(5101) Judaeo-Christianity makes no sense

Just using casual thinking renders Christianity obscenely ridiculous when you consider the implications of how it developed. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1j0ygov/the_universe_is_too_big_for_any_religion_to_make/

The Universe is Too Big for Any Religion to Make Sense

We can be certain that if a universal all-powerful god had interacted with the humans on our planet, it would look a lot different than Judaeo-Christianity. It would be much better evidenced, universal in nature, and untied to the parochial customs of the time.

(5102) Christianity kills

Any false belief system rigidly adhered to can be dangerous. Christianity is such a false belief system and in the following situation, it took away a teenage girl’s mother:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1j2usn2/today_i_found_out_that_my_mom_died/

I (15F) came home from school today, just wanting to jump in bed and sleep. I’m on my period and you know it sucks.

My dad then came in and said that my mom passed away, due to cancer. She was in the hospital for a long time…and it was disturbing to see the cancer strip my mom away into a frail and very unhealthy skinny woman on the hospital bed.

They spotted it earlier… like 2 years ago. She rejected the treatment and thought that God will heal her and that it’s fake. She even got a second opinion and when the results came back the same she still rejected it. All because God can heal her.

Many warned her about it especially those who had the cancer, but she ignored them.

Religion took my mother away from me. Now she can’t live to see my siblings graduate or get married or see my older brothers child grow up. She died at the age of 43, and that’s SO DARN YOUNG. Very disturbingly young.

I saw firsthand the cancer sucking the life out of her. The last time I talked to her was on Sunday. Her last words was “Tomorrow I will fill in the track and field form for you, don’t worry.” I told her about the track and field team and she had to fill it in online because that’s how it works in my school board.

My last words to her “Bye, see you soon.”

But soon and tomorrow never came for her. I dialed her on Sunday around 8-9pm and she didn’t answer. I thought that maybe she fell asleep.

She did fall asleep but she never woke up from that sleep.

Now here I am, drying my tears. She could have lived you know, if religion didn’t infest her and make her reject actual treatment. It made me realize how horrible Christianity is.

The doctors didn’t make my mom die, Christianity did. That God she prayed to for “healing” never came to save her at all.

It’s just so hard. I don’t know what to do, she’ll never come back home. This is so sad. Now I have to live with my dad. I have no mother figure now.

Faith in a non-existent protector can be fatal, as above, or result in a myriad of bad outcomes. Any diseased person relying on Yahweh, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, to the exclusion of tested therapies, is in the danger zone. These supernatural entities cannot help you because they do not exist.

(5103) Resurrection nonsense

Although there is no way to confirm or deny the resurrection of Jesus in a definitive manner, it is instructive to use inductive reasoning when considering the events that were claimed by the gospels to have occurred concurrently. The following discusses these events and why their lack of contemporary documentation matters:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1j3hqqf/thoughts_on_evidence_for_resurrection/

The resurrection is essentially impossible to confirm. we have a few references written decades later claiming he was resurrected, but we have absolutely zero contemporaneous evidence.

But the resurrection didn’t happen in isolation, it followed Jesus death, so before we look for evidence of Jesus resurrection, we should be able to look for evidence of the claimed events that accompanied his death. According to the bible, these miraculous occurrences happened at the time of Jesus death:

• • Darkness covered the land for three hours during the crucifixion.
  • An Earthquake shook Jerusalem
  • The veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
  • Graves opened and the dead wandered the streets of Jerusalem

And these events are things that would have been noticed. ok, maybe not the tearing the temple veil, but the other three of those seem pretty fucking notable. And contrary to the claims of your friend, we have a lot of historical documentation from the era, including from people who wrote about things like earthquakes and eclipses, and certainly would have written about fucking zombies wondering the streets.

Yet we have no– none, zero, nada, zilch– evidence from any source suggesting that any of these events occurred.

It is nonsense.

If you claim that Event A occurred and that Events B, C, D, and E occurred at the same time and place, but the evidence expected for Events B, C, D, and E is missing entirely, then it makes it somewhat difficult to believe that Event A happened – even if the lack of direct evidence of Event A can be explained. Thus we have a good reason to induce that the resurrection of Jesus did not occur.

(5104) Christianity is a man-made religion

The following lists many reasons to conclude that Christianity was originated by humans without any divine guidance:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1j4htqh/christianity_is_a_manmade_religion/

In my honest opinion, Christianity, like all other religions, are man-made belief systems that have evolved over time due to historical, cultural, and political influences. While I believe every religion and mythology is man-made, this post will focus on Christianity.

One major piece of evidence for this is the Bible itself, which contains historical inaccuracies, later additions, and mistranslations that have shaped modern Christian beliefs.

1. 1. Historical Inaccuracies in the Bible

The Bible contains many historical claims that contradict archaeology, historical records, or even internal consistency. Some of the most well-documented examples include:

1.1 The Exodus and the Lack of Evidence

• The biblical account of the Israelites’ enslavement in Egypt, the ten plagues, and their subsequent exodus led by Moses (Exodus 1–15) is a central narrative of Judaism and Christianity.

• However, there is no archaeological evidence for a mass exodus of millions of Israelites from Egypt.

• Egyptian records, which are extensive and detailed, make no mention of the events described in Exodus.

• The Sinai Desert, where the Israelites supposedly wandered for 40 years, shows no evidence of large-scale habitation during the supposed time period (13th–15th century BCE).

1.2 The Conquest of Canaan

• The Book of Joshua describes the Israelites conquering Canaan through military campaigns, including the destruction of Jericho.

• Archaeological evidence suggests that Jericho was already in ruins long before the supposed conquest (~1550 BCE).

• Many cities said to have been conquered (e.g., Ai, Hazor) either did not exist or were uninhabited at the time.

1.3 The United Monarchy of David and Solomon

• The Bible describes a grand, powerful kingdom under King David and Solomon (~1000 BCE), ruling over a vast territory with a magnificent temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 6–7).

• Archaeological evidence suggests that Jerusalem was a small, modest settlement at the time, not the capital of a large empire.

• There are no contemporary inscriptions or records of David or Solomon outside the Bible, except for the Tel Dan Stele, which only briefly mentions a “House of David” but does not confirm the biblical accounts.

1.4 The Census of Quirinius and the Nativity Contradiction

• The Gospels of Matthew and Luke both describe Jesus’ birth but contradict each other.

• Luke 2:1–2 states that Jesus was born during the “census of Quirinius,” which happened around 6 CE.

• Matthew 2 states that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE.

• This means there is at least a ten-year discrepancy between the two accounts, making them historically incompatible.

2. Later Additions and Revisions in the Bible

If you’re still not convinced then don’t fret! I’m not nearly done because many parts of the Bible were not originally present in the earliest manuscripts but were added later. Some of the most famous examples include:

2.1 The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20)

• The earliest manuscripts of Mark end at 16:8, where the women flee the empty tomb in fear.

• The longer ending (Mark 16:9–20), which includes Jesus appearing to the disciples and commanding them to spread the Gospel, was added later.

• This addition significantly impacts Christian doctrine, as it contains Jesus’ instructions about baptism and belief.

