin for a man to look upon his mother or his sister and yearn to embrace her.  Even outside the context of marital sexuality or familial affection, it is also clearly not a bad thing for a man to look longingly upon an unmarried woman whom he, in the future, will approach and then eventually marry and raise a family with.  To interpret Matthew 5:28 in its plain form — i.e. that it is a sin for a man to look upon a woman and long for her — is simply untenable; it is to present something as being bad which is plainly not bad.

So how did Christians come to this belief that it is a sin to lust after a woman, and that in fact the very act of lusting is a sin in itself?  Well, I have a theory for how this happened.  The way language typically works, a sentence is made up of multiple words, with each word coming to the sentence with its own intrinsic meaning that is extraneous to the word’s role within the context of the sentence the word is currently being used in.  And the meaning of the sentence as a whole is simply the sum of the intrinsic meanings of the individual words that comprise the sentence.  However, the word “lust” as it appears in the verse in Matthew 5:28 is actually performing an unusual linguistic function: instead of coming to the verse carrying its own intrinsic meaning, the meaning of lust is actually no more than a reflection of the meaning of this verse as a whole, while excluding the word “lust”.  Hence, the word “lust” here can be defined as “the act of a man looking upon a woman in a manner that is suggestive of him committing adultery with her in his heart”. So essentially the word “lust” in this verse has completely discarded any vestige of a connection with yearning or longing, and is effectively devoid of intrinsic meaning at all.  It’s a bit like if you had a mathematical equation that consisted of a number of variables, and within the equation was a single constant whose value was the total sum of the equation itself.  “Lust” is basically the linguistic form of that kind of mathematical equation.

So it would seem that through Matthew 5:27-28, Christians have redefined a word which used to merely mean “to possess a strong desire for, to long for, to yearn for”, and turned it into a word that refers to “a feeling of strong sexual desire for someone”.  And furthermore, in addition to redefining the word to be exclusively sexual in nature, they have also made it into a sin, and in fact have constructed a new sin which has never existed before within the realm of Abrahamic religion.  This newly-created sin of lust can be defined as “the act of a man looking upon a woman in a manner that is suggestive of him committing adultery with her in his heart”.

Christianity created a new unavoidable sin, just so that chaste men would still feel guilty even if they did not physically stray. The newly created sin worked well to keep them in the pews and paying their tithes.

(4905) Mystery of vanishing proofs

In the early days of Christianity, there ‘existed’ many proofs of Christianity that were earnestly believed. Of course, fact checking was not a viable industry at that time, and people tended to be quite credulous, accepting claims at face value. The following discusses the types of evidence for Christianity believed by the early followers:

https://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/fda_miracles.htm

We have seen examples of events that were once “proofs” of the truth of Christianity. These were only a small fraction of those available. In early times holy individuals had been able to drink poison without harm. Others had been unaffected by the bites of poisonous animals. Yet others literally moved mountains through faith alone, as Jesus had affirmed believers would be able to. Those upon whom the Holy Spirit had descended were able to talk in foreign languages while visible tongues of flame danced on their heads. Souls left the bodies of martyrs in the form of birds that were visible to all. Witches and vampires stalked the night for all to see. Demons confessed their wicked deeds when challenged in the name of Jesus. Holy items, like bibles and prayer books, enjoyed divine protection. Holy books thrown into a fire would emerge unharmed, no matter how hot the flames or how long they were exposed to them. This provided an easy way to distinguish holy from heretical books

Murdered bodies bled in the presence of their murderers, and if the murderer touched the body of his victim it would gush blood, establishing his guilt beyond all doubt. Those possessed by evil spirits vomited pins and other satanic detritus that they had not eaten. Important events were marked by earthly and celestial novelties as they had been in pagan times — comets, monstrous births, plagues, blood-filled rivers, crosses in the sky, and a thousand other omens. Oracles and prophets accurately predicted the future. God gave judgement by lot and by ordeal. The medieval world interacted closely with God’s hidden world to provide proof after proof of God’s daily involvement in human affairs. These miracles affected every aspect of life and could be used to discover all manner of interesting information. For example an olive planted by a chaste woman would be fruitful, while one planted by a harlot would not be.

Christians were able to prove that statues belonging to other religions were merely statues and possessed no supernatural power. This was easy. All the Christians needed to do was smash or burn the statue in question, and the act proved their point, for the god whose statue it was spectacularly failed to stop the desecration. When Christians started using statues and icons themselves the parallel argument does not seem to have been extensively applied. However, there were some less than devout individuals in the Middle Ages who performed their own experiments. They fired arrows or crossbow bolts into statues of the crucified Jesus. These statues, we are assured by Christian writers, would bleed real blood from their wounds. This was clearly miraculous, and was cited as proof of God identifying himself with the statue. Similarly, statues would shed tears or groan or move their heads mournfully on the occurrence of certain unhappy events, such as an enemy victory. So too, pieces of consecrated bread, if mistreated, would bleed and groan. All this was hard evidence for the existence of the Christian God

Since Heaven and Hell, and later Purgatory, were real physical places it was reasonable to find various types of physical evidence for their existence. Sulphurous fumes from Hell were known to escape through fissures in Earth’s crust. In principle, those who were willing to could go and visit Hell themselves. An entrance to Purgatory lay beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Monks bricked it off to avoid being disturbed by souls undergoing punishment, but if they had not done so it would have been possible to descend into Purgatory too, as Dante imagined himself doing. Those who dared to could hear the screams from the other side of the bricked-up passageway. Again, Heaven was known to be in the sky. Certainly it was a long way away — far enough away for it to take a full day or more for an object to fall to Earth — but still it was a finite distance that could be traversed. Prophets and angels used to commute regularly, literally going up from Earth to Heaven, and descending from Heaven to Earth. Sometimes they used ladders. Many people had seen them.

Clergymen were able to prove the divine approval of faith because they could exorcise demons, detect witches, work miracles, invoke God’s aid, and so on. This was a useful way to distinguish the one true Church from the others. For centuries, the miracle of the Holy Fire has occurred each Easter in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre when candles are spontaneously lit without human assistance. At one time this church was shared by representatives of both the Eastern and Western Churches, and the divine favour shown to the Eastern Church was reflected by their candles igniting spontaneously while those of the Roman Church had to be lit by priests.

Miracles confirmed not only the true Church but also God’s favour for his appointed rulers. Thus the phial of Holy Oil used to anoint the kings of France at Rheims miraculously never diminished, so that there was an infinite supply available to anoint a line of kings until the end of time. (Inexplicably, this turned out to be unnecessary after the French Revolution.) Again, scrofula could be cured by the touch of a French or English monarch. This power provided proof that the monarch was divinely appointed. Queen Elizabeth I’s continued power to cure the disease was cited as proof that her excommunication by the Pope had been ineffective. Later, Stuart sympathisers would point to the Stuart pretenders’ power to cure the disease as proof that he was the rightful king. There were other proofs too. For example, it was possible to prove that King Charles I had enjoyed divine support because a handkerchief soaked in his blood after his execution was able to work miracles. It was once possible to tell a true King of Scotland from a mere usurper, for when a true king sat on the Stone of Scone at his coronation, the stone would give out a satisfied groan.

For centuries Christians regarded the calendar as a divine creation rather than a human one. Strong supporting evidence for this was that many miraculous events would occur annually on their divinely appointed day. Thus for example a particular thorn tree at Glastonbury would miraculously bloom each year on Christmas Day, and the Templars’ crown of thorns would bloom on Holy Thursday. Cattle and other farm animals in Christian countries would fall to their knees at midnight on the anniversary of Jesus’ birth. This provided hard evidence that 25th December was indeed Jesus’ birthday and proved that those heretics who had celebrated it on other days were wrong.

All of this so-called evidence has vanished, at least in the sense of what can be demonstrated to be true. So one of two things must be true- either these events were illusory or for some reason God has stopped working miracles. Neither of these bode well for the truth of Christianity.

(4906) Mary Magdalene timeline problem

Probably the most critical element of relating the resurrection of Jesus is the initial discovery of his re-animated body. Mary Magdalene is at the center of this drama, but the four gospels fail to provide a cohesive account. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1ewj45v/the_first_claim_of_jesus_resurrection_cannot_be/

If you have read all 4 of the gospels, I would like you to think of a simple but important question: when does Mary Magdalene first see risen Jesus? This detail may seem simple, but it is very important; this is the point where the very first claim that Jesus is risen originates, in other words the birth of the idea that “Jesus is risen”, the very idea Christianity is based on. In a way, this event is at the very core of Christianity. I don’t want to exaggerate, but this is probably the single most important moment of Christianity. I will attempt to prove that there are two distinct points in the resurrection story where Mary Magdalene is claimed to have seen Jesus for the first time after his resurrection(or at least to have known of His resurrection), leading to perhaps one of the most significant anachronisms in the resurrection story.

First, let’s look at the gospel of Matthew puts it when she was returning from the tomb with an “other Mary” before she talks to the other disciples in Matthew 28:1-10:

“Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he[a] lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.” So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”

Notice Matthew only refers to the two Marys, and both at the same time, he does not place anyone else at the tomb. Mary Magdalene is definitely one of the only two people being referred to in this passage, and she is clearly described as a witness to Jesus before she meets the apostles.

But according to the gospels of Luke and John, she does not see Jesus for the first time until after Peter goes to check out the tomb. From Luke 24:1-12:

“But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” And they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles, but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he went home marveling at what had happened.”

And from John 20:1-15:

“Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus'[a] head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples went back to their homes.

But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.””

We see that Mary Magdalene only sees risen Jesus and realizes He is risen after Peter checks out the tomb in John’s account, yet again she already knows that Jesus is risen when she comes to tell the disciples the first message in Luke’s gospel.

In short Mark, Mary also knows that Jesus is risen from the tomb before she tells the disciples; in Mark 16,

“When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3 And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

[Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9–20.][a] 9 [[Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.”

The women are known to have known that Jesus was risen at their first visit, notice they are bringing spices to Jesus for anointing. Mary Magdalene in the long version is claimed to have seen Jesus first, which when reconciled with the first passage would still require her first message to the disciples to be Jesus is risen.

In Matthew and Mark, Mary Magdalene sees risen Jesus and rejoices even before speaking to the disciples. However, using Luke and John we get an alternate timeline where she see Jesus risen until after Peter checks the tomb, which is obviously way after Mary comes back to tell the disciples. This is, in my opinion, one of the most significant contradictions in the Bible. One of the arguments that I have seen is that “Mary went back separately alone” but Matthew is clear that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary both see Jesus; the “they” in Matthew has to refer to them because there are no other women placed at the tomb in his account. Even in the first part of Mark, Mary tells the disciples that Jesus is risen the first time, not just that the tomb is empty. How can this anachronism be rectified within the resurrection timeline?

I think that this one is especially important from a purely historical perspective, because with this conflict we don’t actually know if Mary Magdalene first claimed that Jesus was risen before or after they tell the disciples that the tomb is empty. Isn’t this a critical lynchpin detail in the timeline of the resurrection when we look at the resurrection as a full timeline with a historical lens? We don’t know if it was first claimed that Jesus is risen when the women come back together the first time to tell the disciples or if Mary Magdalene comes back to say that Jesus is risen after she first tells them that the tomb is empty without seeing the risen Jesus. What was the first message, that Jesus is risen or that the tomb is empty? This is the first witness to Jesus’ resurrection, and we cant place it accurately in the timeline?

It would be impossible to produce a film showing the movements and actions of Mary Magdalene that wouldn’t conflict with one of more of the gospels. ‘God’s book’ should be free from this sort of error.

(4907) Yahweh was a foreign god imported from the South

There exists evidence to suggest that Yahweh is perhaps not Canaanite in origin, but rather was adopted from regions south of Israel, perhaps as a consequence of trading activities among these areas. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/15yg0lv/comment/jxbgr6l/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Broadly speaking, YHWH worship in the Levant was localized to Israel and Judah. The Ugaritic texts, for example, don’t seem aware of YHWH. This has led many scholars to conclude that YHWH is not Canaanite in origin. That is, he appears to be a foreign god brought into Israelite religion from elsewhere.

One of the leading hypotheses is that YHWH was brought up into Israel from somewhere in the south — perhaps Midian, Edom, Sinai, or Seir. Mark Smith has argued that YHWH was likely a warrior god imported into Israel via trade with people-groups in the southern hill country.

We have inscriptions from the ancient near east calling the Israelite god “YHWH of Teman” and “YHWH of the South.” Some Egyptian inscriptions seem to refer to a region in the southern Levant which they call “the land of the Shasu of YHW”. Other evidence for a southern origin include an emphasis on Edom, Seir, and Sinai/Horeb throughout the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Deuteronomy 33:2, Judges 5:4-5, Psalm 68:8-9).

R. E. Friedman has argued for a specifically Midianite origin. He points out that the Exodus narrative repeatedly ties YHWH to the region, and sees a focus on Midian (either positive or negative) in the J, E, and P literary strands. For example, Moses first comes into contact with YHWH while living in Midian.

There is evidence which suggests YHWH was originally a warrior god associated with storms. The Hebrew Bible casts YHWH as the slayer of the Leviathan; in similar myths from the Near East, it’s a storm-warrior deity associated with storms that kills the serpent (Baal, Marduk, etc). The amount of anti-Baal polemic in the Hebrew Bible also suggests YHWH and Baal were competing storm deities. YHWH even absorbs some of the distinctly Baal-ish characterization (riding on the clouds, e.g.).

I have heard other theories that YHWH may have been associated with metallurgy or volcanism, owing to his association with fire in certain passages, but I haven’t gotten my hands on any articles that argue this yet. This seems to be a less popular view.

SOURCES:

• • Smith, Mark. The Early History of God
  • Kugel, James. How to Read The Bible
  • Friedman, Richard Elliot. The Exodus
  • Coogan, Michael. Stories from Ancient Canaan

ALSO PROBABLY WORTH CHECKING OUT:

• • Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan
  • Smith, Mark. Origins of Biblical Monotheism
  • Fleming, Daniel. Yahweh Before Israel

Regardless of the truth of this theory, it should be acknowledged that if Yahweh really is the one and only god of the universe that there would have been a consistent belief in that fact, rather than an evolving situation where belief in this god starts in one area and then supplants belief in other gods of other areas. That is, the complicated history of Yahweh belief strongly suggests that this god is fictional.

(4908) Christianity has no good ending

Although Christians are excited about going to heaven, they usually haven’t thought their theology completely through to the ultimate conclusion that neither heaven nor hell would prove to be desirable at best or even tolerable at worst. There is no good ending in Christianity. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1ey72of/there_is_no_good_ending_in_christianity/

Both Heaven and Hell are horrible outcomes for living life on Earth. Life itself is better.

Option 1: Hell: Lake of fire, eternal torment. We all know this is bad, it is meant to be the bad place. It can be slapped on so many different things that a certain group of Christians deem “bad”. Just look at the WMSCOG. They believe everyone is going to Hell except them. Hell is bad and its role in society is worse.

Option 2: Heaven: A place of no sorrow or tears. A place of eternal worship to God. Now, with me as a pantheist and my mom as a Christian, if I die and go to hell will my mom not mourn me? Will she just accept that I deserve hellfire because I interpreted god differently? Has she lost the entirety of her love for me because I’m not there and she is? Now she just has to worship god forever? Will she not get bored?

Happiness is entirely subjective. A delicious hot meal could be entirely mundane to most people but bring one who is starving tears of joy. Having heaven be a place of eternal happiness without sadness is illogical. Happiness derives from sadness. Bad things put good things into perspective. Without sadness it is just bliss. Afterlife heroin, being eternally asleep almost sounds better than being a mindless worship slave.

Given the above, a perfectly good question is this- what would be a good ending to living a human life? And it seems to be this- if we discount the overwhelmingly emphatic evidence that human life ends completely at death and accept that somehow we go on to another plane of existence, there is one tradition that probably could be taken as a ‘good ending’- reincarnation, as another person on this or another planet. But it would be another life full of sorrow, joy, challenges, setbacks, defeats, victories, love, and despair, hope, and excitement, health, disease, and recovery. This is to say that living a genuine life is far superior than being a worship slave or having your hide burned to a crisp. Christianity failed to create an attractive afterlife tradition.

(4909) Contradiction of child sacrifice

Child sacrifice is condemned in the Old Testament, but it seems as though God practiced child sacrifice by sending his son, Jesus, to earth in order to be sacrificed. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1eyyorp/jesus_sacrifice_is_the_exact_thing_that_the_god/

Jesus’ sacrifice is the exact thing that the God of the Bible hates.

To back the title I will use the verses below to demonstrate some principles that the Biblical God has:

Deuteronomy 12:31 You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

Deuteronomy 24:16 Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin

Now the sacrifice of Jesus is a sacrifice which essentially combines what the God of the Bible explicitly condemns in these above verses.

In Deuteronomy 12:31 the biblical God states that killing their sons and daughters as sacrifices to God is evil and he hates it. In this context, it is speaking about ancient pagan beliefs where they did those things. However in the NT, Jesus is presented as the son who he died in a sacrifice for mankind so they can go to heaven. The father essentially brought his son to earth to sacrifice him so the people can have salvation for God. It is the very thing that that same God condemns in Deuteronomy 12:31. He even said he hates it, but if he is the all knowing God surely he must have known that a thousand years later all of salvation would depend on human sacrifice (which he hates) no?

In Deuteronomy 24:16, it states that each soul will die for their own sins. This directly contradicts Jesus’ sacrifice as it was done so Jesus a sinless person can die for mankind their sins. So now people don’t die for their own sins anymore but they had Jesus die for their sins? Why would the God of the Bible say this and then a thousand years later do the exact opposite of that? Did he not know at the time that the dying for sins would happen?

“But OP my ignorant friend i hear you say, you know us Christians do not follow the Old Testament right?”. Yes my friend I know the Pauline belief on the law of Moses but in Matthew 5:17 it states explicitly that the Law of Moses and the writings of the prophets are not abolished. Jesus’ purpose was to fulfill the law, however you can’t fulfill something if it directly contradicts, in this case the human sacrifice and dying for someone else’s sins. Psalms 119:160 and Psalms 111:7-8 even say that all the commandments are forever true all righteous laws are eternal. It doesn’t make sense for God to say these statements in Deuteronomy, only to pull a uno reverse card a thousand years later for the salvation of mankind. Thus it is impossible for Deuteronomy and Jesus’ sacrifice to come from the same God.