2.2 The Story of the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53–8:11)

• The famous story where Jesus says, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” does not appear in the earliest manuscripts of John.

• The passage was likely added later to emphasize Jesus’ message of forgiveness.

2.3 The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8)

• The King James Version includes a passage explicitly stating the Trinity:

•       “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

• This passage does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts and was likely added in the Middle Ages to reinforce Trinitarian doctrine.

3. Mistranslations That Have Affected Christian Beliefs

Over centuries, mistranslations have shaped Christian theology in significant ways. I am so delighted to get to share these with whomever reads this. This part is my second favorite.

3.1 The “Virgin” Birth (Isaiah 7:14)

• The Hebrew word almah in Isaiah 7:14 means “young woman,” not necessarily “virgin.”

• However, the Greek Septuagint translated it as parthenos, meaning “virgin,” leading to the Christian belief in the virgin birth of Jesus.

3.2 Lucifer as Satan (Isaiah 14:12)

• The passage about the “morning star” (Latin: lucifer) in Isaiah 14:12 originally referred to the fall of the Babylonian king, not Satan.

• Due to later Christian interpretation, “Lucifer” became associated with Satan, despite the original context.

3.3 The Ten Commandments Translation Issues

• In the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), the Hebrew word ratsach actually means “murder,” not general killing.

• This distinction changes interpretations of warfare and capital punishment in Christian ethics.

4. Theories and Beliefs About the History of Yahweh

Now this part is my favorite. I’ve been trying to learn about the Ancient Near Eastern history, religion, and development into monotheism from henotheism. The development of Yahweh from a regional deity to the sole God of Judaism and Christianity is a complex process influenced by historical events. If you’d like to study this history for yourself then the timeframe would be from the late Bronze Age to the middle Iron Age.

4.1 Yahweh’s Origins in Canaanite Religion

• Early Israelites were originally part of the Canaanite culture, worshiping multiple gods.

• Yahweh may have been a minor storm or warrior god, similar to Baal.

• The name Yahweh appears in ancient Egyptian inscriptions (the “Shasu of Yhw”), suggesting early nomadic worship.

4.2 The Shift from Polytheism to Monotheism

• Early Israelites worshiped multiple gods, including El (the chief Canaanite god) and Asherah (a goddess).

• Yahweh was later merged with El, becoming the supreme deity.

• Biblical evidence suggests Asherah was once worshiped alongside Yahweh (e.g., inscriptions mentioning “Yahweh and his Asherah”).

4.3 The Babylonian Exile’s Role in Monotheism

• After the Babylonian exile (~586 BCE), Jewish elites redefined their faith, rejecting other gods and emphasizing Yahweh as the only true God.

• This period also led to the writing and editing of many biblical texts, reinforcing monotheism.

4.4 Yahweh’s Transformation into the Christian God

• In Second Temple Judaism, Yahweh was associated with wisdom and intermediary figures (e.g., the “Logos” in Greek philosophy).

• This influenced early Christian beliefs, where Jesus was seen as the divine “Word” (John 1:1).

• Over time, Yahweh evolved into the Trinity concept, which was not present in early Jewish thought.

Closing: Given these historical, textual, and linguistic developments, it is clear that Christianity was not divinely revealed in a pure, unchanging form but was instead shaped and constructed by human hands over centuries. If a religion were truly divinely inspired, one would expect consistency and historical accuracy, yet Christianity’s origins reflect the same human-driven evolution seen in all other religious traditions.

A true religion would be consistent from the start, free from contradictions, exhibiting far-reaching knowledge, and stand out as unique among other human-created faith traditions. Christianity strikes out in each of these areas. It is a man-made religion.

(5105) Why Christianity persists (when it shouldn’t)

Although belief in Christianity is waning, it still remains remarkably resilient even while facing the strong headwinds of science and the dis-confirming revelations recently coming out of biblical research. Perhaps the main reason for his persistence was captured by the following author:

https://www.reddit.com/r/exchristian/comments/1j4hon2/i_finally_get_why_people_cling_to_religion_and/

I’ve spent my whole life in church. Sunday after Sunday, sermon after sermon. Sometimes I’d stop going for a while, but I always found myself back in a pew. Not because I believed, because I never have. Not even as a kid.

I was raised in it. My family went to the little church down the road from my grandparents’ house, where we sat in the same wooden pews every Sunday, listening to the same fire-and-brimstone warnings. My grandparents were backhills Kentucky types, my grandpa couldn’t even read, but faith was the cornerstone of their existence. They didn’t question. They just knew.

And honestly, I understood why they bought into it. My grandparents were rough around the edges. They ran off to Tennessee when they were 15 and 17, got married with fake IDs and forged birth certificates, and somehow made it work. They weren’t exactly the kind of people who sat around contemplating theology. Religion probably kept them in line just enough.

But my mom? My mom is smart. Always has been. And that’s what never made sense to me.

Even as a kid, I’d sit in church listening to stories about a man building a boat big enough for every animal, a talking snake, a virgin birth, people dying and coming back to life, and I just couldn’t believe that someone as intelligent as my mom really thought this was all true. I understood my grandparents believing it. But her? It didn’t add up.

As I got older, I started seeing the bigger picture. Religion isn’t just about faith, it’s about control. The laws we follow, the way society is structured, the way people think it’s all tangled up with religion. And once you step back, it’s obvious: If you convince people that questioning authority means eternal damnation, they’ll keep themselves in line. No whips or chains needed just the fear of the afterlife.

I first tried to explain this to my mom when I was ten. It did not go well. I was told it was not Christian-like to question God’s word. That doubting was dangerous. And in that moment, I realized just how deep this runs.

Anytime I even hinted at skepticism, my mom reacted like I had slapped her across the face. It wasn’t just that she believed, she needed to believe.

So, over the years, I kept going to church. Half to keep the peace, half for my own quiet amusement. To me, it was just an elaborate Sunday performance, a one-hour production designed to entertain, inspire, and keep people coming back. And honestly? The community aspect of church is great. If there were a place like that without the religious baggage, I’d be all in.

But here’s the part that took me 37 years to fully understand:

I used to ask myself, Why does someone as smart as my mom believe in this? And now, I think I finally get it.

It’s not about intelligence, it’s about legacy.

My mom was raised on this. Her mother was, too. And her mother before her. And if she were to question it now, it wouldn’t just mean admitting she was wrong, it would mean admitting her mother was wrong. And her grandmother was wrong. And that every generation before her spent their lives clinging to a lie and passing it down like an heirloom.

And that? That’s too heavy for most people to carry.

So, the cycle continues. Not because people are stupid, but because they are invested. Because questioning it means unraveling not just their own beliefs, but the beliefs of the people they love. It means rewriting the history of their family, their identity, their entire worldview.

That’s a hell of a thing to face.

So, they don’t. And the system thrives.

And here’s the kicker, despite everything, I still try to be a good person. Not because I fear hell, not because I think some higher power is watching, but because I believe in helping people. I volunteer twice a week at a homeless shelter. I cook for everyone down there once a week. And I do it not for a reward, not for salvation, but because I want to. Because it’s the right thing to do.