The Bible is full of these sorts of contradictions, letting any objective person realize that it is the product of fallible human minds. God condemning child sacrifice and then doing it himself is a major self-own for Christianity.

(4910) John 20:17 presents a problem

Consider this scripture:

John 20:17 (Jesus addressing Mary Magdalene)

Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

It is difficult if not impossible to understand this quote by Jesus as being supportive of the Christian concept of the Trinity or even Jesus’ divine nature. Here Jesus is painting an equivalence between himself and Mary Magdalene as to their shared relationship to the Father. But if the Trinity is true, then Jesus himself is part of the divine entity that includes both the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The reference to the ‘Father’ theoretically could apply equally to both Jesus and Mary, but the term ‘God’ would necessarily include the Father, the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit (all of the above). Jesus being a part of this group of celestial beings would therefore necessitate him to avoid the term ‘my God’ since he is an integral part of said entity.

Further, by referring to ‘my Father’ and ‘my God’ and saying that these same words apply equally to Mary, Jesus is suggesting that he is a human being on the same existential level as Mary, and not a divine being.

If the Trinity is true, we would expect Jesus to say in this instance something like, “I am ascending to rejoin the Father and the Holy Spirit. Collectively, we form your God.”

This is but one scriptural example where the Trinity tradition is damaged by the text of the gospels.

(4911) Five reasons to not be a Christian

In the following, the author explains the reasons for why he is no longer a Christian:

https://medium.com/backyard-theology/five-reasons-im-no-longer-a-christian-e5ac610596d5

I was born into a Christian family. For generations — centuries even — my family’s religion has played a significant role in how we present ourselves. My great-grandfather was a tent revival preacher, his son a Methodist minister, and his grandson an Episcopal priest. We are a sanctified lot, for sure.

Along with Christians, however, the family tree has sprouted an occasional dissenter, and I am one of those. Soon after reaching adulthood, I began to quietly question my long-held, hard-drilled beliefs.

Before, I’d been a wonderfully obedient child of God — a virginal bride, an eschewer of vices, a converter of lost souls. I’d listened carefully to the teachings of my parents and the ministers of my youth. I’d raised my hands when commanded (so as to not block the Holy Spirit). I’d spoken in tongues (as we all did — even my baby brother). I’d attended faith-healing rallies, heard Billy Graham live, and been baptized by both sprinkling and immersion. I’d walked up the aisle to give my heart to Jesus over and over again.

My mother was my most influential role model, and it was her suicide attempt when I was 18 that put the first crack in my faith. I was alarmed to learn that my spiritual guide had been leading me off a cliff, and this realization wasn’t helped by the behavior of my father — an unapologetic racist and misogynist who fit in well at his Christian church.

Maybe in the end, though, my loss of faith had less to do with my family’s dysfunction than it did with the way my particular mind works. Once out of my parents’ home, I began to wake up — really wake up — to the wider world around me. Birth, death, love, hatred, war, peace, beauty, suffering — I was seeing all of it for the first time without Jesus-tinted glasses. And when I tried to force what I saw into the old, battered box of my family’s religion, I just couldn’t make it fit.

By my early 30s I was no longer calling myself a Christian, and my relations were calling me rude names. Those closest to me warned that I was headed for Hell, and after a lifetime of indoctrination, I almost believed them. Yet I still couldn’t change how I felt.

Today, decades later, I’m no longer concerned for my soul, and I understand better than I did why I had to step away from the religion of my youth, why I’ll never go back, and why I wouldn’t even want to.

Here are the five top reasons that I am no longer a Christian:

1. The product does not work as advertised

Christianity promises transformation, “rebirth,” a cleansed soul. Yet I haven’t met one single person who changed for the better after embracing Christianity. I’ve met people who are decent and Christian, but like the sweet aunt who confided that she’d “never quite been able to believe in Hell,” these people seem to be good in spite of the religion, not because of it.

Unfortunately, I’ve met many who were definitely worse for being a Christian — who have used their perceived spiritual safety as a springboard for selfishness, hypocrisy, bigotry, and worse. In my own family, our Christian faith coexisted with the horrific abuse of children.

Christians, as a group, are not the best people I’ve known — not by a long shot. And if the religion delivered on its promises, they would be.

2. Heaven is “members only”

While I was still sorting out my beliefs, a Christian family member and I debated whether kind-hearted members of other religions could make the cut for Heaven. My relative confidently explained that, no matter how good a person is, if they don’t believe in Christ, they will burn in the Bad Place.

My family member was right, if not about the fiery end of all non-Christians, then about Christianity itself. Belief in Jesus is an all-or-nothing deal. Either you accept Him into your life or you go to Hell, no excuses, no exceptions. If you haven’t heard about Jesus, if Jesus isn’t part of your culture, if bad experiences have made you wary of the religion — none of it matters. Your soul is forever forfeit.

For me as a child — and I know I’m not alone — this lesson led straight to bigotry. How can we “love our neighbors as ourselves” when they’re so clearly headed for eternal damnation? Why should we muster compassion for hungry children when, after their starvation takes them, their souls will be cast into everlasting fire? How can we care for “the other” when not even God does?

Christians embrace a belief system in which only they matter, and that’s a problem for me.

3. Faith healing misses the point

When I was young — get ready to feel outraged here — my mother used to secretly pull aside our developmentally delayed neighbor child, to “lay hands” on her and pray for her healing. Over the next weeks and months, we’d watch for signs of her improving intellect.

I admit that even back then it bugged me. Was that little girl’s life worthwhile only if she achieved the same intellectual ability of other children? Was there no place in society for someone like her, just as she was? Wasn’t her family’s love for her, their tender care of her, somehow “holy” in and of itself?

As an adult, I understood more fully why I’d been bothered. In my experience, faith healing not only doesn’t work, but it also denies the reality of our imperfect world. Christianity’s insistence that God heals all — but only if one has enough faith — dilutes compassion and defers the search for adaptive measures that could help sufferers in this life. The notion of faith healing threatens to devalue — and worse, blame — those whose bodies or minds are different or differently-abled.

I look at nature and see the cycle of birth and death continually repeated. No Creator of such a world could possibly view death as failure and perfect health the only measure of success.

4. Christianity focuses on a possible “then,” not the certain “now.”

No one knows what happens after we die, and even if we all agreed on a single theory, it would take us no closer to the truth.

I believe that’s as it should be. The only time we’re guaranteed is now. This is our only sure opportunity for being who we are, showing the world what matters to us, making our loved ones feel loved, and easing the burdens of others.

And yet as a child, I was taught that this life doesn’t matter. I was told that I would be raptured before I was reached adulthood — and that I ought to feel grateful for it. Even now, in the midst of a global pandemic, I see Christians putting their own and other lives in peril while holding onto the afterlife as their certain reward, their chance to reunite with loved ones, their day to triumph over their enemies. What a risk they’re taking! What a waste of the precious present.

And here I defer to the words of Marcus Aurelius:

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

5. The Christian God hates me

Christianity was a prison to my mind. Its rules and restrictions felt like bars on a cage. My creative mind asked questions, and the answers Christianity allowed satisfied neither my logic nor my heart. I wasn’t free to marvel at and celebrate our differences. I wasn’t free to explore the beauty in life’s imperfections. I couldn’t make peace with my own human complexity. I was forced to condemn most of the world as the “sinful other.”

If what I was taught was correct, God knew when I was in my mother’s womb that my experiences and sensibilities would not allow me to follow Christ. He knew before my birth that He was going to send me to Hell and that the factors that would influence my damnation were largely out of my control. And knowing all that, He let me be born.

I refuse to worship a deity that creates in order to destroy, and so I’m not a Christian.

To renounce my family’s narrow belief system, to be finally free to look at the world around me and determine who I am and what I believe — it’s been unspeakably liberating. And I’m not talking about fleeting freedom, or a transient happiness. My joy has lasted for decades, and my gratitude continues to swell and grow.

It’s as if I’ve been born again.

Any rational mind that is willing to allow for a free, open, and unbiased examination of the claims of Christianity will likely come to a similar conclusion. You cannot dictate something to be true when the evidence is pointing strongly in a different direction. If Christianity was true, virtually everything seen and observed would validate its truth. Instead, what we have is a virtually unlimited number of reasons to doubt, 4611 of them discussed here so far.

(4912) Jesus endorsed revenge on non-receptive people

Jesus sent his disciples on a door-to-door mission and threatened to severely punish those who were not receptive to their message. The following was taken from:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2024/08/beware-furious-christians-on-warpath-to.html#more

What do you do when Mormon missionaries or a Jehovah’s Witnesses knock on your door? Most of us send them on their way—we can’t be bothered. So what would you think if one of them, as they walked away, shouted back at you, “Just you wait, God will burn your house down for not listening to us!”  You’d think: “What a nutjob,” right?

In the 10th chapter of Matthew, we read that Jesus sent his disciples out to preach in villages and towns. So here were itinerant preachers like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, going door-to-door. But Jesus includes this promise:

“If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town” (vv. 14-15).

Sodom and Gomorrah were burned to the ground—that story is in Genesis 19. So Jesus says that the same thing will happen to people who don’t listen to his disciples. My bet is that most Christians would agree that this is something they wish Jesus hadn’t taught.

The author of Matthew was projecting the cultish idea that anyone who hears about but then fails to join the cult deserves punishment. It is hardly the attitude expected of a divine being who would fully understand why some people would resist an on-the-spot conversion- that is, he would understand human nature. And, of course, an actual divine being would not endorse the application of torturous punishment.

(4913) Matthew invents Egypt sojourn

The author of the Gospel of Matthew scoured the Old Testament and found a scripture in the Book of Hosea referencing the story in Exodus about the Jews escaping from the Egyptian Pharaoh. Based on this, he invented a story about Jesus being taken to Egypt after his birth, supposedly to avoid being killed by King Herod. It is easy to see that the reference to ‘my son’ has nothing to do with Jesus. The following was taken from:

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/how-do-new-testament-writers-use-the-old-testament/

Matthew, for example, frequently uses what scholars call “formula quotations.” That is, in several places he portrays some event in the life of Jesus as fulfilling what was said through one of the prophets. Although such statements might make it seem as though Matthew understood the prophets to have predicted specific events in Jesus’s life, the picture is a bit more nuanced. For example, Matt 2:15 cites a verse from the prophet Hosea, “Out of Egypt I have called my son” (Hos 11:1). Although Matthew had already spoken of Jesus as God’s son, there is more to this use of Hosea than the Christian belief in Jesus’s divine sonship. The Old Testament frequently refers to Israel as God’s son (for example, Exod 4:22). Read in context, Hosea is speaking of Israel’s exodus from Egypt. By citing this verse, then, Matthew is drawing a comparison between Jesus and the people Israel. As Israel came out of Egypt at the time of Moses, so Jesus came out of Egypt during his childhood. In a loose sense, Jesus reenacts Israel’s history, but with different results.

It is telling that the story of Jesus being taken to Egypt appears only in the Gospel of Matthew, while the other gospels, taken at face value, emphatically refute any possibility of such a journey. This is an example of how the gospel authors were keenly concerned about proving that Jesus was predicted by ancient prophets, in a concerted but ultimately failed attempt to accomplish such.

(4914) Comment on Satan’s ‘evolution’

It is well established that Jewish people viewed Satan quite differently than modern Christians do. This evolution of thought supports the conclusion that this figure is mythical. The following Q and A is presented below:

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/satan/

Q. Our professor in our Prophets of Israel Theology Course once commented that Satan was a conflated figure, historically speaking, and had early origins wherein he had a more innocuous function. Can you enlighten me on this? And how does it stand in light of Pope Francis’s focus on Vatican exorcists? Are these evil entities in no way related to the biblical Satan?

A. The noun “satan” appears in the Hebrew Bible as a name (“Satan”) only in 1Chr 21:1. In the longest story involving him (Job 1-2), the noun has a definite article (“the satan”) and should be translated as a title (“the accuser”). In Job, the accuser is a member of God’s court (akin to a prosecuting attorney, accusing Job before the heavenly judge) and obeys God (see also Zech 3:1-2). The accuser is not responsible for evil in the Hebrew Bible; rather the Hebrew Bible generally attributes both good and evil to God (1Sam 18:10, 1Kgs 22, etc.).

By the time of the New Testament, Jews had come to understand Satan as a more independent and evil entity, opposed to God, rather than obeying God (Rom 16:20, Rev 17:7-9, Rev 20:7-10). Through time, people’s understanding of Satan’s characteristics and power continued to shift and develop. In the English-speaking world, most modern conceptions of Satan are based on John Milton’s Paradise Lost (1667) more than on biblical sources. So your professor was correct, that the image of Satan shifted over time, moving from obnoxious but obedient servant of God to being evil and opposed to God.

The New Testament includes many stories of Jesus and the disciples doing exorcisms on people who they thought were possessed by demons (Mark 3:14-15, Mark 16:17; Matt 9:32-33; Luke 8:27-33). Demons are generally understood to be servants of or in league with Satan. The idea that priests and/or individual believers can emulate the apostles and cast out demons in Jesus’ name justifies exorcisms in both Catholic and Protestant traditions.

Pope Francis’s endorsement of the rite of exorcism is controversial because many Catholics, influenced by a modernist, scientific world-view, don’t believe in demons or even Satan. They may feel embarrassed by the Pope endorsing a rite they perceive to be a throwback to the Middle Ages. But many other Catholics do believe in demons and they may see Pope Francis’s decision as a long-overdue recognition of the importance of exorcisms.

The figure of Satan no longer makes sense in our modern world, or further, with the idea that God is omnipotent and therefore could easily kill such a demonic force. If Satan exists and does evil, then God is directly responsible for everything he does, and of course, none of this is even remotely plausible.

(4915) How to get to Christian heaven evolved

In the early gospel readings, Jesus makes it clear that getting to heaven is highly dependent on doing good deeds, but later on, especially in what we read in the Gospel of John, as well as Paul’s epistles, the pathway to heaven is much simpler than that- simply believing in Jesus is sufficient all by itself. The following was taken from:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2024/08/if-devout-folks-get-to-heaven-by-using.html#more

We can find many examples of Jesus-script in the gospels that stress good behavior, compassion, carefully following god’s rules—as the ways to make it to heaven. In Matthew 19 we read the story of a rich young man who asked Jesus how he could obtain eternal life. “Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions.” (Matt 19:21-22)   I suspect most consumer-driven devout folks would identify with the young man’s grief. An important part of life for them is the accumulation of as much stuff as possible, e.g., cars, houses, flat-screen TVs, a wide assortment of appliances—and saving bundles of cash for fun vacations. That’s life in the modern world. Following Jesus into poverty can be left to those who join monasteries and convents. The devout may not say it out-loud, but their response to Jesus is no thanks!

In the famous Last Judgement scene in Matthew 25, the Jesus-script invites the righteous to “…inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (v. 34) They have earned this reward because they fed the hungry, welcomed strangers, clothed the naked, cared for the sick, and visited those in prison. Again, compassion is the key. But there is a brutal downside to this Last Judgement. Those who fail to measure up on the compassion scale will be thrown into eternal fire (v. 41). Religious folks need to take stock: just how much of their time and energy is devoted to the acts of compassion listed in Matthew 25? Are they at risk of suffering eternal fire?

In Mark 12, one of the scribes had this exchange with Jesus:

“‘Which commandment is the first of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.’” (Mark 12:28-31)

Is this all, all, all, all requirement realistic? How many believers actually do love their god at this (quite frankly fanatical) level? And how many love their neighbors—as much as they love themselves? What if their neighbor belongs to a different race or ethnic group? Or is openly gay? Or follows a different religion—or is openly atheist?

This rule in Mark 12 is another that is hard to follow. Indeed, these days, fundamentalist and evangelical Christians seem to have a long list of neighbors for whom they feel only contempt.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) presents a major challenge as well: so many rules that believers turn their backs on. One of the favorite dodges of the devout—when they discover horrifying rules and laws in the Old Testament—is to claim “Well, we now have the New Testament, which is so much better.” But the author of Matthew’s gospel saw the Jesus cult he defended as a Jewish sect: the Old Testament—the Hebrew Bible—was not to be downgraded. Hence he created this Jesus-script:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks [or annuls] the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-19)

How many of the devout embrace other rules in the Sermon on the Mount? “Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also, and if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, give your coat as well, and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.  Give to the one who asks of you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:39-42)

The Sermon on the Mount is idealized—isn’t it the most wonderful teaching of Jesus? —but if Christians go through it word for word, line by line, they will find so much they disagree with and choose to ignore. Why bother with these rules?

Sliding into extreme cult mode

This is one of the biggest mistakes religions can make, especially when worship of a holy hero is involved. It is very easy to embrace magical thinking, that is, magic spells and potions work better than following rules. Belief is considered the key: believe what the cult claims is the truth, and you’ve made it to the inner circle.

The apostle Paul, who bragged that his knowledge of Jesus came from his visions of the heavenly Jesus, was one of the first to affirm the value of cult belief:

“…if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9).

At the conclusion of Mark’s gospel—an ending added later—we find this Jesus-script:

“Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16).

Baptism itself is one aspect of magical thinking. At the very beginning of Mark’s gospel, John the Baptist offers “…baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4). As if immersion in water is pleasing enough to a god to enable he/she/it to forgive sins. Devout believers today are deeply divided on the issue of infant or adult baptism. Supposedly infant baptism will prevent a dying baby from going to hell.

The Old Testament was big on the magical properties of animal sacrifice to cancel the guilt of human sin. The slaughter of animals was big business in the Jerusalem Temple. Hence it’s no surprise that the author of John’s gospel, an extreme cult fanatic, had John the Baptist announce, when he saw Jesus coming toward him: “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29) The author of John’s gospel declares, in his opening chapter, that Jesus—depicted in the earlier gospels as a Galilean peasant preacher—had been present at creation. This is theological bombast: how could he possibly know that? But of course, theologians have been making up stuff about gods for millennia. Hence they disagree with one another so much—and secular observers don’t take them seriously for a second.

One of the most cherished Bible verses is John 3:16—even as a child I was taught how important it was: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.” Notice that everything hinges on belief, and in two other verses in this chapter, lack of belief is a disaster: “Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (v. 18) and “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life but must endure God’s wrath” (v. 36).

The author of John’s gospel also earns the top prize for grotesque, ghoulish cult goofiness. In his 6th chapter he argues that eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood are vital for achieving eternal life. See John 6:54-58. This has become imbedded in Christian ritual: Protestants call it communion, Catholics call it Mass. When I was growing up in a Methodist Church in rural Indiana, we had Communion Sunday once a quarter—and we pretended to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood. All symbolically of course, but there was no one there to tap me on the shoulder and say, “That’s pretty gross, you know.”

With this kind of ritual, Christians have indeed adopted magic potions. When they pray “in Jesus’ name,” they are using magic spells—as if uttering the very name of Jesus can guarantee results. It would be a great benefit to the world if Christians would read John 6:54-58 every day, and apply critical thinking to this text. How can eating Jesus possibly make sense? It’s time to snap out of it.

There is much ambiguity in determining what it takes to make it to heaven. It depends of which verse you read, or which preacher you listen to. But one thing is certain, if you could evaluate the least righteous person to make it into heaven versus the most righteous person sent to hell, you wouldn’t be able to tell anything different between them. The margin would be razor-thin and indistinguishable. And here’s a good question to consider- how would God deal with a wicked person who professed a strong belief in Jesus versus an atheist who lived a loving and giving life mirroring the themes of Jesus’ sermons? No preacher can tell you the answer to this. And the reason for this is that Christian theology as a whole doesn’t work. Adding in the sole requirement to have the correct belief spoiled everything.

(4916) Jesus was most likely a fraud

If we assume that Jesus was a real person, there exists a lot of reasons to conclude that he was most likely a fraud, either purposely or delusionally so. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1f3vtr5/jesus_was_most_likely_a_fraud/

While we can’t say for sure that Jesus actually existed, it’s fair to say that it is probable that there was a historical Jesus, who attempted to create a religious offshoot of the Jewish faith. In this thread, I will accept it as fact that Jesus did exist. But if you accept this as fact, then it logically follows that Jesus was not a prophet, and his connection to “god” was no different than yours or mine. That he was a fraud who either deliberately mislead people to benefit himself, or was deranged and unable to make a distinction between what was real and what he imagined. I base that on the following points.

If there is a god who created the universe and is omnipotent and omniscient, and if he sent a portion of himself to live a human life, we should have expected much more than what Jesus provided. The story of Jesus smells too much like a fully-human cult leader who became aggrandized by a small number of superstitious people who misinterpreted the significance of his death and had delusions of his resurrection. A true god-man would have made a much more pronounced splash in human history.

(4917) Selling freedom from death

Christianity is one of a long line of religions, both before and after, that made some sort of promise that it could provide its followers a chance to have another life after this one ends. This overused theme has no evidence giving it any merit, but that hasn’t stopped billions of people from genuinely believing its truth. Fear of death has served religious leaders very well. The following was taken from:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2024/08/the-obsession-of-religion-with-eternal.html#more

How can we account for the common Christian belief that eternal life is attainable? Even in the New Testament there are conflicting, irreconcilable ideas about how to attain it. But consider this as well: many ancient religions that pre-dated Christianity—by hundreds or thousands of years—also attracted devout followers by promising escape from death. Priests and religious bureaucrats knew that the fear of death was powerful motivator, so all they had to do was promise a solution.

Essential homework on this topic is Richard Carrier’s 2018 essay, Dying-and-Rising Gods: It’s Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. Carrier states the case correctly:

“…the idea of a personal savior god dying and rising from the dead to live again was not original to Christianity. It was, in fact, fashionable. Many cultures all around the borders of, and traveling and trading through Judea, had one. It was all the rage. It was thus not surprising in that context, that some fringe Jews decided to invent one of their own…Jesus is just a late comer to the party. Yet one more dying-and-rising personal savior god.”

There are people who have reacted rationally to death, realizing that all imagined ways to getting out of it are delusional. Mark Twain, for example, said: “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

How would eternal life work, anyway? Not too long ago I saw a cartoon, a man wearing an angel outfit, sitting on a cloud in heaven, looking really bored. “I should have brought a magazine,” was his thought. Just what do people imagine they’ll do in heaven, forever and ever? Your earthly personality is geared toward having daily goals. Will you essentially be brain dead in heaven? I’ve seen some depictions of heaven in which folks endlessly praise Jesus. Does that make it worth it to have somehow attained eternal life? And what does it say about a god and his son that they demand—and get off on—unending, ceaseless praise? How does that possibly make sense?

Then, of course, there’s the issue of evidence. Priests have been promising escape from death for thousands of years, but how do they know? Some religious folks have claimed that Near Death Experiences (NDE) are evidence that heaven is real. People who have survived near death trauma report having seen the glow of heaven when they were unconscious. But this phenomenon has been studied extensively, and the verdict seems to be that there is nothing going on but brain activity induced by trauma. And even without trauma, our brains can be hyper-active. I sometimes have very weird, surrealistic, dystopian dreams. When I wake up, it takes me a few minutes to get back to reality—and I wonder how my brain came up with such bizarre images. It’s hardly a surprise that religious people can have dreams about savoring glimpses of heaven.

Claiming the reality of NDEs is also risky because people of many different religious backgrounds have had these experiences, which negates the idea of exclusive Christian access to heaven. We’re back to the need for evidence: reliable, verifiable, objective data; because, without that…

Religions promoting escape from death does indeed qualify as a scam. The appeal to just take it on faith is worthless, because so many conflicting—even absurd—ideas have been accepted by “taking it on faith.” Christianity is a champion in this contest: their god required a human sacrifice, brutally murdered, to enable him/her/it to forgive sins. One New Testament theologian even suggested that eating the flesh, and drinking the blood, of the sacrifice would also do the trick of getting eternal life.

Someone once said, “Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” The con man realized that escape from death was a precious commodity that so many people craved. That reflects the full-blown human ego: “I am too important to perish forever: my god wants me to endure eternally” (even if, for some, it would mean burning in eternal fire—how sick it that!). But when we contemplate the Cosmos, we see that death is part of the scene, from top to bottom: stars die, planets die, as do all the animals on the earth and in the sea.  Humans are part of this broad spectrum, so it’s hard to argue we don’t share the same fate. How could it be otherwise?  No amount of superstition, magical thinking or savoring ritual mumbo-jumbo at church can change this reality.

Humans are vulnerable to believe in spectacular promises that cannot be refuted. Common sense tells us that this is our only life, but there is no way to definitively prove that fact. That small unpavable crevice in our awareness is all religion needs to scam the frightened masses.

(4918) The silence of God

The mismatch between how Christians describe God’s qualities and capabilities against how the world appears to work is stark. Theists have a long way to go to explain why such a powerful god is so resolutely silent. The following was taken from:

https://medium.com/deconstructing-christianity/christians-should-take-the-silence-of-god-more-seriously-7f6be4ae5131

Many theists today hold the belief that God is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful. They also trust that God has revealed Himself to humanity and can be recognized by those with the right heart.

I see it differently.

Several reasons lead me to doubt the existence of such a God. Even if I were to accept that some God exists, I would lean towards the idea that He is distant and disengaged from humanity. In other words, even if God does exist, He would be a silent God.

In this brief article, I’ll explore a few observations that question the idea of an active God. By the end, I hope readers will find themselves considering the possibility of an absent God — or perhaps no God at all.

The means of revelation

As I mentioned earlier, most theists believe that God has revealed His will through divine revelation. However, I have yet to encounter any instance of such revelation where natural explanations can be confidently ruled out.

Consider, for example, Christianity’s most revered literary work: the Bible. If God truly loves all of humanity, across every culture and era, it seems unlikely that He would choose to reveal His intentions through a small, ancient group of people, in their local dialect, on a fragile medium like papyrus, and through a process as unreliable as hand-copying.

Even more troubling is the fact that these documents are indistinguishable from other ancient writings on religion and spirituality. Theologians refer to this as ‘contextualization,’ but this term essentially acknowledges that the Bible’s authors were constrained by human limitations, unable to produce content that transcended their time.

Many Christians claim that the Bible contains prophecies that have been fulfilled, pointing to a divine source, but most of the examples they provide aren’t even proper prophecies. God can certainly do better than that. (I’ve explored this topic in more detail in another article, which you can find linked at the end of this piece.)

An all-knowing God would surely understand that if His revelation were delivered in this manner, the majority of the world’s population throughout history would have little to no access to it. Only a fortunate few would ever encounter copies of copies … of the original texts, passed down through generations.

These individuals would then be left with the challenging task of determining which books genuinely reflect divine revelation and which are simply human creations. There was no divine list of accepted books tossed down from the sky; people had to develop their own criteria.

They would also find themselves debating which textual variations among the different manuscripts are authentic and which parts are likely embellishments or errors introduced by later scribes.

God could have foreseen all these issues, right? Yet most Christians still believe this is how their all-knowing God chose to reveal Himself. It’s no surprise that most people throughout history have known little or nothing about this God, and even those with access to the Bible have different versions of it, leading to conflicting interpretations and ultimately thousands of faith traditions.

It’s absurd.

Why couldn’t God communicate directly with people, the way we do when we want to be understood? Wouldn’t that allow more people to learn about Him and grasp His intentions more accurately, without relying on human intermediaries who argue over who truly represents Him?

But this confusion makes sense if God doesn’t exist or is silent, and the Bible is simply a human creation, like any other ancient myth or sacred text.

Religious experience

Many Christians assert that God has directly revealed Himself to them through visions, dreams, and other personal experiences. I’m sure these encounters felt incredibly real to those who experienced them. However, there are some significant issues with this form of revelation.

First, it’s not unusual for members of clearly false religions to also claim spiritual encounters with their deities. If personal experiences were reliable sources of spiritual truth, it would imply that conflicting beliefs, like monotheism and polytheism, could both be true. But logically, they can’t.

Second, neuroscience and psychology have shown that our brains can generate images and sounds that aren’t actually present. For instance, the dreams we experience at night, no matter how vivid or real they seem, are produced entirely within our brains — and we recognize this.

Medication or chemical imbalances can also distort our senses. By taking certain mushrooms or drugs, we can experience hallucinations as intense as any spiritual encounter.

Third, all of these spiritual experiences are unverifiable by objective means. Some Christians argue that God can communicate with us through something like a mushroom trip. But if that’s the case, how can we distinguish which parts of the experience are truly from God and not just the effects of being high?

If God’s method of direct revelation is limited to experiences that can’t be objectively verified and can’t be reliably separated from the sensations caused by misfiring neurons — experiences that could occur without any divine involvement — doesn’t that suggest God is an unnecessary explanation for them?

You’d think that if God truly wanted to make His presence known, He would use methods that unmistakably point to Him and can’t be easily explained away, right?

Miracles

What about reports of divine interventions and extraordinary incidents? Almost always, a naturalistic explanation is available.

Take healing, for instance. Theists often struggle to rule out placebo effects or other factors. When a cancer patient’s tumor disappears without curative treatment after fervent prayers, some Christians claim that God healed the person. This spontaneous cancer remission, while rare, is well documented, and scientists are actively researching the mechanisms behind it.

The fact that our knowledge is limited at this time doesn’t imply that God intervened to supernaturally cure some patients while leaving others to suffer. If Christians claim that cancer remission is due to answered prayers, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that patients who are prayed for have a higher rate of remission than those who aren’t.

Moreover, if God is all-powerful, we would expect to see instances of miraculous healings that defy any natural explanations, like limbs regrowing in seconds. Yet, God seems to only heal conditions that can be explained by natural means.

Christians are often quick to dismiss healings in other religions, attributing them to demons trying to confuse people. However, they rarely explain how they can be certain that the healings among their fellow believers are from God and not from other deities, demons, ghosts, or any other non-physical entities.

Even if we accept that demons and ghosts might exist and have supernatural influence over the material world, wouldn’t we expect much more from an all-loving, all-powerful God? We should see significantly more instances of healing among Christians — or better yet, fewer instances of Christians getting sick at all, thanks to the supernatural blessings from their true God.

But is that what we see today? Not at all. Christian children face the same risks of developing cancer as non-Christian children. In fact, it seems that this all-loving God doesn’t intervene in the suffering that people endure worldwide. Diseases and natural disasters claim millions of lives every year. This stark reality presents a serious challenge to the notion of an all-loving and all-powerful God.

The silence of God is deafening

All the signs we would expect to see if an all-powerful and all-loving God existed are absent from this world. The very fact that debates about God’s existence are still ongoing deals a serious blow to theism.

Christians can engage in all the mental gymnastics they want to excuse God for not revealing Himself clearly, but the reality remains: this world looks exactly like one where an all-powerful and all-loving God does not exist.

To Christians, God works in mysterious ways, but for atheists, there’s no mystery. The non-existence of such a God explains what we observe in the world quite well.

Atheists need not explain anything. The world appears to be absent not only of a god, but as well any supernatural creature or phenomenon. We live in a natural world, not the world described by the Christian bible.

(4919) Deification of Trump

The case of former United States president Donald Trump provides a window into what likely happened during the time of Jesus. In both cases,  a vulnerability in human psychology resulted in mass delusion, a separation of fact from fiction, and an artificial sense of certainty that the figure of admiration was something more than merely human. Although only a few followers of Trump see him as having divine credentials, most see him as being ‘chosen by God’ for some important mission. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1f4165e/watching_the_mythos_of_trump_develop_has_really/

I was always confused on how within a span of a generation, this radical rabbi (Jesus) could transform from a man into a god, in the eyes of his followers. But we see the seeds of this happening before our very eyes in Donald Trump. Take away our modern archiving of video, images, sound, and it is easy to see how this story could be twisted enough to convince a future generation that he was sent from a god.

Edit: let’s not get caught up on the question of if Jesus existed, or a person existed that Jesus was modeled on. It’s secondary to the idea that we can see the mythologizing of Trump before our eyes, and we can draw insight into how the deification process worked in ancient and modern times.

The way that Trump has been extolled by his followers, despite his blatant personality flaws, is an important insight into how people are vulnerable to ‘worship fever’ that spreads like a virus. It would be easy to convince people even just a hundred years ago that a person like Trump had performed miraculous deeds. So Jesus, like Trump, probably enjoyed the same artificial aggrandizement of his nature and exploits.

(4920) Ten most controversial verses in the Bible

The following ten biblical verses present the greatest challenge to Christian apologists to explain how they appear in a book allegedly inspired by an all-powerful god of unlimited intelligence, compassion, and foresight:

https://sofia-parker.medium.com/top-10-most-controversial-verses-in-the-bible-97ebc4fd3812

The Bible, as a sacred text revered by millions, contains verses that have been interpreted and debated in various ways throughout history.

These passages touch on sensitive topics ranging from morality and justice to social norms and theological principles.

Let’s explore some of the most controversial verses in the Bible and the debates they provoke.

1. Genesis 19:5

“They called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.’”

This verse from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah raises questions about homosexuality, consent, and the consequences of sexual sin.

2. Exodus 21:20–21

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”

This passage, addressing the treatment of slaves, has been controversial due to its implications for human rights and ethical treatment of individuals.

3. Leviticus 20:13

“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Often cited in discussions about homosexuality, this verse reflects ancient Hebrew law and has been interpreted in various ways across different religious and cultural contexts.

4. Deuteronomy 22:28–29

“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

This passage addresses the treatment of rape victims within the context of ancient Israelite society, prompting debates about justice, victimhood, and the role of women.

5. Psalm 137:9

“Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”

This verse expresses raw emotion in the context of the Babylonian exile, but its violent imagery raises ethical questions about divine justice and human suffering.

6. Matthew 10:34–36

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’”

These words of Jesus challenge traditional perceptions of him as a purely peaceful figure, highlighting the divisive nature of his message and its potential societal impact.

7. Ephesians 5:22–24

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

This passage has been central to discussions about gender roles, marriage, and equality within Christian communities, sparking debates about mutual submission versus hierarchical relationships.

8. 1 Timothy 2:11–12

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

These verses have influenced debates about women’s roles in religious leadership and authority, reflecting cultural norms and theological interpretations.

9. Revelation 20:10

“And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

The depiction of eternal torment in this verse has sparked theological debates about the nature of hell, divine justice, and the afterlife.

10. John 14:6

“Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”

This verse, emphasizing exclusivity in salvation through Jesus, has been controversial in interfaith dialogues and discussions about religious pluralism.

The question should be asked: How many of these verses should we expect to find in the Bible? And the unequivocal answer: ZERO.

(4921) Five reasons to suspect Jesus never existed

If God sent his son to Earth on some divine mission, he could easily have done it in a way that this event could be established historically as a firm fact. Instead, there exists a lot of questions as to whether the central figure Jesus was even a real person, much less a divine entity. The following was taken from:

https://www.salon.com/2014/09/01/5_reasons_to_suspect_that_jesus_never_existed/

Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are “mythologized history.”  In other words, they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provided the seed that grew into Christianity.

At the same time, these scholars acknowledge that many Bible stories like the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and women at the tomb borrow and rework mythic themes that were common in the Ancient Near East, much the way that screenwriters base new movies on old familiar tropes or plot elements. In this view, a “historical Jesus” became mythologized.

For over 200 years, a wide ranging array of theologians and historians—most of them Christian—analyzed ancient texts, both those that made it into the Bible and those that didn’t, in attempts to excavate the man behind the myth.  Several current or recent bestsellers take this approach, distilling the scholarship for a popular audience. Familiar titles include Zealotby Reza Aslan and  How Jesus Became Godby Bart Ehrman.

But other scholars believe that the gospel stories are actually “historicized mythology.”  In this view, those ancient mythic templates are themselves the kernel. They got filled in with names, places and other real world details as early sects of Jesus worship attempted to understand and defend the devotional traditions they had received.

The notion that Jesus never existed is a minority position.  Of course it is! says David Fitzgerald, author of Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All.For centuries all serious scholars of Christianity were Christians themselves, and modern secular scholars lean heavily on the groundwork that they laid in collecting, preserving, and analyzing ancient texts. Even today most secular scholars come out of a religious background, and many operate by default under historical presumptions of their former faith.