Anyway, that’s where I’ve landed after nearly four decades of sitting in pews. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m not. But I finally feel like I get it.

This theory is one that should alleviate a lot of peoples’ disgust with how their loved ones cling to their faith, despite all of the arguments that should persuade them to abandon it. Christianity is more of an embedded tradition than a true, ardently-held belief anchored in reality. And it is almost certain that most Christians have a sneaky sense that it is untrue, but they suppress those thoughts to keep the peace with living family members and to preserve the legacy of their ancestry.

(5106) Jesus fumbles badly

In the following scripture Jesus encourages people to cut off parts of their body if it causes them to sin. Although this passage is normally considered to be figurative, the text itself can be read as literal-especially how it is capped off by threatening eternal torture to those violators who fail to maim themselves.

Mark 9:43-48

If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where

“‘the worms that eat them do not die,

and the fire is not quenched.’

It is wildly irresponsible to even joke about this matter, notwithstanding introducing the ghastly threat of eternal conscious torment. And, to make matters worse, many zealous Christians extended the concept of this scripture to include self-castration for sexual sins. Whether or not Jesus actually made these statements is not so important. What really matters is that Yahweh, if he exists, allowed this scripture to be included in his holy book, to the needless detriment of many of his followers for the past twenty centuries.

(5107) Rational and just god does not exist

One of the fatal problems of Christianity is that it invented a god that does not deliver a rational or just system of interaction with humans, considering the purported intent to judge them based on their belief in him. It’s unjust because sincere, intelligent people doing their due diligence can understandably come to the conclusion that this god does not exist. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1j6vmdc/a_rational_and_just_god_wouldnt_make_reason_lead/

A Rational and Just God Wouldn’t Make Reason Lead to Disbelief

God can’t have it both ways. If He’s hiding on purpose, that’s cruel. Imagine a parent playing hide and seek with their child but never revealing themselves. Then punishing the kid for not finding them. If God only reveals Himself to some (through miracles, personal experiences, etc.), then He’s favoring those humans arbitrarily. That’s unjust.

Either our reasoning works, or doesn’t. If atheism is a reasonable conclusion, then punishing disbelief is like failing a student for correctly solving a math problem. But if our rational minds can’t be trusted to reach truth, then believers have no reason to trust their faith either because they’re using the same mental tools as skeptics.

The only logical conclusion is a truly just and rational God wouldn’t create a world where using our God given reasoning often leads away from Him. Either God created reason to function properly, in which case atheism is a rational conclusion and should not be punished. Or God created reason improperly, in which case theists have no justification for trusting their own reasoning either.

Either way, we can concluded that a just and rational God does not exist.

There is no way to massage this issue into a logical defense of Christianity. Either God clearly demonstrates his existence to those who sincerely search for him, or else he is an unjust god.

(5108) Realizing this is it

A moment of lucidity is all that’s needed to realize the inevitable fate of every human being, sharing the same end game as every gorilla, shark, donkey, skunk, and mosquito- when it’s over it’s over. The following testimony talks about this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1j74crm/i_finally_understand_nothing_happens_after_death/

I finally understand nothing happens after death

There is no basis for concluding or even conjecturing that anyone will be more aware of what is happening after death as they were before they were born. In fact, there is no reason to think that we will be more aware after death than what we experience every night in deep (Stage 4) sleep. To be sure, it would be even less. Life is finite, confined to this biological experience. Once a person understands this, life takes on a new meaning and it can cause them to be energized to use this precious time more wisely.

(5109) Mark’s over-emphasis on exorcism

The author of the Gospel of Mark made exorcism of evil spirits a central theme of his work. But subsequent gospels did not renew this concept. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1j85tck/why_does_the_gospel_of_mark_put_such_an_emphasis/

I think there’s an argument that Mark, as the earliest gospel, is more or less preserving the eschatological element of Jesus’ ministry more than the later gospels. That’s sort of my interpretation, but it’s also just clear that Mark sees exorcism as an essential feature of Jesus’ ministry. I’ll quote from Marcus’ commentary on the first encounter with a demon in 1:21ff. This is from the comment on that section, although I don’t have page numbers since I accessed it online:

“In Mark 1:16–20 Jesus has called four men to abandon their day-to-day pursuits and follow him into battle in the eschatological war that was inaugurated in 1:13 by his one-on-one combat with Satan. These same four disciples now become witnesses to the first extensively reported encounter in that war, a powerful exorcism. As Meier (Marginal Jew, 1.409) points out, Mark consciously places this striking set piece near the outset of Jesus’ public ministry, just as Matthew leads his Gospel off with the Sermon on the Mount, Luke with the inaugural sermon in the Nazareth synagogue, and John with the wedding feast at Cana (Matthew 5–7; Luke 4:16–30; John 2:1–11). Each evangelist thereby tips his hand as to what, in his mind, Jesus was, and is, all about. In Mark’s case, it is “clearing the earth of demons” (Käsemann, Jesus, 58); the whole mission of the Markan Jesus is encapsulated in the implicit affirmative response to the demon’s question, “Have you come to destroy us?” (1:24). It is not surprising, therefore, that later in the Gospel the unpardonable sin will be identified as misinterpretation of Jesus’ exorcisms (3:28–30).“

“The spirit’s words to Jesus progress logically from (feigned?) surprise at Jesus’ hostility (“What do we have to do with you?”) to alarm at his power (“Have you come to destroy us?”) in an attempt to gain magical control over him through disclosure of his identity (“I know who you are—the holy one of God!”). The key here is the middle clause, in which the demon, speaking in the first person plural on behalf of all demons, expresses their terror at Jesus’ advent. For Jesus is no ordinary exorcist, who has learned techniques for channeling and manipulating spirits; he comes, rather, as the sign and agent of God’s eschatological reign, in which there will be no room for demonic opposition to God (cf. 3:27 and see Kee, “Terminology,” 243). As Zech 13:2 puts it, in an eschatological passage that is associated with exorcisms in rabbinic traditions: “On that day, says the Lord of hosts … I will remove from the land … the unclean spirit” (cf. e.g. Num. Rab. 19.8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:7). In later Jewish traditions, the agent for this eschatological removal could be the Messiah, as in Pesiq. R. 36:1: “And when he saw him, Satan was shaken, and he fell upon his face and said: Surely, this is the Messiah who will cause me and all the counterparts in heaven of the princes of the earth’s nations to be swallowed up in Gehenna …” (Braude trans.).”

I guess I could be begging the question here, but it seems that answer to “why does Mark emphasize it so much?” is “because Mark thinks it’s important.” That author thinks that exorcism is essential to God’s work and essential to the operation of the messiah.

Some apologists will defend this point by saying that Jesus was about a lot of different themes and that each gospel author decided to highlight the ones that they felt were most important. This is plausible, but far more likely is that each author was inventing Jesus script to match their own concept of eschatology.