Fitzgerald is an atheist speaker and writer, popular with secular students and community groups. The internet phenom, Zeitgeist the Movie introduced millions to some of the mythic roots of Christianity. But Zeitgeist and similar works contain known errors and oversimplifications that undermine their credibility. Fitzgerald seeks to correct that by giving young people interesting, accessible information that is grounded in accountable scholarship.

More academic arguments in support of the Jesus Myth theory can be found in the writings of Richard Carrier and Robert Price. Carrier, who has a Ph.D. in ancient history uses the tools of his trade to show, among other things, how Christianity might have gotten off the ground without a miracle. Price, by contrast, writes from the perspective of a theologian whose biblical scholarship ultimately formed the basis for his skepticism. It is interesting to note that some of the harshest debunkers of fringe Jesus myth theories like those from Zeitgeist or Joseph Atwill (who tries to argue that the Romans invented Jesus) are from serious Mythicists like Fitzgerald, Carrier and Price.

The arguments on both sides of this question—mythologized history or historicized mythology—fill volumes, and if anything the debate seems to be heating up rather than resolving. A growing number of scholars are openly questioning or actively arguing against Jesus’ historicity. Since many people, both Christian and not, find it surprising that this debate even exists—that credible scholars might think Jesus never existed—here are some of the key points that keep the doubts alive:

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.  In the words of Bart Ehrman: “What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (pp. 56-57)

2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts.Paul seems unaware of any virgin birth, for example. No wise men, no star in the east, no miracles. Historians have long puzzled over the “Silence of Paul” on the most basic biographical facts and teachings of Jesus. Paul fails to cite Jesus’ authority precisely when it would make his case. What’s more, he never calls the twelve apostles Jesus’ disciples; in fact, he never says Jesus HAD disciples –or a ministry, or did miracles, or gave teachings. He virtually refuses to disclose any other biographical detail, and the few cryptic hints he offers aren’t just vague, but contradict the gospels. The leaders of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem like Peter and James are supposedly Jesus’ own followers and family; but Paul dismisses them as nobodies and repeatedly opposes them for not being true Christians!

Liberal theologian Marcus Borg suggests that people read the books of the New Testament in chronological order to see how early Christianity unfolded.  “Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel — the good news — of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus’ historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.”

3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts. We now know that the four gospels were assigned the names of the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not written by them. To make matter sketchier, the name designations happened sometime in second century, around 100 years or more after Christianity supposedly began. For a variety of reasons, the practice of pseudonymous writing was common at the time and many contemporary documents are “signed” by famous figures.  The same is true of the New Testament epistles except for a handful of letters from Paul (6 out of 13) which are broadly thought to be genuine.  But even the gospel stories don’t actually say, “I was there.” Rather, they claim the existence of other witnesses, a phenomenon familiar to anyone who has heard the phrase, my aunt knew someone who . . . .

4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.If you think you know the Jesus story pretty well, I suggest that you pause at this point to test yourself with the 20 question quiz at ExChristian.net.

The gospel of Mark is thought to be the earliest existing “life of Jesus,” and linguistic analysis suggests that Luke and Matthew both simply reworked Mark and added their own corrections and new material. But they contradict each other and, to an even greater degree contradict the much later gospel of John, because they were written with different objectives for different audiences. The incompatible Easter stories offer one example of how much the stories disagree.

5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.  They include a cynic philosopher, charismatic Hasid, liberal Pharisee, conservative rabbi, Zealot revolutionary, nonviolent pacifist to borrow from a much longer listassembled by Price. In his words (pp. 15-16), “The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage.  But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time.”  John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar grumbles that “the stunning diversity is an academic embarrassment.”

For David Fitzgerald, these issues and more lead to a conclusion that he finds inescapable:

Jesus appears to be an effect, not a cause, of Christianity. Paul and the rest of the first generation of Christians searched the Septuagint translation of Hebrew scriptures to create a Mystery Faith for the Jews, complete with pagan rituals like a Lord’s Supper, Gnostic terms in his letters, and a personal savior god to rival those in their neighbors’ longstanding Egyptian, Persian, Hellenistic and Roman traditions.

In a soon-to-be-released follow up to Nailed, entitled Jesus: Mything in Action, Fitzgeraldargues that the many competing versions proposed by secular scholars are just as problematic as any “Jesus of Faith:” Even if one accepts that there was a real Jesus of Nazareth, the question has little practical meaning: Regardless of whether or not a first century rabbi called Yeshua ben Yosef lived, the “historical Jesus” figures so patiently excavated and re-assembled by secular scholars are themselves fictions.

We may never know for certain what put Christian history in motion. Only time (or perhaps time travel) will tell.

The fact that Jesus’ existence is in question is sufficient in its own right to conclude that he was not the son of God, unless we conclude that this god is incompetent and failed to design Jesus’ mission in a manner that would withstand historical scrutiny. One other possibility is that God deliberately cloaked the pageantry behind an opaque screen of uncertainty for some nefarious purpose- possibly to justify sending more people to hell. Whatever the reason, it doesn’t look good for Christianity.

(4922) Bible admits existence of a pagan god

In the following scripture, a reference is made to a pagan king who sacrificed his son and thereby gained the assistance of a supernatural power that was able to drive away the attacking Israelis, insinuating the existence of a divine figure other than Yahweh.

2 Kings 3:26-27

When the king of Moab saw that the battle had gone against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, but they failed. Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall. The fury [other translations use the term ‘great wrath’] against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land.

The following was taken from John J. Collins book “Introduction to the Hebrew Bible”:

Perhaps the most remarkable episode in these chapters is found in 2 Kings 3:26-27. When the King of Moab saw that he was losing a battle with Israel, he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him, and offered him as a burnt offering on the city wall. We have seen that human sacrifice was also offered in Israel, in exceptional circumstances. (An example is found in 1 Kings 16:34, where Hiel of Bethel is said to have sacrificed two of his sons as foundation offerings when he built Jericho.) The extraordinary point in the case of the king of Moab is that the sacrifice was efficacious, even though it was presumably offered to a pagan God. “Great wrath” came upon Israel, and they withdrew. This is a rare case where the Bible admits, at least implicitly, the power of a pagan God.

This provides scriptural evidence to contravene the Christian dogma that Yahweh is the only god in existence. It also expresses the odious concept that human sacrifice can effectuate a positive outcome.

(4923) Unexplained delay in revelation

A problem developed for Christianity when science discovered that humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, not the 6-10,000 years claimed by the Bible. This created the question- why did God wait so long before revealing himself? The following was taken from:

https://medium.com/deconstructing-christianity/proving-religions-are-fake-f60f5f728037

Religion, in general, as I’ve noted before, requires one thing that’s almost universal. It requires some kind of supernatural realm from which some kind of human thing (some call it a soul, others use other terms, I think) which all humans have and after we die, it goes there. For some it starts there and comes here at birth and goes back at death. Some think it can come back multiple times (reincarnation). For some, it’s where gods/goddesses/deities live. For some, as with the Norse in the Odin belief system, it was Valhalla, which was supposed to be temporary until the end of days, when all those dead warriors would assist Odin in fighting whatever it was he had to fight. (I don’t know, I’m not going to read up on the details.) But it’s still a supernatural world where a kind of soul goes after the warrior dies, which makes sense, because they obviously knew the body was left behind. Duh.

I’ve had people try to tell me that’s wrong, but they’ve yet to give any details how. I mean, having somewhere to go after death — OR somewhere invisible for deities to live (invisible deities?) IS what religions are all about! Only the very earliest “religions” like naturalism where you’ve got “deities” inside trees and such lack those things, but still, you’ve got deities who ARE invisible, right?

So, moving on.

Humans have been worshiping those deities for literally thousands of years, as far as archaeology has found, and it seems every single different culture has their own deities or set of deities. The details differ, the names differ, what those deities have as powers differ, and who they fight and why is always different too. This goes back, though, only as far as we have archaeological evidence. But we do have some evidence through burial practices, that much older human cultures may have had beliefs about the afterlife also, given their practices of burying their dead with personal artifacts like necklaces, food bowls, weapons, etc.

So who knows how far back mankind’s beliefs in that kind of thing go?

So, back to that Christian fellow.

I’d like to ask him this.

What took your god so damn long to reveal himself? If, like you claim, he’s this all loving creator of the universe, why did he wait literally over two hundred thousand years to decide to finally reveal himself? Did he get lost between here and Proxima Centauri? Or distracted by a particularly intelligent alien race in a distant galaxy and forgot about us? I mean, at least some Christians are smart enough to realize that science is right and the universe is billions of years old, and humans have been around for several hundred thousand years as humans, like we are today.

So, why? Why did he make us suffer through almost two hundred thousand years of a complete lack of Internet and iPhones before finally telling us He existed? AND then waiting a few more thousand before sending His Son to tell us that He’d changed his ways and now wanted us to love each other instead of fighting and He wouldn’t kill any more of us?

Can you see how many humans might have been “saved” had He just revealed himself a couple of hundred thousand years ago? Geez, man, how many humans got killed by saber toothed tigers when they could have eaten that tiger for dinner instead? (And had a really cool dagger!)

Now, don’t try and give me that “God works in mysterious ways” bullshit. If He really did create this universe, he’s got a plethora of magic, and can get around just fine between galaxies without a starship, so that’s no excuse for “forgetting” us. If indeed, He can exist outside of time itself, it would be simplicity indeed for him to hit a thousand galaxies in a single day without batting an eyelash. His arms and hands may get a bit tired at all the hand and arm waving to make the magic work but hey, portalling shouldn’t be THAT hard should it?

So again, why? You see, this is what I mean by evidence that should exist had that deity Christians worship truly been real. For literally two hundred thousand years or more (some archaeologists say it could have been three or four hundred thousand), humans have been evolutionarily human, as we are today. Just as smart brain-wise as today, only living in a society that hadn’t learned much about technology.

Which a concerned and loving deity could have fixed within a few human lifetimes by educating us in how to learn about the universe using the techniques of science. Can you imagine where we’d be technologically today if He’d done THAT?

Which is why I say it’s all fake.

We’ve got no evidence at all that any of the nine thousand plus deities mankind has worshiped in the past were real. None. Which is exactly how much evidence we have that any deities worshiped by mankind today might be real.

None.

And yet, if any of those deities were actually real, would any of them have stopped at just claiming the worship of just one culture? It would be simplicity itself if say, Odin were real and he’d have proven (through perhaps hallucinations of fake battles) that he’d defeated all the gods of the Norse’ neighbors, he could have brought them into worshiping him, right? And could have continued that all across the world into every available culture to boot!

But that didn’t happen. It didn’t happen with Odin, it didn’t happen with the Greek gods, or the Roman gods (which were just renamed Greek gods), and it didn’t happen with the Egyptian gods.

It has NEVER happened! Mankind has wasted its efforts, its wealth, its very human lives in worshipping nonexistent deities, and we know that because not a single one of those deities has EVER, personally, revealed itself to mankind in any way that could have resulted in worldwide worship and acceptance.

Instead, humans have tried to tell one another that, no, our god wants US to tell you, and if you don’t believe us, we’re supposed to kill you.

Sheer stupidity. Would a real deity that gave a shit ever do that?

No.

So, there you have it. Definitive proof that no deity exists. Not a single one out of the nine thousand plus deities we’ve wasted our time and efforts on since well before we left any records of it have done anything to prove themselves or to truly improve the lot of mankind. Now one could say that not all deities gave that much of a crap about humans’ welfare. True enough, but then would any of those selfish and narcissistic deities have given up the chance to have ALL mankind worship him/her? Hmm, think about that one. If humans can be that badly narcissistic (and yes, we’ve seen that over and over in history), how much worse would deities be than us given their greater strength and egos?

No, for me at least, that’s enough. If someday, archeologists find some kind of symbol of Christianity (or Jewish symbology for God) in a human grave with DNA that’s at least two hundred thousand years old, we might revisit this, at which time you can then explain that if He did reveal himself that early, why did that fail?

There is no good answer for why an omnipotent god, intent on communicating with and judging human beings, waited for hundreds of thousands of years before making his existence known. Some will claim that he had to wait until humans had a means of recording history, but that very ability was within his power to impart at a much earlier time. Christianity and the evolutionary history of human beings are not good marriage partners- if the latter is true, the former almost certainly isn’t.

(4924) Christianity’s effect on children

Any religion that causes trauma in children should be discarded, and Christianity fulfills this description aptly. It trains children to believe that they are effectively worthless and deserving of eternal punishment unless they accept (and agree with the efficacy of) the brutal, bloody torture and execution of a certain man.

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2024/09/why-religion-is-being-held-strictly.html#more

Ten years ago, Zuckerman published an essay on the Psychology Today website, titled, Does Christianity Harm Children? We need to talk more openly about the abusive aspects of Christian theology. In this essay, he describes a family adventure to a Catholic Mission in California, part of a school assignment.

“And the mission was lovely: beautiful landscaping, old buildings, indigenous flowers, a trickling fountain. And then we walked into a large hall—and that’s when my younger daughter lost it. The space was full of crucified Jesuses. Every wall, from floor to ceiling, was adorned with wooden and plaster sculptures of Jesus on the cross: bloody, cut, and crying in pain. Some were very life-like, others more impressionistic. But all exhibited a tortured man in agony. My daughter had no context to understand it; she had no idea what Christianity was all about and had never been exposed to this most famous killing in history. She just saw what it objectively was: a large torture chamber. And she burst into tears and ran out.”

“I followed her outside, and once I had caught up with her in the courtyard, she wanted an explanation. But how does a secular parent explain such gore to a 5-year-old? Um, well, you see … there are millions of people who think that we are all born evil and that there is an all-powerful God who wants to punish us forever in hell—but then he had his only son tortured and killed so that we could be saved from eternal torture. Get it? The whole thing is so totally, horrible, absurdly sadistic and counter-intuitive and wicked. Not to mention baldly untrue.”

A real god could have achieved everything without blood, guts, torture, and death. But a religion created by primitive humans might well have devised such a scheme.

(4925) Balaam’s talking donkey and Achilles’ horse

The Bible asserts the absurd reality of a donkey speaking like a human (Numbers 22:21-39). It is conjectured that this was a later interpolation and that it was inspired by a similar story in the Iliad. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1fb1gg5/whats_the_origin_and_cultural_context_of_talking/

Talking animals are unusual in the Bible. The only two times it really happens are with the snake in the garden of Eden and with Balaam’s donkey. I’ll briefly address the latter.

Most scholars see the donkey episode as a late addition meant to make Balaam look foolish, since it needlessly interrupts the narrative and sits in tension with the fact that Balaam is already obeying the instructions given to him by YHWH. A full exploration of the stages of development in the Balaam story can be found in Robker, Balaam in Text and Tradition.

Philippe Wajdenbaum (Argonauts of the Desert, 2011) and Robert Karl Gnuse (Hellenism and the Primary History, 2020) have raised the interesting possibility that this episode is inspired by Xanthus, one of Achilles’s horses in the Iliad which is similarly given the temporary ability to speak.

From Wajdenbaum’s book:

In the Iliad, Achilles withdrew his men from the war against Troy as a result of his quarrel with Agamemnon. But when his best friend Patroclus is killed, Achilles decides to avenge him and harnesses his horses. Patroclus had borrowed Achilles’ horses and weapons, yet never came back alive. In his anger and sorrow, Achilles talks to his horses:

Then with a loud voice he chided with his father’s horses saying, ‘Xanthus and Balius, famed offspring of Podarge—this time when we have done fighting be sure and bring your driver safely back to the host of the Achaeans, and do not leave him dead on the plain as you did Patroclus.’ Then fleet Xanthus answered under the yoke—for white-armed Hera had endowed him with human speech—and he bowed his head till his mane touched the ground as it hung down from under the yoke-band. ‘Dread Achilles’, said he, ‘we will indeed save you now, but the day of your death is near, and the blame will not be ours, for it will be heaven and stern fate that will destroy you. Neither was it through any sloth or slackness on our part that the Trojans stripped Patroclus of his armour; it was the mighty god whom lovely Leto bore that slew him as he fought among the foremost, and vouchsafed a triumph to Hector. We two can fly as swiftly as Zephyrus who they say is fleetest of all winds; nevertheless it is your doom to fall by the hand of a man and of a god.’ When he had thus said the Erinyes stayed his speech. (Homer, Il. XIX, 400-20)

In both the Balaam and Achilles stories, a heroic character treats his animal unjustly, whereupon a god or goddess opens the animals mouth so it can speak and defend itself by describing its loyal servitude.

The Bible purports many miracles that are never observed in modern life. For authenticity purposes, the Bible should lay out a reality that comports to what we observe in our everyday lives. To have an animal speak like a human taints the entire tome, leaving us with no other conclusion than that this is a work of fiction, and that the original author or the interpolater of the Book of Numbers didn’t even try to hide this fact.

(4926) Problems with gospel authenticity

An essay penned by James Crossley and R. J. Myles “What is the ‘Historical Jesus’ and How Do We Know?” in Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict, explains why it is nearly impossible to know anything for sure about Jesus. The following is an excerpt:

Are the Gospels factual depictions of events, fanciful fables, or something in-between?  The answer to this question is not straightforward.  A “Gospel” is not a distinctive genre.  …  So what kind of literature are the Gospels?  …

Recent scholarship has sought to clarify the ways in which the Gospels are comparable to ancient biographies or lives (bioi) of other “great” figures of the Greco-Roman period.  There are numerous examples of such literature, including works by famous Roman authors like Plutarch, Suetonius, and Tacitus.  Such literature was akin to ancient propaganda.  At the most basic level, then, this means the Gospels cannot be taken naïvely as a straightforward transcription of historical events, but equally we should avoid the temptation to quickly dismiss them as the purely mythical inventions of their authors.  Although the Gospels are concerned with presenting the “truth” of their contents, they do so according to specific and highly stylized literary conventions which tend to accentuate a focus on the individual agency of the protagonist as the main driver of historical events.  For example, in ancient biography, protagonists are portrayed according to pre-existing stereotypes:  powerful politicians who lived within and often controlled the structures of society; or conversely, philosophers who lived outside those structures and challenged them from without.  Moreover, chronology functioned primarily to organize external facts of a person’s life, not as an explanation of individual behavior.  …

Until recently, it was common to use a set of “criteria of authenticity” to establish whether words or actions were said or done by the historical Jesus.  For instance, a common argument was that if a similar theme or saying was found independently in two or more sources (e.g., Mark and Q), and perhaps in two or more different subgenres (e.g., parables, controversy stories) then we are likely in touch with the historical Jesus.  As is increasingly recognized, this sort of reasoning only tells us if certain ideas predated the Gospels, not that they necessarily go back to the life of Jesus (though they may).  We also know ancient writers could copy material without much elaboration and could also create fictional accounts without too much concern.

We prefer, then, to look at specific themes and issues on a case-by-case basis and work out from there whether a given theme or issue has proximity to the historical Jesus.  We should state that we are skeptical about what we can know with confidence and so we prefer to think in terms of whether ideas about Jesus were early or late and whether they were particular to his geographical location or beyond.  In the absence of more sources from closer to the time of Jesus we have no grounds for certitude in the reconstruction of his life.  We stress this because it will become cumbersome to repeat throughout the book and the reader should always remember we are providing what we think are the earliest narratives about Jesus or themes associated with the Jesus movement.  Jesus, like certain bandits, soon came to be idealized.

…we stress specific references to Jesus in non-Christian sources, such as the asides found in Josephus and Tacitus, are of no serious value for understanding the historical Jesus, not least because they are based on speculations and rumors about what Christians believed.

So, the pertinent question is: Would an omnipotent god leave humans in such a state of uncertainty about what otherwise would be the most important event of all time? The answer…obviously…is no.

(4927) Faking it

There is no way to discern what a person truly believes about religion because there are many reasons for people to fake their beliefs- to maintain harmonious family relations, to win a love interest, to protect employment, to optimize business success, or to win political elections. What this means is that no one can be sure if anyone truly shares their beliefs about religion. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1fb6zdg/you_cannot_know_if_anyone_shares_your_beliefs/

Some who go to church have followed the popular Christian advice of “fake it til you make it”. (This topic applies to any organized religious community, and Christianity is but one of many extant examples.)

Many politicians, too, for obvious reasons.

So when you’re in church, how can you ever truly know if anyone else actually shares your beliefs, or if they’re just pretending to due to overwhelming societal and community pressures?

Maybe you’re the only one who actually believes. Maybe your church leaders propagate the stories for donations and funding. Maybe the big churches just spin tales for power and influence. Maybe they’re just in the priesthood to be above scrutiny and sociopathically access children for nefarious purposes. Maybe they’re just there for image purposes. All of these happen, and everyone knows that all of these do happen.

A community that prioritizes apparent adherence above all else specifically will have fakers, and encourages large quantities of fakers. Roles above scrutiny encourage abuse of power. Any pressure at all to be part of any in-group inevitably causes this.

There is no possible way to tell how often it happens, so in what way can you ever truly know you are not alone in your beliefs?

This tendency to fake belief counters the argument that Christianity must be true because so many people believe in it. What might really be happening is that the ‘so many’ people are just good fakers.

(4928) Ritual human sacrifice in the Bible

One of the ways to know for certain that the Bible is not the work of a universal god is its promotion of human and animal sacrifice. It is easy to see how superstitious Bronze Age men could have come up with this ridiculous idea, but it’s well below the integrity expected of an actual god. The following was taken from:

https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/ritual-human-sacrifice/

Ritual Human Sacrifice in the Bible

(Why does God want me to burn animals and humans?)

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice.  God, we are told, likes the pleasing aroma of burning flesh.  Animal sacrifice is much more common than human sacrifice, but both occur and are “pleasing to the Lord”.

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God.  “Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah.  Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18)  Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him.  He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar.  Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat.  He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith.  However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.

Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do.  If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone’s prison-bitch.  It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God’s love.  There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.

The first seven chapters of Leviticus have extensive rules regarding animal and food sacrifices.  These offerings are supposed to be burnt so that God can smell them.  If you read through these it seems clear to me that the priests were getting their followers to make a big feast for them every week.  The priests were very particular about what kind of food to bring and how to prepare it.

Even more peculiar is God’s obsession with first-born sons.  In Exodus 13:2 the Lord said “Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me.” Later it says that you can redeem (replace) an ass with a sheep and that you must redeem a child for an unspecified price.  It is clear from the context that “consecrate” means a burning sacrifice.  These priests are guilty of theft and kidnapping.  Since any sins in the Old Testament were punishable by death, these priests used the threat of death to extort food and money from their followers.  What do we call a scum-bag that threatens to kill your kids unless you pay a ransom?  A kidnapper!  If these priests were alive today they would be in prison with Abraham.

However, in Leviticus 27:28-29, the Lord allows for no redemptions.  “Note also that any one of his possessions which a man vows as doomed to the Lord, whether it is a human being or an animal, or a hereditary field, shall be neither sold nor ransomed; everything that is thus doomed becomes most sacred to the Lord.  All human beings that are doomed lose the right to be redeemed; they must be put to death.” I must admit that I am a bit confused by this contradiction, but it might only apply to slaves in your possession.  Not that it makes any difference.  A human sacrifice is a human sacrifice, and it is just sick.

Bible Passages About Ritual Human Sacrifice

Jephthah Burns His Daughter

“At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites.  And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, “If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph.  I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

“So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory.  He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites.  When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy.  When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish.  “My daughter!” he cried out.  “My heart is breaking!  What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back.”  And she said, “Father, you have made a promise to the LORD.  You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites.  But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin.”  “You may go,” Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months.  She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children.  When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah’s daughter.”   (Judges 11:29-40 NLT)

God Commands Burning Humans

[The Lord speaking] “The one who has stolen what was set apart for destruction will himself be burned with fire, along with everything he has, for he has broken the covenant of the LORD and has done a horrible thing in Israel.” (Joshua 7:15 NLT)

Josiah and Human Sacrifice

At the LORD’s command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, and he arrived there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to offer a sacrifice.  Then at the LORD’s command, he shouted, “O altar, altar!  This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David.  On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you.“ (1 Kings 13:1-2 NLT)

He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them. Finally, he returned to Jerusalem.  King Josiah then issued this order to all the people: “You must celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in the Book of the Covenant.”  There had not been a Passover celebration like that since the time when the judges ruled in Israel, throughout all the years of the kings of Israel and Judah.  This Passover was celebrated to the LORD in Jerusalem during the eighteenth year of King Josiah’s reign.  Josiah also exterminated the mediums and psychics, the household gods, and every other kind of idol worship, both in Jerusalem and throughout the land of Judah.  He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the LORD’s Temple.  Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses.  And there has never been a king like him since. (2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT)

Human Sacrifice

Chastised a little, they shall be greatly blessed, because God tried them and found them worthy of himself.  As gold in the furnace, he proved them, and as sacrificial offerings he took them to himself. In the time of their visitation they shall shine, and shall dart about as sparks through stubble; (Wisdom 3:5-7 NAB The Book of The Wisdom of Solomon is mostly in Catholic versions of the Bible.)

Child Sacrifice

And this became a hidden trap for mankind, because men, in bondage to misfortune or to royal authority, bestowed on objects of stone or wood the name that ought not to be shared.  Afterward it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but they live in great strife due to ignorance, and they call such great evils peace.  For whether they kill children in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries, or hold frenzied revels with strange customs… (Wisdom 14:21-23 RSV)  The Book of The Wisdom of Solomon is mostly in Catholic versions of the Bible.  This passage condemns human sacrifice but acknowledges that it did happen by early God worshipers.

Humans are Fuel for Fire

As for you, son of man, prophesy: Thus says the Lord GOD against the Ammonites and their insults: A sword, a sword is drawn for slaughter, burnished to consume and to flash lightning, because you planned with false visions and lying divinations to lay it on the necks of depraved and wicked men whose day has come when their crimes are at an end.  Return it to its sheath!  In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you.  I will pour out my indignation upon you, breathing my fiery wrath upon you, I will hand you over to ravaging men, artisans of destruction.  You shall be fuel for the fire, your blood shall flow throughout the land. You shall not be remembered, for I, the LORD, have spoken. (Ezekiel 21:33-37 NAB)

Burn Nonbelievers

“Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.  Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.  “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

So the next time some Christian tells you about the “love of God”, show them this page and ask them “Why does God want me to burn animals and humans?”

A bible condoned by an actual god would forbid the burning of human and animal flesh. This seems obvious. The Bible thus exposes its human origin though the promotion of this repugnant ritual.

(4929) Humans are mechanical machines

Christian theology assumes that human beings are of a different nature than other life forms and inanimate things, but a focused scientific view sees something different- that at atomic levels, humans and other animals and non-animalian life forms, as well as everything else, has a fundamental similarity- we are all composed of lifeless atoms and molecules, all of which are precisely similar wherever they exist. The following is an excerpt from Eric Hoffer’s book, Reflections on the Human Condition:

As scientific advancements unveil the mysteries of the universe, it becomes increasingly evident that everything appears to operate mechanistically. Atoms, molecules, stars, planets, cells, and biological systems are fundamentally mechanical. If the existence of a supernatural, invisible soul within my body is negated, then it is undeniable that I too am a machine. Complex machines, including self-programming ones, remain machines nonetheless.

Some individuals may contend that life forms are fundamentally distinct from inanimate objects, despite both being composed of atoms and molecules. However, a closer examination reveals that this distinction is tenuous.

Vegetable matter, such as plants, is commonly regarded as alive, while mineral matter, such as rocks, is not. Yet, both vegetables and minerals are acknowledged as matter, composed of atoms and molecules. Since all atoms and molecules are in perpetual motion, both a stationary stone in a field and a flourishing corn crop nearby are constantly in motion. Additionally, the transformation of matter from one form to another is a continuous process in nature. While some types of matter undergo slow changes over millennia, others undergo rapid changes. The mechanistic nature of both mineral and vegetable matter is undeniable.

Animals, too, are composed of matter. The atoms and molecules that comprise an animal’s mind and body operate mechanistically. Animal bodies are subject to damage caused by accidents, diseases, or old age, which can impair their proper functioning. Animals can be viewed as complex machines susceptible to various factors that can disrupt their normal operations.

Even animals with complex brains, which not all animals possess, are vulnerable to brain damage caused by natural and unnatural events. Animals with brain damage exhibit behavioral changes compared to undamaged animals. Notably, the brains of even the most advanced animals on the planet, humans, are composed of atoms and molecules. The term “brain matter” is used precisely because the brain is composed of matter.

Denying the truth does not alter reality. We are an integral part of a mechanistic universe and, like the rest of the universe, we are also machines. While the notion of machines inhabited by invisible, supernatural souls may offer comfort, there is no empirical evidence to support such a belief.

Remarkably, our brains have evolved consciousness and the ability to contemplate our own existence. The reasons behind this enhancement in our species remain elusive, but the unraveling of this mystery is likely imminent.

Recent research conducted by Oxford University researchers has identified a distinct region of the human brain that appears unique compared to the brains of our closest relatives. This region, known as the ventrolateral frontal cortex, is involved in various cognitive and linguistic processes, and is present only in humans and other primates. Furthermore, specific parts of this region have been implicated in psychiatric conditions such as ADHD, drug addiction, and compulsive behavior disorders. Damage to other parts of this region, through stroke or neurodegenerative diseases, can affect language abilities.

The lead author of the study, Franz-Xaver Neubert of Oxford University, emphasizes that this area in the human frontal cortex lacks an equivalent in monkeys. This region is associated with strategic planning, decision-making, and multitasking abilities.

Therefore, our uniquely human abilities and behavioral tendencies do not seem to originate from external entities such as spirits, devils, or gods, nor from an invisible soul within us. Rather, they originate from a small section of our brains.

Comprehending that we operate as machines does not significantly alter our way of life. Plants, other animals, and minerals are unaware of their mechanistic behavior, yet they exist and function effectively without any specific frustrations or profound existential concerns.

Unlike any other species on Earth, humans possess the capacity to contemplate and experience the universe in a unique manner. Instead of engaging in self-congratulation for our achievements or seeking solace in primitive myths, legends, and religions, we should strive to further our understanding of reality and maximize our experience of it.

Biological science has frustrated the Christian concept of humans being fundamentally different from other animals and even inanimate objects. Everything works on a mechanistic level without the need to postulate anything supernatural.

(4930) Jesus’ miracles cannot be true

Other than the fact that everyday life emphatically rebuts the idea of miracles happening, the scriptures themselves supply evidence that Jesus, assuming he existed, never performed one himself. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1fepo8a/a_solid_and_reasonable_argument_against_the/

I say with reasonable confidence that the miracles attributed to Jesus and witnessed by the 12 Apostles could not have occurred, and therefore, the stories of those miracles, as told in the Bible, cannot be true.

Over the course of three years, it’s said that Jesus performed numerous miracles; acts that defied our understanding of nature and reality. These include bringing the dead back to life, walking on water, feeding thousands with almost no food, turning water into wine, and many others. More than 37 of them.

It is also said that the 12 apostles were with Jesus for most of this time and witnessed these miracles. These 12 are said to have seen incredible feats that no one else had ever performed. Imagine the conversations they must have had with Jesus after witnessing the miracles. The private discussions, the revelations, the hope, and, most importantly, the repeated confirmation of his power. Imagine being in the position of any one of them. Walking daily beside what you now should know to be God itself, the commander of existence. It would be like having Superman by your side. Even better than Superman. Jesus would be the living proof that there is more to this life, that there is an afterlife, and he is the key.

Nothing could hurt you anymore. Nothing could scare you. There is nothing that anyone could do to you that would make you buckle. Lose an arm? Don’t worry, Jesus has you. Get stabbed? Don’t worry. Jesus. Get killed? All good. It’s like if a newbie in World of Warcraft teamed up with a God-mode player in the game. Nothing could ever be a drama. Nothing.

And yet, three years later, they all abandoned him. Peter denied Him, Judas betrayed Him, and the rest cowered away. I would argue that this is practically impossible if those three years of miracles actually happened as described. The excuse of human weakness or fallibility does not hold here either. More so, all 12 of them? Not one of them had a brain that harboured the memories of the definitively miraculous feats? Memories to defend Jesus when he was taken away? Not one? This is where the house of cards falls to the ground with the slightest of breaths.

Furthermore, Jesus dying on the cross and raising from the dead should’ve been commonplace to the Apostles by then. It couldn’t have been the thing that clicks them over into suddenly believing. If anything, it’s not even as good of a miracle because Jesus could’ve been unconscious, or it could’ve been a body double or some other plausible explanation. They weren’t even there, expect for John at the cross, and yet, this is the thing that convinces them?! I say, we are now in the realm of complete unreasonableness and absurdity.

Therefore, the stories of the miracles of Jesus, supposedly witnessed by the 12 apostles, cannot be true.

Is it possible for Christianity to be true if the accounts of miracles in the gospels are not? This would be a tough admission for a Christian apologist to make. If the books were mythologized with fake miracle stories, then it brings into question the entirety of what they document.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), the third United States president, made a stab at this by re-writing the gospels absent the miracles (Jefferson Bible, circa 1813). Although he might have found the resultant diminished product to be of value, very few Christians of today would agree. For the most part, Christianity depends on the veracity of the gospel miracle stories, while at the same time facing the headwinds of a present-day reality that seems completely devoid of them.

(4931) No historical certainty of Jesus’ trial

There is no historical certainty of what happened during the trial of Jesus (assuming that it happened at all). The following is a quote from Bart Ehrman’s book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pg. 222:

“Again we are in no position to say what exactly happened at Jesus’ trial before Pilate. His followers who later told stories about it were not there, and the principal participants, Pilate and the chief priests, would not have made themselves available later for interviews.”

The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1ff30m9/could_rome_have_actually_been_involved_in_the/

This fact implies that the scene at the trial is most likely Mark’s literary creation. Mark is probably following the ancient literary practice of inventing speeches when the writer didn’t have sources. Mark, whose purpose is to show that Jesus is the Messiah, has Jesus finally reveal his identity in this climactic moment in front of the high priest (Mark 14:62). The practice of inventing speeches was widely practiced by almost all of our ancient historians. It’s what makes Livy such a fun read! It’s explicitly mentioned by Thucydides in his “History of the Peloponnesian War”.

“My method in this book has been to make each speaker say broadly what I supposed would have been needed on any given occasion, while keeping as closely as I could to the overall intent of what was actually said.” 1:22

The most likely reason that Jesus was arrested was because, as captured in the Gospels (Mt 21:8-11,46, Mark 11:15-18,) he riled up the crowds with his preaching. This made the temple authorities worry that he might lead a rebellion, and so they arrested and handed him to the Romans. After all, it was their job to keep the peace by Roman decree. Pilate, known from Josephus and Philo for being a brute, had him crucified. Fredricksen makes this argument in “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”.

Recall that John the Baptist was arrested and killed for the same reason, he attracted large crowds (Josephus, “Antiquities of the Jews”, 18:118).

And as Paula Fredricksen aptly notes:

“No ruler in antiquity looked kindly on unsanctioned mass gatherings of their subjects: Given the steep social- and power-pyramid of ancient society, such gatherings could easily seem—and perhaps become—threats to those in power.” (“Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”, 219).

It is certain that the trial of Jesus was mythologized after the fact by authors who were not eyewitnesses and who likely had no access to anyone who was there. It would be extremely unlikely that anyone actually witnessed this trial (it would not have been open to the public) and then survived long enough (about 40 years) to inform the author of Mark what they remembered. This renders the gospel accounts of the trial firmly in the genre of pure fiction.

Secular historians conjecture that both John the Baptist and Jesus were executed for the fact that they were seen as being insurrectionists who threatened the Roman rule of Palestine.

(4932) Religious fundamentalism and brain lesions

A recent study found a correlation between religious fundamentalism and the presence of brain lesions. This implies the very real possibility that many of the most religious figures in history were afflicted with such lesions. The following abstract was taken from:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.12.22.572527v1.full.pdf

Religious fundamentalism, characterized by rigid adherence to a set of beliefs putatively revealing inerrant truths, is ubiquitous across cultures and has a global impact on society. Understanding the psychological and neurobiological processes producing religious fundamentalism may inform a variety of scientific, sociological, and cultural questions. Research indicates that brain damage can alter religious fundamentalism. However, the precise brain regions involved with these changes remain unknown. Here, we analyzed brain lesions associated with varying levels of religious fundamentalism in two large datasets from independent laboratories.