(5110) Primitive people invented a primitive god

In the following, it is asked why a god as imagined by Christianity could become so enmeshed in the parochial aspects of the archaic society that he allegedly chose as his own. Something here makes no sense:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1j4opgs/have_yet_to_hear_a_satisfactorysensible_answer_to/

Considering the belief in scripture as the infallible and inerrant word of a perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent God, how can the text’s depiction of God be reconciled with the same character flaws and principles as the socially primitive humans who originally scribed the scriptures?…the same archaic views on slavery, race, genocide, sex, gender roles, and tendencies toward jealousy, rage, a thirst for vengeance, violent retribution, capital punishment, manipulation, and deceit.

How could a perfect being display such seemingly sinful flaws and inclinations? Are these somehow not considered flaws when embodied by God? Is it simply a remarkable coincidence that they appear to mirror the imperfect personalities and beliefs of the people from that ancient time the scriptures were written?

Christians usually punt on this issue by saying that God had to meet humans where they were, not where they would eventually go. This cop-out really makes no sense. Why would God pass on an opportunity to set his people on the path of an enlightened future, rather than have them to continue to wallow in their primitive and often-destructive ways? Instead it appears considerably more likely that primitive people invented a primitive god.

(5111) Wouldn’t God want to convince more people?

If God exists, wouldn’t he at least try to convince more people of his existence?

That is, if God is loving and compassionate, wouldn’t he make his existence easier to believe so that more people could be saved, and thereby avoid the torture of hell?

Any decent human in an analogous position would take measures to help people, even those they don’t know, and even those they don’t like, to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering.

But this god doesn’t seem to respond to this logic, keeping himself hidden, and allowing a lot of sincerely-searching people to justifiably conclude his non-existence.

So back to the original question- wouldn’t God at least try to convince more people of his existence?

A god who wanted worship would. A god who punishes people for non-belief should.

But, an evil god who wants to punish people for not believing? That god seems to be following the dream of purposefully causing lots of non-believers to burn in hell.

What? You wouldn’t worship such a God? Neither would I.

Anyway, this universe really isn’t consistent with a god, or at least a god that deserves our respect and worship. So, live a good life and don’t worry about the imaginary asshole in the sky. And (hint, hint)- he’s not there.

(5112) Faith built on fear is not free will

Christians often state that God grants everyone free will in how they will establish their faith. But when the rules of Christianity impose an infinitely horrible punishment for lacking faith in Yahweh, it completely erodes the concept of free will. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1jar40m/a_faith_built_on_fear_contradicts_the_idea_of/

A faith built on fear contradicts the idea of free will.

True free will means choosing without coercion. Yet in many religious traditions, belief is reinforced not by love alone, but by the looming threat of eternal punishment. This contradicts the idea of a freely chosen faith. If hell did not exist, many would not follow at all.

Faith built on fear is not faith, but submission. If belief were truly a choice, it wouldn’t need the consequence of damnation to keep people in line. This raises the question: do you follow out of love, or out of fear?

Any person who believes in the truth of Christianity, no matter how confident they may feel that they are saved, must have in the back of their minds a tingling doubt about the status of their salvation- that is, a tiny fear that they will fail to meet the admission requirements for heaven. This fear is kryptonite to free will- there is no freedom when the threat of bodily harm is ever present. Christianity is not an exercise in free will, rather it is a system of fretful submission.

(5113) No one can have a personal relationship with God

Christianity posits two mutually contradictory assumptions- that there exists an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-present god and that humans can have a ‘personal relationship’ with this god. The following argues that these propositions cannot be simultaneously true:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1j9j1ax/no_one_can_possibly_have_a_relationship_with_god/

No one can possibly have a relationship with God.

Christianity over-designed their imaginary god to be beyond the ability of humans to form a personal relationship, and thereby left itself open to this valid criticism.

(5114) Christians don’t really believe

The case can be made that many, if not most, Christians don’t really believe in what they profess to believe. The evidence for this assertion is discussed below:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1jbz4zl/christians_dont_really_have_faith_theyre_larping/

I don’t believe Christians really believe the things they claim. Obviously this is not EVERY Christian but I thought I should state that so someone doesn’t whine about how I’m generalizing. I’m aware you don’t do that for anyone, just like you wouldn’t say all atheists are bad people because a couple were, even though many Christians will actually do this, it’s irrelevant here.

Imagine you, a Christian, are accused of a crime. You’re in court on trial, and the judge says “OK, the jury will now pray to God for the verdict.”

Would you have faith in this moment that God is going to say you’re innocent? No, you wouldn’t. You wouldn’t believe that. It’s crazy. You would want a fair trial with human sentencing. You wouldn’t trust that some people you don’t know would pray to God and actually get an answer and give the proper sentence, they could just make it up, and it would be proven if they actually did this and they were not in 100% agreement with each other.

You have faith when it benefits you in a social situation. When you’re watching an online pastor and you see all the “God bless!” and “Amen!” comments, you feel the desire to fit in by leaving the same comment. When two family members are together and experiencing a family member with lets say cancer, one will offer to pray for the other, just as people often online say “I’ll pray for you.” They’re not actually going to do this unless it’s to make themselves feel better, they’re just doing something socially acceptable to the other person.

When you’re at church it becomes even more extreme. Look at a Pentecostal church service. One person is tapped on the forehead by the pastor and they start going nuts, writhing and wiggling with that holy spirit, and then everyone else follows. It’s not because the holy spirit is actually in these people, it’s because the social pressure is causing them to follow the initiator. This is the reason the churches have a leader, he initiates the cosplay and the rest follow in a big larp session. It’s all pretend. When a Christian in face to face with someone they disagree with, they pretend that other person is now their foe, Satan, and they yell “I rebuke you, Satan, in the name of the Father! Begone from my presence!” This is laughable to me and I’ve seen it in person and a ton of times online, and sometimes I engage with them in an unserious manner because I know what’s happening. I sought a serious conversation, they wanted to have fun, so I decided to have a little fun myself.

These people know what they believe is absolute nonsense, they’re just playing along, and I think this is the reason some people seem unreasonable and unreachable in a back and forth when you’re serious and they just vanish. It’s because you weren’t reacting the way they wanted you to and they got bored. Christians want atheists to larp with them, to play the role of Satan and express how we “hate God” and be the stereotype so they can tell us how Satan has a hold of our soul, to which I would reply with something goofy like “You’re right, he’s got me by my soul balls and he’s squeezing tight!”

My final contribution to this post, is a miracle that actually took place. It’s called the miracle of Fatima. Basically, a bunch of people heard the rumor that a miracle would be seen in the sky, that is the Virgin Mary would appear to people. Over 70,000 people showed up from all over to witness this miracle, many of them were skeptics, but they all had one thing in common – they were all desperate to see a miracle and they were huddled together in a very tight social space, a powerful space that gave the power to one little girl who yelled “Look at the sun! There she is!” Then a bunch of doofuses actually looked at the sun, burning their retinas and causing eye damage which caused them to see the sun appear to dance and radiate multiple colors. Some other people made things up like their soaking wet clothes from the rain completely dried up, because that’s such an AMAZING miracle, and other people liked the sound of this as evidence so they went along with this claim and told it to other people. It was a mass delusion with people convincing each other of total nonsense, and the skeptics that came to witness this event reported that they saw nothing except a bunch of crazy people staring at the sun and some optical illusions and such.