Lesions associated with greater fundamentalism were connected to a specific brain network with nodes in the right orbitofrontal, dorsolateral prefrontal, and inferior parietal lobes. This fundamentalism network was strongly right hemisphere lateralized and highly reproducible across the independent datasets (r = 0.82) with cross-validations between datasets. To explore the relationship of this network to lesions previously studied by our group, we tested for similarities to twenty-one lesion-induced conditions. Lesions associated with confabulation and criminal behavior showed a similar connectivity pattern as lesions associated with greater fundamentalism. Moreover, lesions associated with poststroke pain showed a similar connectivity pattern as lesions associated with lower fundamentalism. These findings are consistent with hemispheric specializations in reasoning and lend insight into previously observed epidemiological associations with fundamentalism, such as cognitive rigidity and outgroup hostility.

This can lead to speculation that Jesus and John the Baptist were afflicted with these types of brain lesions, causing them to be hyper-religious and to discard all other elements of life for their imagined divine mission. It also explains why some atheists suddenly and for no apparent reason become religious. This fact seems to suggest that what a person believes is not in his or her complete control.

(4933) The relativity of faith

Given the great diversity of belief, it should be acknowledged that religion is not an objective search for truth, but rather a construct of human design to make sense of the unknown. Dogmas were invented not as a consequence of evaluating actual evidence, but rather as an effort to assuage fear and loneliness, or else, more nefariously, to control other humans. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1fgsc71/the_relativity_of_faith_unpacking_the_social/

When we talk about religion, we often think of it as a universal truth, something that’s objective and absolute. But let’s be real, religion is a product of human ingenuity, a social construct that we’ve created to make sense of the world and our place in it.

Think about it – there are over 4,000 recognized religions worldwide, each claiming to have the one true spiritual truth. It’s hard to reconcile that with the idea of a single, objective reality. The diversity of religious beliefs is a clear indication that religion is shaped by cultural, historical, and social contexts.

The thing is, religious beliefs are subjective. There’s no empirical evidence to support the existence of a deity that intervenes in our natural world, which raises some serious doubts about the validity of religious claims. As Immanuel Kant so aptly put it, the idea of God isn’t rejected, but rather the notion that we can know God with certainty.

Also religion has a dark side. Throughout history, wars, atrocities, and violence have been committed in the name of religion, often under the guise of righteous certainty. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Spanish Conquest, and modern-day terrorist organizations all demonstrate the destructive potential of religious extremism. When we believe that our beliefs are the only truth, and that others are inherently wrong, it’s a recipe for disaster.

And then there’s the harm that religion has inflicted on marginalized communities. For centuries, women have been subjugated and silenced, their bodies and reproductive rights controlled by patriarchal religious institutions. The LGBTQ community has been demonized, ostracized, and persecuted, their very existence deemed an abomination by many religious texts. Indigenous communities have been colonized, their cultures and beliefs erased, and their lands stolen in the name of missionary work. People of color have been enslaved, segregated, and brutalized, their humanity denied and devalued.

It’s time we recognize that religion is a tool created by humans to organize ourselves and find meaning, rather than an end in itself. By acknowledging its social construct, we can separate the beneficial aspects of religion from the dogmatic trappings that often lead to conflict and oppression.

Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Rousseau understood the importance of separating church and state, promoting reason and critical thinking, and fostering a culture of tolerance and acceptance. They recognized that true freedom and progress could only be achieved by liberating humanity from the shackles of dogmatic thinking.

What we need is a more nuanced understanding of religion, one that acknowledges its social construct, subjective nature, and capacity for both good and ill. By doing so, we can work towards creating a more inclusive and just society, where faith is not a source of division, but a catalyst for unity, tolerance, and understanding.

As Albert Einstein so eloquently put it, “The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity.”

Ultimately, it’s our responsibility to recognize the role that religion has played in perpetuating inequality and to work towards a more inclusive, compassionate, and just society – one that honors the diversity of human experience and promotes the dignity of all individuals.

Religion would not be so dangerous if believers were disposed of their dogmatic insistence that their beliefs are superior to all others. But the human brain is limited in its ability to see beyond its infancy inculcation and view with an open mind the entire tapestry of religious belief. Because of this limitation, religion has spewed hate, division, prejudice, and war- and consequently, on balance, it creates more evil than good.

(4934) The problem of experience

Many religious people place substantial credence in support of their beliefs by crediting their personal experience or feelings. An objective analysis of this method of acquiring truth renders it completely impotent. The following was taken from:

https://new.exchristian.net/2024/03/the-problem-of-experience.html

Some religious folks will say their belief is due to them feeling the presence or actions of their particular God in their lives. The immediate problem raised by this claim is that it is universal across competing religions. Christians will say Mormon’s are following false teachings, and yet Mormon’s have experiences that they attribute to God as well. Muslims, Hindus and Jews all have similar experiences, but each religion believes the others are incorrect. Of course, any such experience is something that only the claimant can experience, and as their experience is not repeatable or testable, it is valueless as evidence for their claim.

It can certainly be a powerful motivator of belief, with many people putting personal experiences as the foremost reason they believe. Many, such as William Lane Craig, will say it is more important than any other evidence, and if the bible was shown to be completely wrong, they would still believe based on the witness of the holy spirit alone. This position is unfalsifiable and very close minded, with more plausible explanations such as hallucinations being dismissed in favour of confirmation bias to the already held beliefs.

Everyone wants to believe they experience the world as it truly is, but hallucinations are common and for those experiencing them they can be impossible to differentiate between them and reality. One schizophrenic interviewed said he managed to have a half hour conversation with a person who wasn’t there. It wasn’t until he attempted to take their photo that he realized they didn’t appear on his screen. He could describe them in detail, their clothing and mannerisms, and could write out the entire dialogue that he’d just had with this non-existent person. Such a person with religious ideas may well have labeled that person as a demon or angel, giving them a supernatural cause in order to avoid admitting they were mistaken.

But it doesn’t have to be a severe mental illness like that, we can all have visual or audio hallucinations from fairly simple causes. Dehydration, running a fever, drugs, alcohol, parasites, heat stroke, head trauma etc. Even just looking at a magician doing sleight of hand, or a visual illusion, we can be fooled into believing that what we saw was other than what was real. When we consider the natural possibilities, the limitations of our senses and our easily fooled brains, to jump to the conclusion that any experience we have had is from God skips the simpler answers.

How we experience the world is based on how our brains interpret the information our senses are presenting it. This unfortunately leaves us at the mercy of both our limited senses (compared to other animals we have only average sight, hearing or smell) and our often-faulty minds. There are phycological effects such as our natural pattern seeking minds and pareidolia (our ability to see faces in inanimate objects) which leave our claims doubtful from the start. Pareidolia in particular has a long history of people putting forward silly things as holy items. Seeing the face of God in burnt toast, in an oil stain on a window or in baked goods. We often experience this ourselves when we look at cloud formations, saying that one looks like a bunny or a face, but while such things are usually laughed off as just an amusing random occurrence, when it appears to resemble a preconceived idea of a religious figure the same random occurrence is given significance to the person.

If you have a preexisting idea that Jesus is a bearded man in a long white robe (as per the popular image in classic artwork, although the blue-eyed, blonde-haired version is most definitely wrong) and you see an image that matches that idea, then your mind will link the two. Of course, a person who didn’t have that image in mind could well think a bearded man is Mohammad, Santa or the singer from ZZ Top. The significance is subjective and taught in advance.

It is often asked “What would convince you?”, with some saying “I don’t know, but God would” or others saying “nothing”. For those in the nothing camp, this is quite justifiable due to the above limitations. If you admit that the most likely cause of seeing a supernatural being is that your mind is faulty in some way, then you should never get to the conclusion that what you saw was real. The only way to be convinced of an experience would therefore be for it to be shared with a group of people. At least when a dozen people experience the same event, they can compare their experiences and see that it was at least occurring in the real world. Depending on the event, it could still be hard to jump to a conclusion about what it means (is a floating glowing person Jesus, an angel, a demon, an alien or something else?), and even if the event includes something spoken to you, you will still need to confirm what is said is true. A being claiming to be God could be a demon in disguise, so even direct visual and audio confirmation that something is there, is no guarantee that it is what it claims.

Any god intent on ‘playing fairly’ with humans and their alleged eternal destiny would not require them to use feelings and personal experiences as the basis of their beliefs, but would provide a good measure of objective, verifiable information concerning his (1) existence and (2) criteria for acquiring a positive post-life outcome. The reliance on non-objective information suggests that all religions are false.

(4935) Paul and Issa

The Apostle Paul stated that he made a trip to Arabia immediately following his conversion. This was a strange journey considering that Jesus’ apostles were allegedly living in Jerusalem. In Arabia, he likely came into to contact with scriptures describing an earlier prophet, Issa, who had many parallels to the tradition of Jesus. The following was taken from:

https://graham-pemberton.medium.com/the-mystery-of-the-apostle-paul-and-what-was-he-reading-fd469892e183

Let’s now focus on Paul. He says that, immediately following his conversion, he went to Arabia without conferring with any human being (Galatians 1.17). (This raises serious doubts about the road-to-Damascus version of events in Acts chapter 9, especially verse 10 onwards. That’s a can of worms I won’t go into here.) This is extremely significant, because he goes to Arabia even though he was aware that the apostles who knew Jesus personally were based in Jerusalem. He does not say why he should go there, but from the context it must surely have been to learn about the new religion to which he had been converted. How he knew he should go there is not explained.

The information he needed about Jesus and his movement was therefore to be found in Arabia rather than Jerusalem. This means that there must have been some kind of outpost of the Israelite/Samaritan/Nazarene tradition there. It is quite possible, even likely, that he was shown there written texts (scriptures) from the tradition to which Jesus belonged that have now been lost. These might be the scriptures that he referred to in the quotes mentioned at the start of this article. Is there any evidence to support that suggestion?

Paul in one epistle (2 Timothy 4:13), expecting his imminent imprisonment and execution, asks Timothy to bring to him “the books, and above all the parchments”. That might be a reference to such scriptures. (I do know that Paul’s authorship of this epistle is contested. Whoever the author is, he may have this knowledge, so that this mention of books and obviously important parchments remains significant.)

One hypothesis is that in Arabia Paul must have discovered that an earlier prophet by the name of Issa had lived there a long time previously. That name looks nothing like Jesus to us, but apparently both names can be rendered as Iesous for ‘Jesus’ in Greek transliteration. (Modern Qu’ran translations actually call this figure Jesus.) It is believed that there was a gospel of this Issa written in Aramaic but now lost. Since some of its content seems to have found its way into the canonical gospels, it is a reasonable assumption that this is a text that Paul was introduced to in Arabia. Some of its contents appear also in the Qu’ran, where this Issa has some remarkable similarities to the story of Jesus:

• • He was the son of a virgin Mary, and by implication her only child (19:16–34 and 3:42–53)
  • He was born pure (19.19), and (like Adam) was not the product of human procreation (3.59)
  • He was a man of God to whom a special ‘book’ was divinely delivered (19.30)
  • He was endowed with the Holy Spirit, depending upon which translation you read (2.87 and 5.110)
  • He was (or was called) the Christ (or Messiah Arabic al-Masih) (3.45, also 4.157, 171, 172, and 5.17, 72, 75, and 9.31)
  • He worked miracles, and could bring the dead back to life (3.49ff)
  • God made Issa ascend to him (4.158, also 3.55)
  • He was to be brought to life again (19.33), to bear witness against unbelievers on the day of the Resurrection (4.159).

Luke is believed to have been a close associate of Paul. It is therefore likely that he would have had access to any literature in Paul’s possession, including this lost gospel. (It is likely that John also had access to a copy, but that isn’t a topic I’ll go into here.) Luke certainly had access to some sources unknown to the other gospel writers, for example the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. The most obvious example, however, is his lengthy prologue about the births and their foretelling of John the Baptist and Jesus. Where did he get this from?

Let’s note that his story concerning the virgin pregnancy of Mary and the birth of Jesus is identical with the one which the Qu’ran relates concerning Issa in a number of essential respects. The same is true of the story in the Qu’ran of the miraculous birth of the prophet Yahya to the aged priest Zechariah and his old and barren wife.

John the Baptist is a significant figure in all four gospels. However, only Luke says that John is the son of a priest called Zechariah (not to be confused with the prophet whose book appears in the Old Testament). The Qu’ran, also assumed to be depending on the now lost Gospel of Issa as a source, speaks of Zechariah as the father of the prophet Yahya, who was an older contemporary of the prophet Issa. Luke presents the same Zechariah as the father of John the Baptist — an older contemporary of Jesus (“In the days of King Herod of Judea”, 1.5). Why he should do this is something of a mystery, since Zechariah lived several centuries earlier, although one possibility is that he was trying to cover up what he was doing, disguising his source, the existence of which was supposed to be a secret. However, his mention of Zechariah suggests that he was taking his information directly from the now lost Gospel of Issa.

Circumstantial but persuasive evidence in support of this argument is that Luke begins his gospel in fluent Greek. Then quite suddenly the fluency ends and a more fumbling style begins as Luke starts to relate his Christmas story, which continues to the end of the Christmas narrative when the fluency of the introduction is resumed. Judging solely by the change of style, some scholars have suggested that the Christmas story in Luke must be a translation from a written source which was probably in Aramaic. From both angles of content and style, it therefore seems likely that Luke was indeed using the Aramaic Gospel of Issa as a source, a copy of which he presumably obtained from Paul. For some reason, as just noted and unlike Paul and John, he chose to use the material relating to the birth of Issa to portray the birth of Jesus, and the material related to the earlier prophet Yahya to portray the birth of John the Baptist.

There is therefore no reason to believe that Jesus’s mother was called Mary, since that was the name of Issa’s mother. That is a suggestion that will shock Christians, so let’s investigate that in more detail. Matthew, Mark and Luke do call her Mary. Paul, however, seems not to know the name of Jesus’s mother — in Galatians 4.4 he says that Jesus was “born of a woman” — which seems strange. Surely he must have known.

Most significantly, John seems to make a point of leaving her unnamed. This is especially noticeable at 6.42 where Joseph is named as the father but the mother remains unnamed. Also interesting is the wedding at Cana in chapter 2, where four times John merely says the “mother of Jesus” .

Most relevant to the argument, in chapter 19 (verses 25 and 26), he speaks of her as attending her son’s crucifixion accompanied by a sister called Mary, identified as Mary the wife of Clopas. I understand that, according to the customs of the time, the mother of Jesus could not have been called Mary if she really did have a sister by the same name. Some Christian commentators are aware of this, because they have tried to avoid the problem by claiming, without any supporting evidence, that they could not really have been sisters. (In the same way the Catholic Church tries to pretend that Jesus did not have any actual brothers and sisters, even though this is clearly stated in the gospels, because they have decided for reasons of their own, with no evidence whatsoever, that Mary was a perpetual virgin).

The mother of Issa, however, according to the Qu’ran is called Mary; this is repeated in various places. Therefore, if as John’s gospel suggests, Mary was not the name of Jesus’s mother, this would be strong evidence that the lost gospel of Issa was indeed the source for Mark, Matthew, and Luke. It is highly likely for Luke, since he almost certainly had access to a copy, and the other two may merely have been repeating a tradition without actual knowledge, thus second hand. It has, however, been argued that Matthew also had the Gospel of Issa, but in a Greek translation — in some places the same material is described with different words. Matthew perhaps did not know Aramaic, but Luke and John did.

The roundabout way that Paul conducted his travels and formulated his writings is indicative of Christianity’s manufactured theological foundation. If Christianity was true, there would not be a ‘Paul.’ Rather, Jesus, being God, would have supernaturally left behind his own gospel, and any amplification of this would have been writings verified to have been authored by his direct disciples. Having Paul take such a prominent role in the development of Christian theology is a red herring.

(4936) Apologist claims support atheism

In their attempt to demonstrate the veracity of Christianity, apologists unknowingly demonstrate the opposite. An argument without substance is an argument for the opposite of what you are arguing for. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1fj7nja/christian_apologism_is_a_net_benefit_to_atheism/

Definitions

Christian Apologism is the practice of defending Christian doctrines through reasoned arguments and evidence.

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities or the rejection of religious claims

Some common issues in Apologetic arguments are logical flaws, and misleading information.

Examples:

1. 1. William Lane Craig’s defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This argument, even if we accept the premise is true, does not make an argument for God. This assertion is glued onto the argument. At best if the premise is accepted, there’s a first cause. You don’t get from there to God without creating a valid and sound argument for your specific God. It would be misleading to assume that conclusion without demonstrating it. The KCA is trying to establish a first cause, not a specific deity with attributes. (Edited out the premise because it was apparently a stumbling block)
   2. Objective morality arguments are misleading because they try to claim there is an objective morality yet use a book that has to be interpreted subjectively and leads to wildly divergent opinions on moral and ethical behavior such as gender roles, polygamy, slavery, genocide, etc. Not everyone claims that objective morality is without interpretative challenges, but it is something that needs to be demonstrated (that there is such a thing as objective morality) before it can be asserted. Even if a person’s morality framework is flawed, it doesn’t demonstrate O.M. is true.
   3. Shifting the burden of proof doesn’t work well because the religious texts are claims. For example, there is evidence there were vast swathes of apocrypha and gospels1, over forty of which were available to the church when they decided on four “authentic” or canonical ones. Which means about a 90% forgery rate. Almost half of Paul’s letters are inauthentic. The methodology used by the church like choosing four gospels to reflect the principal winds, four zones of the world, four aspects, etc. is not sound methodology. It is an uphill battle to convince anyone that anything coming from the Church tradition or records are trustworthy. Stephen Law argues for the Contamination Principle2 which states

“Where testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good independent evidence of their truth.”

Myself, nor anyone else needs to merely accept the claims that the church or apologists make, even if an expert or two supports your conclusion. The argument that the expert makes needs to be scrutinized, and can be misleading. In the case of Paul, historians point to around the 50’s CE for his authentic letters, yet when we look deeper, the same methods to determine when other new testament texts enter the historical record tend not to be applied here. (When church fathers start quoting gospels for example, it indicates that the gospels were in circulation. When Paul starts getting quoted, it is mid to late 2nd century.)

4. Hypocrisy with apologists is probably the best example for creating an atheist. Nothing is off limits, including attempts to include solipsism to question the foundation of reality to somehow insert a God in there as a reasonable belief. (Both the theist and atheist operate in the natural world and deal with reality, questioning the foundation of what is real, like saying we are possibly in the matrix removes the foundation for a god and creation of reality as well, so it’s inherently a dishonest position to hold). Sub examples are things like:

a. Trying to appeal to science without believing what science says about religion and supernatural events

b. Appealing to historical records without accepting what historians say about the religion and historical events

c. Appealing to logic and not recognizing or admitting logical flaws or fallacies

d. Appealing to experts to confirm bias, ignoring experts when they disagree

5. Refusal to answer simple questions. It becomes apparent during debates that when questions are dodged or avoided or theology gets whipped out, that the apologist doesn’t have a good answer. It’s painfully obvious when it happens. Especially when the apologist reverts to genetic fallacies or personal attacks. It is fine to simply admit not knowing a subject.

The conclusion that I have come to is that apologist behavior and arguments are a net benefit to atheism because when these glaring problems become apparent to outside observers and they want to find out information for themselves, it is demonstrated again and again that the apologist is wrong. Obfuscation with flowery words and complicated philosophy do not handle the stress test, and the low epistemological standards become self-evident. I discovered this myself when I was defending the faith and when these problems were pointed out, I had to dig into the issues I found to try to come up with counter-arguments and if I was being honest with myself, if I wanted to convince someone with high epistemological standards, I had to increase my own.

If Christianity was true, then apologists would be making solid arguments, or, more likely, there wouldn’t be a need for apologists because the truth of Christianity would be self-evident.

(4937) Certainty about death

It is fashionable for agnostics and atheists to admit that they are not completely sure what happens when we die, leaving a hint of possibility that we go on in some fashion. It’s often stated like this:

Sure, it does seem that each of our experiences as conscious creatures ends, but logically speaking, we cannot make that assertion because there’s currently no way for us to investigate it, as far as I’m aware. So to claim that it all ends after we die is unfounded.

The following addresses this statement and was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1fhzs05/annihilationists_has_a_fair_case_to_be_made/

This isn’t really logical, at least from a practical epistemological level.

We have proven over and over again that consciousness and what makes a person a person is physical. 100% of the available evidence and experimental data confirms this is the case and no decent evidence exists to show anything beyond the physical even exists. So while we have no specific confirmation of what happens when the physical dies, we have lots of reasons to assume we already know because it’s how everything else has been observed to work.

It’s only “unfounded” to say we don’t know what happens when we die in the sense that it’s “unfounded” to say unicorns don’t exist. I’m 99% sure we stop existing when we die and that unicorns never existed—can I ever be 100% sure? No. But I can’t be 100% sure of anything so that’s a bit of an unfair bar of truth when we’re being practical.

We are certain that we have no conscious experience during deep sleep, even though our brains are still fully intact. So to think that we somehow exist after our brains have died is a major stretch of incredulity. It should be obvious that the afterlife is a fantasy created by people who were afraid of death.

(4938) Monolatry to Monotheism

A transition occurred in Judeo-Christian theology from a belief in monolatry (the worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods) to monotheism (the worship of one god along with the denial of the existence of other gods). The following was taken from Michael Hundley’s book Yahweh among the Gods: The Divine in Genesis, Exodus, and the Ancient Near East (p.322+):

The momentum of monolatry likely caused another reshuffling of the cosmic deck toward the end of the Hebrew Bible and into early Judaism and Christianity. The disparate minor god category was given a name – angels (literally “messengers”) – even though most of its members were not actually messengers. In effect, rather than being several collective constellations (e.g., angels, cherubim, and sons of god) with some individual members (i.e., the Destroyer), the minor god category became a single collective constellation of sub divine beings called angels. As a result, Yahweh became the only ’ĕloˉ hîm for Jews and Christians alike. Monotheism, though, awaited one further consolidation.

Since they no longer posed a threat to Yahweh, angels began to gain individuality, leading to the explosion of interest in the angelic (and demonic) worlds in late Second Temple times. In its last stages the Hebrew Bible documents the beginning of the trend ascribing names to the angels Gabriel (Dan. 8:16; 9:21; cf. Luke 1:19, 26) and Michael (Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1; cf. Jude 1:9; Rev 12:7). Interestingly, even with names and identities, their subordinate status remains embedded in their names, which end in ’eˉl, now thoroughly associated with Yahweh. With the predominance of angels in Genesis and Exodus, the non-P texts seem to represent an intermediate stage between a deity-rich world and one populated by Yahweh and his angels.

If Yahweh is the one and only god of the universe, then monolatry would never have been practiced, at least among the ‘chosen people.’ Such a god would have ensured that his followers knew from the beginning that he was the only god. A shift in belief over time is indicative of a human-created theology.

(4939) Doubting Thomas story to promote church attendance

The author of the Gospel of John created a story about the apostle Thomas who doubted the resurrection after the other apostles had claimed to see Jesus. A week later, Jesus appeared again and he believed.

John 20:24-26a:

Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them…

The week gap is what is illuminating. It seems to suggest that Jesus’ resurrection can only be experienced in church on a Sunday. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1fktakg/questions_about_why_jesus_waits_around_for_thomas/

The message of the appearance of Jesus to Thomas is that, when the church gathers on the first day of the week, that is when they will experience the resurrection of Jesus. Thomas wasn’t there on the first Sunday, so it’s Thomas who has to wait for the church together on the next Sunday.

It has everything to do with the practice of the church when this gospel was written. They had started to gather on the first day of the week and the message is that you have to be there if you’re going to experience the power of the resurrection of Jesus.

Thus, this made-up story was an effort to get more people to attend Sunday worship services (which had become a regular practice by the time the Gospel of John was written, approximately CE 90), tacitly asserting that the resurrection of Jesus can be experienced only in church.

Otherwise, this story makes no sense, with the resurrected Jesus as well as Thomas traipsing about town for a full week before Thomas was able to see him?

(4940) Christianity was shaped by human interests

The history of Christianity has the earmarks of a twenty-century-long campaign to advance the interests of a select small group of humans. It has no semblance of what it would look like if it was being guided by the hand of a divine being. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1ffbbwk/the_history_christianity_was_shaped_by_human/

The major turning points in the history of Christianity, from the early Ecumenical Councils, to the Great Schism, the Crusades, the Protestant Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Spanish Inquisition, Colonialism and the Vatican councils, were not guided by divine intervention but rather by human politics, power dynamics, and economic interests.

One of the main factors driving Christian History has been the pursuit of power and influence. The early Ecumenical Councils, were assembled by Roman emperors to establish theological orthodoxy and cement their own orthodoxy especially after the Edict Of Millan where Christianity was legalized and established as the main religion of the Roman Empire during the reign of Constantine. The Great Schism of 1054 which divided Western and Eastern Christian churches, was similarly motivated by a struggle of dominance by the Bishop of Rome aka the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople in addition to the doctrinal differences like the Filioque clause.

The Crusades which is often romanticized as a holy war to retake the Holy Land from the Muslim occupiers were actually a brutal exercise in territorial expansion and resource extraction, with the Catholic Church providing ideological and religious cover for the military conquests of European Monarchs.

The Protestant Reformation which was started by Martin Luther in 1517 after posting his famous 95 theses to the doors of Wittenberg Cathedral in The Holy Roman Empire, is often portrayed as a heroic challenge to Catholic Dogma, was also deeply connected to the politics .The rebellion against Catholic authority was, in part, a reaction against the Church’s perceived corruption and abuse of power especially the infamous sales of indulgences, and was driven by interests of European Monarchs seeking to break free from the shackles of Rome’s control and take local Church lands for themselves. The The Counter-Reformation which was assembled during the Council Of Trent as a reaction to the popularity of the Protestant Reformation was a coordinated effort by The Catholic Church to reassert its power and counter the gains of Protestantism, often through violent and inhumane methods.

The Inquisition, which terrorized Europe especially Spain for many centuries, was a tool of political control, used to suppress dissent by proclaiming the dissenters’ beliefs as heretical and assert the authority of the Catholic Church. Spanish Colonialism, which brought Christianity to the Americas and Asia, was a project of economic exploitation of newly “discovered” foreign lands, with missionaries like The Dominicans, Franciscans and Jesuits serving as vanguards for Spanish Imperialism with the motivations of God, Gold and Glory in the expense of the indigenous populations of those lands.

The most recent Vatican Council which were Vatican I and II, which have shaped the Church’s beliefs and doctrine in the modern world, have been influenced by political and economic interests of the Church in the increasingly secular world especially the West.

It is pretty clear that the narrative the history of Christianity was a product of Divine providence or guidance is merely a myth that is perpetuated by the Church and its believers. Historical accounts and rationality suggests otherwise and that human interests dictated and shaped those events rather than the latter.

If Christianity was being guided by an omnipotent god, there would have been no Inquisition, no Crusades, and even no Great Schism. But if it was nothing more than the product of human minds, then all of these things makes perfect sense.

(4941) Quotes on God’s inefficiencies

Christians like to portray the god they worship as being infinitely wise, intelligent, and fair. But a simple argument can be made that this god, Yahweh, assuming such a deity exists, is a fumbling bumbler of a god who failed to deliver a clear message of his existence, intentions, and rules. The following are enlightening quotes:

Robert G. Ingersoll said:

Every [Christian] sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed His will to man. To each reader the Bible conveys a different meaning. About the meaning of this book, called a revelation, there have been ages of war and centuries of sword and flame. If written by an infinite God, He must have known that these results must follow; and thus knowing, He must be responsible for all.

Friedrich Nietzsche said:

A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intention—could that be a god of goodness? Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them, and who on the other hand holds out the prospect of frightful consequences if any mistake is made as to the nature of truth? . . . Did he perhaps lack intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence? Must he not then . . . be able to help and counsel [his creatures], except in the manner of a deaf man making all kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to befall on his child or dog?

Christians are left to defend a god who is enigmatic and obtuse, who offers nothing more than poorly-evidenced hints to humankind, and leaving most individuals in a position, through no fault of their own, bound for eternal punishment in hell.

(4942) God burns Aaron’s sons

The god of Christianity, Yahweh, saw fit to burn to death Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, because they conducted an unauthorized offering to him:

Leviticus 10: 1-7

Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. Moses then said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord spoke of when he said:

Among those who approach me
I will be proved holy;
in the sight of all the people
I will be honored.
Aaron remained silent.

Moses summoned Mishael and Elzaphan, sons of Aaron’s uncle Uzziel, and said to them, “Come here; carry your cousins outside the camp, away from the front of the sanctuary.” So they came and carried them, still in their tunics, outside the camp, as Moses ordered.

Then Moses said to Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, “Do not let your hair become unkempt and do not tear your clothes, or you will die and the Lord will be angry with the whole community. But your relatives, all the Israelites, may mourn for those the Lord has destroyed by fire. Do not leave the entrance to the tent of meeting or you will die, because the Lord’s anointing oil is on you.” So they did as Moses said.

Not only did God commit capital punishment on Aaron’s sons for a frivolous offense, but he also forbade Aaron to mourn his children on a penalty of death, even though he allowed everyone else to do so.

This is the same god that Christians worship. Go figure.

(4943) Christianity was used to save the empire

The following article makes the case that Christianity’s popularity largely came about because of the dilapidated state of the Roman Empire in the 4^th Century. At that time, Christianity was employed as a means to stem the fall of the empire, though this plan was ultimately unsuccessful. The following was taken from:

https://medium.com/@rove.monteux/the-truth-about-christianity-b17ddcd3d525

The Romans — those lads who built an empire so vast, they practically put IKEA out of business with all the maps they needed. By the time they got around to flirting with Christianity, the empire was more broken than a student on a Sunday morning.

It wasn’t so much about “saving” themselves; it was more like desperately duct-taping a sinking ship and hoping for a miracle.

The Roman Empire was in shambles: political chaos, economic collapse, barbarian invasions, plagues, and emperors being assassinated faster than you could say “Ave Caesar.” They needed something — anything — to unify a divided and fragmented society. Enter Christianity, stage left.

Israel, or Judea as it was called under Roman rule, wasn’t just an open-air madhouse; it was the VIP section of the madhouse where everyone had an opinion, a prophecy, and a Messiah complex. Throw in a few Roman legions and some temple politics, and you’ve got yourself a party. Christianity didn’t just pop out of thin air; it was born in a religious melting pot, stirred by a society rife with occupation, oppression, and endless debates over who God liked best. First-century Judea was crawling with religious sects, cults, and apocalyptic prophets, each claiming to have the secret sauce to salvation. Enter Jesus of Nazareth — a charismatic preacher, a carpenter by trade, and a man who seemed to think that dining with tax collectors and preaching peace was a solid marketing strategy. Jesus’ approach was a bit different. Instead of cozying up to the powerful or leading an armed revolt like some zealots, he talked about loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, and rich people having as much chance of entering the Kingdom of Heaven as a camel squeezing through the eye of a needle. This wasn’t just countercultural — it was downright subversive in a society that wanted a Messiah to kick some Roman butt, not tell them to love their oppressors.

Naturally, this got the attention of both the local Jewish authorities — who saw Jesus as a troublemaker shaking up their fragile status quo — and the Romans, who were already juggling enough revolts without some new preacher gathering crowds like a first-century rock star. So, after some back-and-forth between Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who couldn’t care less about local religious squabbles, and the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council, Jesus was crucified. Not exactly a surprising ending in Roman times — crucifixion was practically their go-to party trick for dealing with perceived troublemakers.

But then came the plot twist: the resurrection. Jesus’ followers claimed he rose from the dead, which turned a failed Messiah movement into something far more explosive. His disciples, originally a ragtag group of fishermen and tax collectors, suddenly found their calling as the PR team for this new religion. They took Jesus’ teachings and started spreading them across the Roman Empire, from the synagogues to the marketplaces, like spiritual door-to-door salesmen.

Paul the Apostle (formerly Saul of Tarsus), arguably the first great marketer in religious history, then stepped in. He took Christianity on a road trip through the Greco-Roman world, redefining it for Gentiles (non-Jews) and giving it a broader appeal beyond its Jewish roots. This guy took a religion born in the backwaters of the Empire and sold it to the cosmopolitan elite of Rome, Athens, and beyond like it was the latest philosophical upgrade.

And it grew from there, spreading through a combination of grassroots evangelism, political opportunism, and the kind of tenacity that comes when your movement starts with a resurrection story that refuses to die.

Christianity had a few things going for it. First, it was gaining popularity across all social classes, from slaves to aristocrats, like some ancient, viral TikTok trend. It offered a sense of community, moral order, and hope to people who were otherwise drowning in a sea of existential dread and collapsing infrastructure.

Second, Constantine the Great, ever the opportunist, saw the writing on the wall. He realised that a single, unified religion could potentially do what a bloated bureaucracy and legions of half-starved soldiers couldn’t: bind the empire together under a common ideology. He wasn’t exactly rolling out the red carpet for Jesus out of pure faith. No, he saw a political goldmine. By legalising Christianity with the Edict of Milan in 313 AD and later converting himself, he used it as a tool to strengthen his rule and, theoretically, the empire.

They turn to Christianity because the Romans were trying anything at that point — like a failing restaurant introducing vegan options to appeal to a new crowd. They thought if they could align the empire under one god and one emperor, they might just keep it from collapsing like a drunk on a cobblestone street. Spoiler alert: it didn’t work. The Western Roman Empire still went down like a lead balloon in 476 AD. But hey, at least they got a new religion out of the deal.

The Christian Fairy Tale

If you’re looking for a fairy tale, Christianity has got all the classic elements: a charismatic protagonist, a bit of magic, betrayal, and a resurrection twist that M. Night Shyamalan would envy. But calling it just a fairy tale would be like saying “War and Peace” is just a bit of light reading. No, Christianity — and most religions, for that matter — is the ultimate political Swiss Army knife, wielded by rulers and charlatans alike throughout history.

You’ve got to hand it to Christianity — it’s got range. On one hand, it’s a story of salvation, moral guidance, and a celestial rewards program better than any loyalty card.

On the other, it’s been the political equivalent of a loaded gun, sitting in the glove compartment of empires, monarchies, and states, ready to be pulled out whenever things go pear-shaped.

Need to unify a fragmented empire? Convert the masses! Want to justify a crusade? Call it holy! Need to legitimise a king? Crown him in the name of God!

The Romans, starting with Constantine, saw that potential and grabbed it like a last slice of pizza at a party. Christianity offered a way to centralize power, control the narrative, and maybe, just maybe, give the empire a few more years on life support. And it wasn’t just the Romans. Fast forward a few centuries, and you’ve got every Paul, Peter, and Holy Roman Emperor using Christianity to justify wars, suppress dissent, and milk the faithful for tithes like a dairy farm on overdrive.

Was it a fairy tale? Sure, if by fairy tale, you mean a story that’s been weaponised, institutionalised, and stretched over two millennia to serve every political agenda under the sun. People in power took a belief system that was supposed to be about love, humility, and a better afterlife, slapped a coat of imperial paint on it, and turned it into a machine for consolidating control.

So, in truth, “fairy tale” might be a bit light.

“Epic saga of manipulation and control” might be more like it.

Christianity was in the right place and time to get a major boost to its popularity, after it had been slow to grow for it’s first three centuries. So modern-day Christians today are largely unaware that their beliefs are likely a direct consequence of the desperation felt by the 4^th Century Roman Empire.

(4944) Equating Paul’s vision with the disciples

Conventional Christian theology is that Jesus appeared in the flesh to the women and the disciples after the resurrection and before levitating off of the planet, whereas Paul observed only a vision of Jesus. But there is a good case to be made that what the disciples experienced was similar to Paul’s. James Tabor wrote the following:

https://jamestabor.com/what-did-paul-claim-to-have-seen-last-of-all-he-appeared-also-to-me/

But what is absolutely clear is that Paul did not see anything like what is reported in the gospels–where Jesus is seen by the Mary Magdalene, the other women at the tomb, Peter, and the other apostles–as the same embodied corpse that was laid in the tomb–but living, breathing, and eating again–as Luke puts it, a wounded body of “flesh and bones.”