It would seem that in a world where Christianity was true this situation would be reversed. Essentially all Christians would be certain of their beliefs while non-Christians would be wary that they might be wrong. Instead Christians fret and worry while atheists have a healthy degree of certainty that they are right. The underlying theology of Christianity suggests that it could be true only in a world where evidence for it is abundant- rather than, as it is, being extremely sketchy.

(5115) Predicted second coming was missed

Christian apologists try to massage the gospel scriptures to dispel the apparent implication that Jesus predicted the end times to occur within the lifetimes of people living at the time. The following definitively refutes this theory:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1jckxav/mark_91_and_mattthew_1628_were_not_referring_to/

What this means is that Christianity is a failed religion. What Jesus prophesized did not come true. Objectively, this means that Christianity should have died by the end of the 1^st Century. It has survived only by creatively mis-interpreting the scriptures.

(5116) Christian considers Paul to be a fraud

A large portion of the New Testament is attributed to Paul, as well as a large portion of Christian theology is based on his writings. In the following a Christian makes a case that Paul was a fraud and that his letters should not be included in the New Testament:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1jd9684/why_paul_is_not_trustworthy/

Paul – Apostle or Apostate

Who was Paul?

• • His past is unknown
  • Citizen of Tarsus (claims to be the child of Jews/Pharisees)
  • Parents are unknown
  • Had a nephew in Jerusalem
  • Self-proclaimed apostle
  • Founder of many Christian communities, especially among the Gentiles in Europe
  • Main author of the New Testament
  • 13 out of the 27 books in the New Testament are attributed to him
  • There is debate on whether the Gospel of Mark was also written by him
  • Was a persecutor of Christians
  • According to his own account, a luminous figure appeared to him on the way to Damascus, claiming to be Jesus

Paul’s Belief

• • Believes Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God (according to Christian interpretation, this means he is a Redeemer God; however, Jews believe the Messiah is a human who will later lead the Jewish people and that the Messiah is not God)
  • “Son of God” in Christianity means the second person of the Trinity, whereas in Judaism, it means someone very pious
  • Believes that the law (Torah or Mosaic laws) is invalid

Now, to the main topic: I claim that Paul was a liar. But what is a lie?

Definition of a Lie:

“A deliberately false statement made with the intent to deceive; a knowingly and intentionally expressed falsehood.”

What does Paul think about the law?

Luther Bible 2017, Philippians 3:8:
“Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake, I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.”

Note: Here you can see what Paul thinks of the law. Remember, the law refers to the Torah, which was given by God to prophets like Moses, Isaiah, and others. He considers it rubbish!? God’s law is rubbish? Didn’t Jesus say: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
How can Paul claim it is rubbish?

Luther Bible 2017, Galatians 3:10-13:
“10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’ 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’ 12 But the law is not of faith, rather ‘The one who does them shall live by them.’ 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.'”

Note: Here, Paul mentions that the law revealed by God is a curse, and not just here, but throughout the entire letter to the Galatians, he speaks negatively about the law. If that were all, he then states in the next sentence that Jesus is a curse for Christians and that everyone who hangs on wood is cursed. So, not only are Christians cursed, but Jesus himself is cursed by God.
Do you really believe that Christians are cursed by God? Or that Jesus himself—who is a prophet for us but God for you—is cursed? Your God is cursed? Be honest, you don’t actually believe that God became a curse for you.

Luther Bible 2017, Romans 7:6:
“6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.”

Note: Here, I don’t have much to add, but Paul states that Christians are free from the law. Remember this, as it will be important later.

The Jerusalem Council

What was the Jerusalem Council?
The Jerusalem Council was a meeting of apostles, scholars, and elders to discuss a highly controversial topic.

What is the definition of an apostle? The Bible provides a definition when the apostles needed to choose a twelfth member after Judas’ betrayal. According to the Bible, an apostle is:
“One of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

Note: This is the definition of an apostle according to the Bible. An apostle is someone who was with Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) from the time of his baptism until his ascension. Someone who heard his voice, saw him, traveled with him, witnessed his miracles, and was a witness to his resurrection.
Paul fulfills none of these criteria. He neither heard Jesus’ voice nor saw him, nor was he a witness to his miracles or resurrection. Nor was he with Jesus between his baptism and ascension.

The only thing we have is his claim that he saw Jesus in a vision and that he appointed himself as an apostle. Let that sink in. We have proof that the twelve apostles saw, heard, and experienced Jesus. Then, 30 to 40 years later, this Paul appears—who was responsible for the deaths or imprisonment of who knows how many Christians—and claims, without any proof, to be an apostle.

It is as if a Nazi soldier who had killed many Jews suddenly claimed to be a prophet of the Jews—without any proof.

What Happened at the Council of Jerusalem?

Some Pharisees, after becoming Christians, claimed that Gentiles had to be circumcised. This was one of the main points the apostles debated. Peter argued that the law was too burdensome for the Gentiles and that they could not adhere to it. Afterward, other matters were discussed, and in the end, the leader of the early Christians, James, the half-brother of Jesus, took the floor.

He said in Acts 15:19-20:

“19 Therefore, my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
20 but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols, from sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood.”

Note: Here, the leader of the Christians, James, states that Gentiles should only be instructed to abstain from idolatry, sexual immorality, strangled meat, and blood. These are the only prohibitions for them.

Accordingly, James drafted letters and gave them to the missionaries to spread the message. He assigned an apostle to each missionary so that people would recognize the legitimacy of the message—otherwise, the apostles would not have accompanied them. Paul was assigned Barnabas, who was an apostle. What is interesting is that, from James’ perspective, Paul was not an apostle; otherwise, he would not have needed another apostle to accompany him. For James, Paul was merely a missionary. Later, during their journey, Paul and Barnabas had a dispute and went their separate ways. Now, I would like to point out: who is Paul to argue with one of the twelve apostles? But never mind.

After completing his missionary journey, Paul wrote to the church in Galatia, saying in Galatians 2:6-10:

“6 And from those who seemed to be influential—what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.
7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),
9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.”

Note: The ones “who seemed to be influential” are the apostles. Paul is essentially saying that he does not care who the apostles are or what they were before, disregarding their status, knowledge, and importance—which is already problematic. But that is not all. He claims that the apostles gave him no further instructions except to remember the poor, which he claims to have done. This is a clear lie. In Acts, James explicitly commands Paul to instruct the Gentiles to abstain from idolatry, sexual immorality, strangled meat, and blood. But Paul claims that nothing was imposed on him. He does not say, “There were a few things I was told, but the most important was to remember the poor.” No, that would have been acceptable. Instead, he outright denies having been given any instructions, which is simply false. One could at least say that he misled the Galatian church.

Christian scholars confirm that the Letter to the Galatians was written after Acts 15, so it cannot be argued that Paul was unaware of James’ “command.”

What Was Paul’s Relationship with the Apostles?

Luther Bible 2017, 2 Corinthians 3:1:
“1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you or from you?”

It is unclear exactly what Paul is referring to here, but I would like to remind you of James, who always had letters drafted whenever a decision was made—letters of recommendation so that people would know the apostles had made these decisions. However, Paul says such letters are unnecessary and that people themselves are the letters. In other words, he argues that it is unimportant for Christians to know whether the apostles made certain decisions because the believers themselves are the testimony. But if you think about it, that does not make much sense.

Luther Bible 2017, 2 Corinthians 11:4-5:
“4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough!
5 Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these ‘super-apostles.'”

This is very interesting. Is there anywhere in the New Testament where we can determine who these “super-apostles” (which is obviously meant sarcastically or even mockingly) are? Yes, there is. In Galatians 2, we find a clue. After having a dispute with Peter and Barnabas, Paul writes:

“Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.”

Here, we see that the “super-apostles” refer to the apostles and those who uphold the law.

Luther Bible 2017, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21:
“20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law—though not being myself under the law—that I might win those under the law.
21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law—not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ—that I might win those outside the law.”

Note: This verse is highly controversial even among Christians. Paul says, “To those without the law, I became as one without the law, though I am still under the law.” No matter how you interpret it, this is another deception by Paul. If he became everything to everyone just to convert them, then he was deceiving them. If I were to tell you, “I became a Christian,” while I am actually a Muslim, just to convert you to Islam, I would still be lying. My intentions may be good, but I would still be lying. And I would not trust my eternal life to someone who lies.

Luther Bible 2017, Galatians 5:2-4:
“2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”

Here, Paul states that anyone who gets circumcised to follow the law loses Christ. According to Paul, anyone who follows the law is no longer a Christian.

Then, in verse 12, he uses very harsh words:
“I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!”

This means he believes that those who promote circumcision should go as far as castrating themselves. Do you really think Jesus would agree with this statement, especially since Jesus himself was circumcised?

But does Paul stand by his words?

Acts 21:21,24,26 shows that he later contradicts himself, implying that he also followed the law when necessary.

Acts 21:21, 24, 26:
“21 But they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to live according to the customs. 22 What then? Certainly, they will hear that you have come. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads. Then everyone will know that what they were told about you is not true, but that you yourself also live in accordance with the law and observe it. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we have written and decided that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself with them, went into the temple, and announced the completion of the days of purification when the offering would be made for each of them.”

Note: Here, James is speaking to Paul. He is concerned because he has heard that Paul is commanding the Jews who live among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, meaning he is telling them not to follow the law and not to circumcise their children, even though Paul himself claimed to be under the law. Then James tells Paul that, in order to show everyone that the rumors about him are false, he should go to the temple with four men and offer a sacrifice, so that people can see that he follows the law. Paul does exactly that.

And here we see another lie. Paul told the Galatians that circumcision is no longer required and that the law is no longer valid. If that were true, why would James say, “Do these things so that the Christians know you follow the law,” if the law was no longer in effect? The answer is simple: Paul lied. He lied about circumcision, and he said that those who follow the law have fallen from the grace of Christ. If that were really true, why would James want Paul to demonstrate to the people that he still follows the law and that the rumors are false? But Paul had indeed done all the things that James had heard about. Now he acts as if he never said those things—otherwise, he would have responded, “Yes, James, I did these things because Jesus commanded me to.” But why didn’t he say that? Because he was afraid. He knew that he had lied.

Now, what kind of sacrifice are they talking about? James is referring to the Nazarite vow, which can be read about in Numbers, chapter 6. This is a sacrifice made as atonement for sins. Now think about this: all of this is happening after the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus has already died for sins and paid for them with his blood. So why are the Christians going with Paul to offer an animal sacrifice to atone for their sins, even though Jesus already did that? But that is a discussion for another time.

What can we now see from all these verses?

One can recognize that Paul is at least lying to the Galatian church, lying to the apostles, and pretending to believe in the validity of the law in Jerusalem, even though he rejects it.

Before I conclude, I want to quote a passage from Paul in the New Testament and a verse from the Old Testament.

Here, allegedly God speaks in Deuteronomy 27:26: “Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out.” And all the people shall say, “Amen!”

Deut. 28:1: “If you fully obey the Lord your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. 2 All these blessings will come on you and accompany you if you obey the Lord your God:”

Paul quotes this very verse in Galatians: Luther Bible 2017, Galatians 3:10-13: “10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse. As it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.’

But Paul contradicts God. God says that anyone who does not keep the law is cursed, and anyone who follows it will be blessed, but Paul says that anyone who keeps the law is cursed.

Now my question: do you listen to God, or to a liar who falsely claims to be an apostle and contradicts God?

Jesus says in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore, anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) says that he has NOT come to abolish the law. He says that until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest letter will be invalid, and anyone who tries to abolish even the smallest command will be the least in the kingdom of heaven. In conclusion, Jesus says that the law is valid until the end of the world, which law? The law of Moses! Whoever tries to abolish it will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

Now, what does Paul say about the law? Paul says that the old law is not valid and that he has come with a new one.

But didn’t Jesus say that the law is valid until the end?

My Last Point: Paul’s Prophecy

1 Corinthians 15:51-52: “51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed – 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.”

He speaks here about the coming of Jesus, the Parousia. A professor of theology from the University of Darwin says in his commentary on this verse: “Paul expects that when Jesus comes, he will not be among the dead but among the living. He expects the return of Jesus during his lifetime.”

Paul prophesied something that did not happen, so it is a false prophecy. Fortunately, we can read in the Old Testament about those who make false prophecies.

Deut. 18:20-22: “20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death. 21 You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?’ 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.”

Here, God allegedly explains how to recognize a false prophet – by the prophecies that do not come to pass. Paul made a prophecy, and it did not come true, making him a false prophet.

My Conclusion

My conclusion is that Paul contradicts the apostles, he contradicts Jesus, and he contradicts God. He lied to the people in Galatia and to the apostles and pretended to follow the law, even though he told the Gentiles that the law was not valid.

Jesus, the apostles, and the Christians all adhered to the law, but Paul hated it. He called the law, which comes from God, “filthy.” He made prophecies that were untrue. He fought with the apostles.

With my research, I have proven that Paul was a liar, a hypocrite, not an apostle, and a false prophet.

Listen to what Jesus tells you, not what your church or Paul says. Many important scholars say that today’s Christianity was founded by Paul and not by Jesus. Read these passages carefully with an open heart and see the truth, for that is the first step.

If Paul was not trustworthy, then an all-powerful God would have ensured that his letters would not be included in the Bible, thereby leading people astray with a false doctrine. The most likely truth is that Paul distorted the theology of the Jerusalem (apostles) – based Christians, and that no omnipotent god existed at the time to prevent this from happening.