So this sharp contrast raises a central question. Since Paul equates his encounter with the glorious exalted “risen” Christ with that of Peter, James, the Twelve, and the other apostles, including 500 followers in mass–isn’t it likely that the experience of these witnesses who came before Paul was much like his? After all, Paul knew Peter, James, John, and all the apostles and must have heard directly from them as they related their experiences. In other words, the earliest experience of Jesus’ followers following his death and burial was something akin to an indescribable encounter with a glorious heavenly being that they were convinced represented Jesus of Nazareth, transformed from flesh to spirit! Just as Paul in Acts responds to the light and the voice he heard asking–Who are you Lord?–they connected their visionary experience with the Jesus that they had known.

This scenario makes more sense than to accept the gospel accounts of the resurrection. It renders the silly ascension scene unnecessary while still explaining why the Jesus movement lived on after the crucifixion.

(4945) Collision of theology with science and history

Whenever theology has collided with science or history, it is theology that has had to retreat. The following was taken from:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2024/09/when-theology-collides-with-science-and.html#more

For thousands of years, humans have been imagining and inventing gods. Once ideas about gods have been locked into human brains, fierce loyalties and certainties develop. People who claim privileged knowledge of the gods emerge—the priestly classes—and they do their best to enforce “correct” beliefs and behaviors. Today we call them clergy, and there are thousands of different brands, all of whom are confident of the “truths” they advocate.

Just how many gods have been imagined?

Prolific atheist author Guy P. Harrison, posted this on his Facebook page, 20 August 2024:

“For some reason many people have it in their heads that the number of claimed gods is 3,000. This quote by Ricky Gervais about atheism is a typical example: ‘Basically, you deny one less God than I do. You don’t believe in 2,999 gods. And I don’t believe in just one more.’
I’m not sure what the source is of this number, but it is wildly wrong. Humans, past and present, have claimed that HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of gods are real…The number of religions is difficult to quantify because it depends on how one splits the holy hairs. For example, is Christianity one religion or 50,000 distinct religions? Is Mormonism the same religion as the Orthodox Catholic Church? Also, keep in mind that we know little or nothing about the gods and religions of prehistoric people who account for 99 percent of human existence. Bottom line: According to people, past and present, there are hundreds of millions of gods and hundreds of thousands of religions.”

Modern Christians, carefully tutored in Sunday Schools and Catechism, assume that their religion is the only correct one—which is ironic, since there are so many Christian brands that don’t agree. But all these devout folks remain largely unaware of the realities about religion that Harrison has described. Out of millions of religions, how can they possibly be sure that they know the exclusive truth about god? That’s the result of the careful tutoring.

Christians are confident that they believe in the “one true god” —they know for sure there aren’t many gods. Yet Christianity itself seems to be a compromised version of monotheism. How well I remember the processional hymn for our Sunday worship in a Methodist church in rural Indiana: “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty…God in three persons, blessed Trinity.” How can a monotheistic god be in three persons? By which is meant, father, son, and holy spirit. The Catholic Church is confident there’s a fourth person, i.e., Mary, the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven. Appearing throughout the world through the centuries, she seems to have an independent career!

But the collision of theology with science and history is fatal. It is the study of science—especially archaeology—and history that has revealed the complex history of religion, cluttered with millions of gods. Christianity is especially vulnerable, as Richard Carrier has pointed out in his 2018 essay about a lot of other dying-and-rising personal savior gods that predated the Jesus cult that emerged in the first century.

Astronomy dealt a fatal blow to the biblical view of the cosmos, i.e., a flat earth as the center of it all, with the realm of its god in the sky below the moon, where the deity was able to keep a close watch on every human being. As curious thinkers used increasingly advanced telescopes to study the heavens, it became clear that there are other planets in our solar system—totally unknown to the Bible authors—and that there is probably so much beyond, the thousands of stars visible from earth being a major clue.

Next month, 6 October, marks the 101st anniversary of Edwin Hubble’s momentous discovery, in 1923, that the swirl of stars that was known as Andromeda, is indeed another galaxy, 2.5 million light years away. Until that time it had been a common assumption among astronomers that our Milky Way Galaxy was the entire universe. With Hubble’s discovery—captured in what has to rank as one of the most important photographs ever taken—it became obvious as there many other galaxies. In the decades since then, it became clear that there are hundreds of billions of other galaxies. In December 1995, the Hubble Space Telescope was aimed at a tiny patch of space (about the size of a tennis ball seen from 100 meters). Almost 3,000 galaxies could be counted on the photographic plate.

Does the biblical concept of a god right overhead, watching, monitoring, every human being make sense given what we now know about the Cosmos? That would be a stretch, indeed, it becomes highly improbable. What are the odds that a cosmic creator would even know about or care about our species on one tiny planet lost in space? We have to wonder what percentage of devout churchgoers are even aware of the information revealed by astronomers. This is a devastating collision of theology with science.

The collision of theology with history is just as crippling. It is now obvious that the authors of the four gospels were theologians, not historians. We don’t even know who they were. The traditional names are not found in the documents themselves, but were added much later. None of the authors identify their sources. Luke makes a stab at it, referring to eyewitnesses at the beginning of his gospel—but then neglects to say who they were, or to identify any of his sources. At the end of John’s gospel—the last to be written, decades after the death of Jesus—the so-called beloved disciple (who is not mentioned at all in the other gospels) is identified as the custodian of the stories about Jesus. Could anything be more unlikely? So much material in this gospel is not found in the other gospels, and so much in the other gospels is not included here. We have a right to be very suspicious.

And our suspicion deepens. Lay people are not taught, much less encouraged, to read the gospels critically and skeptically. They are assured that these documents were inspired directly by their god—and hence should be without errors or mistakes. But there is the vast industry of Bible scholar who know this is not the case at all, and they have devoted so much energy to explaining away the mistakes, or adopting the metaphor strategy: “We don’t have to take all of the gospel stories literally, we can understand them as metaphors.”

It would be far better to just admit that the gospels are theologies, saturated with fantasy, miracles folklore, and magical thinking. Their authors were devoted to advocating for the Jesus cult. A fine introduction to this reality is another Richard Carrier article, published 30 July 2024, All the Fantastical Things in the Gospel according to Mark. It is vital to realize that, without named sources and the citing of contemporaneous documentation (such as letters and diaries written at the time of Jesus, to which historians would have access), not a single event or quote attributed to Jesus in the gospels can be verified. Quite on purpose, the gospels are theology, not history.

This week I am in Milano, Italy, and have been visiting favorite museums. Hundreds of paintings—room after room—depict Mary and child, and so many “events” described in the gospels, or inferred from them. No wonder Christianity has had such staying power: the gospel accounts were taken seriously for centuries.

Humanity would be much better off if the collision of theology with science and history had occurred much earlier.

If Christianity was true, it would have been continually verified by every discovery of science and history. But the exact opposite has happened. In these collisions of Christianity with science and history, it has always been Christianity suffering all of the damage.

(4946) Homosexuality is neither moral nor immoral

The bible’s condemnation of homosexuality runs into headwinds when the issue of morality is taken into objective consideration. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1fqqzt3/homosexuality_is_neither_moral_nor_immoral/

Homosexuality is neither moral nor immoral.

It can be argued that the bible’s condemnation of homosexuality is itself immoral and, thus, not likely to be a product of the mind of a god. However, it is easy to speculate that human heterosexual men would create this opprobrium based on their sensibilities (yuck factor) or a concern about maintaining the population of their community. Many Christian denominations have surrendered on this issue, and the list is quickly growing.

(4947) Evolution of heaven

The concept of a celestial afterlife, in either heaven or hell, as a terminal destination for all humans evolved after many decades following Jesus’ death. Prior to this, the early Christians understood the afterlife to include only a small group of followers who would inhabit a ‘heaven on earth’ or something akin to the Garden of Eden. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1frntqy/jesus_didnt_believe_in_the_afterlife_or_that/

Jesus didn’t believe in the afterlife or that non-Jews would be saved.

The failure of Jesus to return as expected prompted a modification to Christian theology- one that took the pressure off of Jesus’ tardiness- by saying that the afterlife will occur in a celestial location without any specific timelines. This ploy worked amazingly well, and the cult was able to grow into a religion.

(4948) Shifting views of the ‘end times’

Placing the Book of Revelation (a.k.a, Apocalypse of John) into the Bible was a controversial decision. Because of that decision, Christians have been all over the map trying to figure out what it means. As Bart Erhman writes in his book Armageddon, a consensus has never congealed:

Whatever one makes of the bizarre symbolism of the Apocalypse of John, a relatively straightforward reading suggests that the author believed the world was soon to come to a rather climactic end. God would assert his wrath on this planet, bringing worldwide anguish and destruction. Even so, for most of Christian history, the book was not understood as a description of what was literally about to happen. After an initial burst of enthusiastic expectation focused on the imminent end of the world, most Christians apparently changed their minds. Possibly they were prompted by the inexorable march of history: the end didn’t come, and the easiest explanation was that it was never really expected to come. That affected how Christians read the book of Revelation.

Throughout Christian history the dominant view was one espoused by Augustine (350-430 CE), the most influential theologian of Christian history. Augustine insisted that the “future” millennium described in Revelation-when Jesus and his followers would rule on earth—was not a literal event but a metaphor for what was already being experienced in the life of the church. We will explore Augustine’s views later, but for now it is enough to observe that this great giant of a Christian intellectual sent the “futurist” understanding of Revelation into long-term hibernation. It reemerged only occasionally over the centuries, until it was born again in the 1800s and began to spread its message of an imminent end with all the fervor of the newly converted. Before we get to that, we should consider how the book of Revelation was understood by John’s earliest readers….

Whatever the first readers of the book believed, it is relatively clear that the earliest Christian readers we do know about seem to have understood that Revelation predicted the future appearance of a glorious and tactile utopia for the saints. Later church fathers would attack this view as materialistic and unsophisticated. They called those who subscribed to it “chiliasts,” from the Greek word chilias, which means “one thousand.” Chiliasts believed an actual thousand-year reign of Christ and his saints was soon to appear here on earth.

Church fathers found this literalist view of future glory troubling because they maintained salvation was a spiritual affair, not one of bodily pleasure in a luxurious kingdom of God. But chiliasts disdained this rather ascetic perspective. One of our earliest Christian writers to support a more sensualist view of the coming kingdom is the church father Papias (ca. 60-140 CE), who claims to be passing along the teachings of the apostles who had heard them from Jesus. Papias was a bishop of the church of Hierapolis in Phrygia (in modern Turkey) who wrote a five-volume work, Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord, that, to our eternal regret, no longer survives…

This materialistic portrayal of the millennium generated an antagonistic response from Papias’s later critics, who opposed the pleasures of the flesh as ungodly. Eusebius panned him with a rather frank snub: “He was remarkably unintelligent” (Church History, 3.39.19-2). Even so, for centuries a number of Christians continued to expect this glorious kingdom to arrive.

One of the first on record to oppose the idea of an imminent end of all things was a well-known church leader, Hippolytus of Rome, who around 200 CE provided an actual date for the end of the world, apparently to circumvent the idea that it would be anytime soon….

By showing Jesus was born 5,500 years after creation, Hippolytus could ward off Christian predictors of imminent doom, who were causing some consternation in their communities of faith. At least his dating could silence them for 290 years or so. By then, it would be someone else’s problem…

[Augustine’s City of God] arose as a response to the fall of Rome, which was sacked by the Visigoths under their king Alaric in 410 CE, the first successful assault on the Eternal City in eight hundred years. Some Christians saw this not just as a massive imperial tragedy but also as a sign that the End was near. As Augustine points out in one of his sermons, some Christians had declared: “Behold, from Adam all the years have passed and behold, the 6,000 years are completed…. Now comes the day of judgment” (Sermon, 113.8)…

Many Christians in Augustine’s day believed the first resurrection was imminent; Christ would soon intervene to bind Satan and usher in a thousand-year period of peace and prosperity.

Augustine objected to this futuristic interpretation, in part because it entailed a chiliastic view of great material abundance. As a proponent of an ascetic life, Augustine rejected the millennial excesses so anticipated by some fellow Christians, writing:

I myself, too, once held this opinion. But, as they assert that those who then rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such assertions can be believed only by the carnal. (City of God, 20.7)

Augustine argued that literal interpretations of John’s words completely miss the point. John mentions two resurrections that are radically different from each other. In Augustine’s view, the first is a spiritual resurrection; only the second is physical. Moreover, the first resurrection has already happened: the church is already experiencing the millennium.

In support of his view, Augustine points out that Revelation indicates Christ will reign on earth during the millennium. But for Augustine he has already been doing so since his death and res-urrection: Christ rules in the here and now, through his followers in the church. This period is designated by God as a millennium because in Scripture a “thousand years” indicates the “fullness of time” —that is, a lengthy period to last until the end of the world.

In Augustine’s view, Christians will continue to reign supreme until the very end. Not even Satan can harm them, for he has been cast into the “bottomless pit,” which is the abyss of the “wicked whose hearts are unfathomably deep in malignity against the Church of God” (City of God, 20.7). That is the Devil’s only residence, since he holds no sway among Christians. At the end of time he will again be loosed on the world, but only for a brief while. Then the End will come with the judgment of all and the destruction of evil. But that is still a long way off.

This interpretation may seem counterintuitive to readers today who do not at all see the absence of devilish activity, even in the church. But because of Augustine’s immense status it quickly became the dominant understanding of Revelation and remained so until relatively modern times. There were always, of course, other interpretations on the margins of the Christian church, predictions that the end was coming soon. But these predictions were consistently proved false by the passing of time, and so Augustine’s view lived on for many centuries.

One must assume one of two things- (1) the Book of Revelation has no connection to anything divine and was just the scrambled ramblings of a demented mind, or (2) it was a work inspired by a schizophrenic deity. The probabilities are (1): 99.999999%, (2): 0.0000001%

(4949) Christianity and virtuous living don’t mix

Christians will claim that following their religion results in living a virtuous life. But so many of their tenets don’t lead to that result, while, on the other hand, non-religious ideals deliver the goods. The following was taken from:

https://new.exchristian.net/2023/08/on-living-virtuously.html

As a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as:

• • Praying for forgiveness for sins
  • Accepting Christ as Savior
  • Frequently reading the Bible
  • Memorizing Bible verses
  • Being baptized (subject to church rules)
  • Attending church services
  • Partaking of the Lord’s Supper
  • Tithing
  • Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.
  • Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers

The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues” were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion

Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect from the pulpit the lives of non-Christians who ignore various so-called Christian virtues. Of course, for us Christians, acceptance of the teachings of “the church” held the promise of unending bliss in heaven. Conversely, rejection of certain popular doctrines received threats of God’s punishment now and perhaps with hellfire. For today’s Christian, religious practice is mostly about keeping your head full of approved religious opinions and their associated pious feelings. It’s about praying without ceasing. It’s about mental gymnastics. It’s about supernatural fantasies. It’s about childish pretending.

In contrast, Stoic Virtues, which predates Christianity by several hundred years, promoted just four virtues:

1. 1. Wisdom (prudence)
   2. Justice (honesty)
   3. Courage (fortitude)
   4. Discipline (temperance, self-control, moderation)

Stoic virtues placed less emphasis on feeling pious or religious, focusing instead on actually living virtuously and maturely with the rest of society. In short, it was about trying to be a good and noble person, not in order to avoid a threatened punishment or promised reward after death, but to have a good flow of life right now and help make the world better by having lived well.

“The happiness and unhappiness of the rational, social animal depends not on what he feels but on what he does; just as his virtue and vice consist not in feeling but in doing.” — Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book IX, 16

When I enlisted in the United States Air Force, I was taught these Three Core Values:

• • Integrity First
  • Service Before Self, and
  • Excellence In All We Do

Not unlike the Stoic virtues, these Core values have practical expression only when interacting with others. Integrity, Service and Excellence have little application to someone all alone on some deserted island.

Also, to have Integrity includes the Stoic virtues of justice and courage. It takes courage and a sense of justice to live with unswerving integrity. Likewise, service includes discipline, and excellence requires wisdom. Although I didn’t realize it when I enlisted, it seems obvious now that Stoic principles significantly underpinned my military basic training, and from there the rest of my life.

Christian beliefs and ethics are failing worldwide because they are built on an invisible foundation of myth and superstition with promised rewards and threatened punishments. The reason for following Christian teachings is more about obtaining Hellfire insurance or earning Heavenly rewards than about living an exceptional life. When the masses of humanity were ignorant or less informed, these ridiculous threats and promises held considerable sway. These days people are better informed and many are seeking something more solid on which to base their lives. Something noble and honorable. Something un-miraculous and real. Something that actually contributes in a measurable way in making life more satisfying.

Some, like me, are finding principles and concepts in Stoic and other Western Philosophies useful and beneficial. Others are finding encouragement from Eastern Thought. As I continue to build my life outside of Christianity, I intend to keep one piece of wisdom front and center. Authentic virtuous living is about much more than being raised to obey a bunch of self-serving religious mandates.

“Being raised right doesn’t mean you don’t drink, party or smoke. Being raised right is how you treat people, your manners and respect. – Anonymous”

It should be obvious that a real god who understands the nature of humanity and the evolution that led to it, if for some strange reason it wanted to reward or punish dead humans, would value honesty, charity, and love over forcing people to believe a specific thing or to follow meaningless rules. Christianity is a bastardization of such ideals.

(4950) Author of John corrects Jesus

A strange passage exists in the Gospel of John where it appears that Jesus harbored a misunderstanding. Jesus states that Moses gave the Jews the tradition of circumcision, but the author parenthetically corrects Jesus’ mistake:

John 7:21-23 (NIV)

Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and you are all amazed. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision- (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath. Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath?”

Note that Jesus doubles down on his error by equating circumcision to the ‘law of Moses.’ Now some Christians, who insist on Jesus’ absolute perfection, will say that the author mistakenly related this conversation (and was corrected by a later editor), implying that Jesus actually knew that circumcision was started by the patriarchs (Abraham, Issac, and Jacob). If so, they are admitting that the Bible is not inerrant. But, no matter, this passage is an embarrassment to Christianity.

Follow this link to #4951