(5117) Early Christianity was a cult

The earliest forms of Christianity contained elements that are consistent with the term ‘cult.’ The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/phg6oz/early_christianity_was_pretty_obviously_a_cult/?share_id=K5HwtFBiTA0_pgoFFtCBA&utm_content=2&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1

 Early Christianity was pretty obviously a cult

1. 1. Leader claims world is ending imminently (1 John 2:18, Matthew 10:23, Matthew 16:28, Matthew 24:34)
   2. Wants you to sell or give away your belongings (Luke 14:33, Matthew 19:21, Luke 18:22)
   3. Wants you to cut off family who interfere, and leave your home/job to follow him (Matt. 10:35-37, Luke 14:26, Matthew 19:29)
   4. Unverifiable reward if you believe (Heaven, i.e. the bribe)
   5. Unverifiable punishment if you disbelieve (Hell, i.e. the threat)
   6. Sabotages the critical thinking faculties you might otherwise use to remove it (Proverbs 3:5, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Proverbs 14:12, Proverbs 28:26)
   7. Invisible trickster character who fabricates apparent evidence to the contrary in order to lead you astray from the true path (So you will reject anything you hear/read which might cause you to doubt)
   8. Targets children and the emotionally/financially vulnerable for recruitment (sunday schools, youth group, teacher led prayer, prison ministries, third world missions)
   9. May assign new name (as with 3 of the apostles), new identity/personality to replace yours

Imminent end of the world:

1 John 2:18 “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.”

Matthew 16:27-28 “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Matthew 24:34 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”

Matthew 10:23 “When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”

Sell your belongings:

Luke 14:33 “In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.”

Matthew 19:21 *Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”*Luke 12:33 “Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.”

Luke 18:22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

(Please note that only Luke 18:22 and Matthew 19:21 concern the story of Jesus advising the wealthy young man about the difficulty of entering heaven.

These verses are included for completeness, and to acknowledge the existence of this story because the most common objection I receive to the claim that Jesus required followers to sell their belongings is that I *must* be talking about this particular story and misunderstanding the message it conveys.

However in Luke 12:33 and Luke 14:33 Jesus is not speaking to that man but to a crowd following him, and in 14:33 he specifically says that those who do not give up everything they have cannot be his disciples. It is therefore not a recommendation but a requirement, and is not specific to the wealthy.)

Cut off family members who try to stop you:

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple.”

Matt. 10:35-37 “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. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

Matthew 19:29 “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.”

Do not apply critical thought to doctrine:

Proverbs 3:5 “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding”

2 Corinthians 5:7 “For we live by faith, not by sight.”

Proverbs 14:12 “There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.”

Proverbs 28:26 “Those who trust in themselves are fools, but those who walk in wisdom are kept safe.”

With respect to “no contemporaneous outside source corroborates these claims” they will cite the accounts of Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Elder. What they hope you will assume is that these are independent accounts of Jesus’ miracles. If you actually check into it however what you will find is that the Josephus account was altered by Christian scribes to embellish mentions of Jesus (in the case of Josephus portraying him as though he were convinced of Jesus’ divinity, despite not being a Christian) and the remaining accounts only mention a Jewish magician who founded a cult.

None of them corroborate the miracles, or resurrection, as will be implied. Maybe even Christians don’t know this, not having personally fact checked their own apologetics. (EDIT: Only the Josephus account is known to be a pious fraud. The Tacitus account isn’t, but is also not an eye witness record of miracles or the resurrection, only confirmation of Jesus as a historical person which I do not dispute)

As an aside it’s important to make this distinction because today the word cult gets thrown around carelessly by people who only just learned of the B.I.T.E. model, which dilutes it. This gives actual cult members the cover of “You say I’m in a cult? Well people these days call everything a cult, so what.” Making this distinction is also important to understanding how cults mature into religions over time, as evidenced by the increasing degree of high control cultic policy the younger a religion is, and vice versa.

Scientology is very young, everybody identifies it as a cult. Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses are a little older, recognized as religion but widely identified as cultic and high control. Islam is older, considered by all to be a religion but still immature and expansionist. Christianity’s older still, considered by all a religion, mostly settled down compared to Islam. Judaism much older, tamest of the lot.

This is because as a cult grows, beyond a certain membership threshold the high-control policies like disconnection and selling belongings are no longer necessary for retention and become a conspicuous target for critics. The goal is to become irremovably established in the fabric of society then just kind of blend into the background, becoming something everybody assumes the correctness of but doesn’t otherwise think much about.

Many of the cult-like elements of early Christianity have been massaged out of the faith, to make it appear to be more legitimate, but its foundational theology remains very cult-like. As in every religion to date, Christianity will follow the same formula: charismatic leader → cult → religion →extinction.

(5118) Ineffectiveness of prayer is swept under the rug

One of the litmus tests of Christianity’s truth is whether prayers to the Christian God or Jesus show any sign of effectiveness. To date all studies on the matter have indicated that prayers do not work, or even worse, often result in less favorable outcomes. This fact alone should cause the end of Christianity. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1jfudus/why_is_the_fact_that_prayer_provably_doesnt_work/

Why is the fact that prayer PROVABLY doesn’t work, not really talked about in society?

It is a good question- WHY is this not more discussed, and why do so many Christians dismiss this reality and cling to their faith? It should be a game-ender.

(5119) Luke versus Paul on atonement

There exists a troubling difference between Luke and Paul’s ideas of atonement. Luke did not endorse the idea that atonement can be attained solely through acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, but rather that it was an incentive to attain salvation through repentance. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/xpxbcq/does_lukeacts_lack_a_doctrine_of_atonement/

In Ehrman’s less technical discussion (than in the blogpost), in “Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene,” he contrasts the Luke/Acts view of salvation with Paul’s own view as expressed in his letters:

“According to Paul, Christ’s death provides an atonement for sins; according to Luke, Christ’s death leads to forgiveness of sins. These are not the same thing.”

“The idea of atonement is that something needs to be done in order to deal with sins. A sacrifice has to be made in order to compensate for the fact that someone has transgressed divine law. The sacrifice satisfies the just demands of God, whose law has been broken and who requires a penalty. In Paul’s view, Jesus’ death brought about an atonement: it was a sacrifice made for the sake of others so that they would not have to pay for their sins themselves. This atonement purchased a right standing before God.”

“The idea of forgiveness is that someone lets you off the hook for something you’ve done wrong, without any requirement of payment. That’s quite different from accepting the payment of your debt from someone else (which would be the basic idea of atonement). In Paul’s own way of looking at salvation, Christ had to be sacrificed to pay the debt of others; in Luke’s way of looking at it, God forgives the debt without requiring a sacrifice.”

“Why then, for Luke, did Jesus have to die, if not as a sacrifice for sins? When you read through the speeches in Acts the answer becomes quite clear. It doesn’t matter whether you look at Paul’s speeches or Peter’s, since, if you’ll recall, all these speeches are pretty much alike (they were, after all, written by Luke). Jesus was wrongly put to death. This was a gross miscarriage of justice. When people realize what they (or their compatriots) did to Jesus, they are overcome by guilt, which leads them to repent and ask for forgiveness. And God forgives them.”

“Thus Jesus’ death, for Luke, is not an atonement for sins, it is an occasion for repentance. It is the repentance that leads to the forgiveness of sins, and thus a restored relationship with God (see, for example, Peter’s first speech in Acts 2:37-39). This is fundamentally different from a doctrine of atonement such as you find in Paul.” (pp.143-144).

Repentance versus acceptance. Luke versus Paul. The manner of salvation is critical to Christian theology and yet the separation on this issue by two of its historical luminaries leaves a lot of doubt- doubt that should not exist if a supernatural being inspired the Bible.

(5120) Where’s Susan and Steve?

The author(s) of the creation story(ies) in Genesis blundered by creating a necessity for incest to propagate the human race. The problem could have been solved easily by creating another pair of humans- perhaps Susan and Steve. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1jhh37n/the_problem_of_adam_and_eve_in_christianity_islam/

As we know, incest is forbidden and seen as an immorality in any respectable religion.

This contradicts the human creation story as taught in Abrahamic faiths, since only Adam and Eve were created by God and subsequently left to their own devices.

It was fine for Adam and Eve to have children together — both being brand new creations of God, they weren’t related to each other (I don’t think?)

But the problem arises when their children get to an age where they need to have their own children themselves. The children of Adam and Eve faced the choice of having to procreate with either a sibling or a parent.

There was no third option.

God, being omniscient, knew that all he had to do to avoid this regrettable dilemma was create just one more pair of humans to go alongside Adam and Eve — all he had to do was create Susan and Steve. That way, the whole incest thing wouldn’t be necessary.

The fact that God failed to create Susan and Steve is exactly the kind of blunder we would expect to find in a man-made mythology, a story susceptible to plot holes and bloopers.

Therefore the creation story is most likely false.

Man-made mythology is subject to human fallibility, but god-inspired biblical text should be immune. Right off the bat, in the first two chapters of Genesis, we can see an oversight that only a human could have overlooked.

(5121) Three-point de-conversion

In the following testimony, the writer details the three points that led him to conclude that Christianity is not true:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1jfphqr/what_made_you_leave_christianity_for_good/

It was sort of a long process, but essentially, it comes down to things not making sense, and the stuff I was being taught not reflecting reality.

There were 3 major points that I can remember, which happened by the time I was 13:

The story of Abraham and Isaac is one of the first things taught to us as kids. God tells Abraham to kill Isaac in a test of loyalty. Abraham goes to do so, but is stopped at the last minute. At one point, I heard a story of a man claiming that God told him to kill somebody, and I asked my mom how we knew that God didn’t tell him to do so. Upon further questioning to her and pastors, I always got the same answers, which essentially broke down to, “God wouldn’t do that” or “you’ll understand when you’re older.”

Then, around age 10-12, I heard a sermon that essentially said that anything that took your attention from God was evil, regardless of what you thought about it. Had it stopped there, I might not have been affected by it, but then the guy went on to mention both the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the power rangers in very derogatory terms. It seems silly now, but as a kid, especially me in the 90s, those two things brought me some of the only joy I had in life. The ability to escape in to the fantasy of those worlds was some of the only safety that I had at the time. To say that these good guys were evil bothered me and further made me question the whole idea.

Finally, when I was 13, my brother, a devout christian, murdered three people then was killed by police during a hostage situation. At his funeral, his pastor said that there was a bright spot to all the death and destruction my brother had caused: he was going to heaven because he believed in Jesus. I was shocked by this statement.

At that time, I thought my brother was evil. That lack of safety I spoke over the previous paragraphs was due to him. I was so afraid of him that he was dead for 4 years before I could talk about what he had done to me. Now I don’t believe him to be evil, because I know that he was just a fucked up kid who had some fucked up shit done to him as well, but at the time, especially after the murders, I thought he was evil. To hear this pastor say my brother would go to heaven was bonkers.

I was even more flabbergasted to look over at his living victims and the families of his dead victims and see them nodding along in agreement.

I just couldn’t believe that my religion thought this. So I set out to prove them wrong. It took me a while, because this was the 90s and it was harder to find information back then, but it wasn’t too long after that that I discovered that there is a major debate within Christianity about this. About half of Christians think that you have to believe in Jesus and be a good person to go to heaven while the other half believe that nothing you do will change whether you go to heaven or not. Both require you to believe in Jesus, but only one requires you to be a good person.

The fact that there was a debate at all about this very basic doctrinal point killed my Christianity in an instant.

These three points are the tip of the iceberg. There are so many inconsistencies, incongruities, and downright absurdities that must be navigated and essentially ignored for a person to believe in the truth of Christianity. If, by chance, it is true, then God should be taken to court for presenting his ‘great project’ in such a haphazard manner.

(5122) Failed Eschatology of the New Testament

Christian apologists have tried to squirm out from what is a straightforward reading of the New Testament, relating a firm prediction that Jesus would return soon, and certainly before the end of the First Century. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/1jic6ok/again_on_the_failed_errant_eschatology_of_the_new/

My claim is quite simple and has broad consensus among biblical scholars and historians, most of whom are religious. It is not really a debate in the academy, but I am sure most here don’t care about that: The Book of Daniel, the person of Jesus, and the New Testament writers in general expected and hoped for the imminent, near end of history. Their hopes were egregiously wrong. Unfulfilled. Errant. What the implications of this are for the Christian faith, I leave it to you, but I think it indeed calls for the abandonment of traditional views about the bible and its supposed “authority.”

You may think me arrogant for claiming this, but this really shouldn’t be a debate at all. According to the plain meaning of words, the “plain meaning of the text” (a phrase I so often heard in my evangelical upbringing), the sensus literalis, these authors had an imminent expectation of the end. They believed that the great eschaton, the final judgment of the righteous and the wicked, was right around the corner, and their generation would live to see it.

Daniel

Of course, my analysis will be brief due to space limitations. I start with the Book of Daniel because it became very important to Jesus and the NT authors for their depictions of the end. It colors much of the NT’s eschatological imagery. It has also been a cornerstone for millennia of Christian and Jewish eschatological thinking.

The prophetic visions of Daniel, especially chapters 7–12, were composed mainly during the oppressive reign of Antiochus IV (167–164 BCE). Daniel 11 gives a detailed (and mostly accurate) account of Hellenistic history up to the time of Antiochus IV. But in Daniel 11:40–45, the predictions become inaccurate. The text describes a final conflict where Antiochus invades Egypt, returns to Israel, and meets his end in a specific, dramatic way. This doesn’t match historical events. Antiochus died in Persia, not in the Holy Land, during a climactic final battle. Regardless, the real problem comes in Daniel 12. “At that time shall arise, Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, like never has been…” What is the “at that time”? It is the time of Antiochus and the war of the Hellenistic kingdoms, as presupposed by the context of chapters 10-11. This is not thousands of years later in the modern period and beyond when Michael appears. This is in the ancient world, during the Maccabean revolt.

The resurrection of the dead and the final judgment are also said to happen when Michael appears, and an explicit timeframe is attached for when this is to happen. “And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away… there shall be 1,290 days.” (12:11). This is an explicit timeframe (about 3.5 years) for when the end will come, in response to Daniel’s question about when this will happen. Later, the text adds another variant: 1,335 days (12:12), suggesting an adjustment or delay of the expected end. The author’s prophecy of the eschaton, the resurrection, the vindication and restoration of Israel, and the appearance of Michael did not happen.

Jesus (Texts from Mark and Matthew)

Jesus predicted the imminent end of the world and the eschaton to happen within his lifetime. First of all, Mark states that it was the characteristic preaching of Jesus to announce the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. Mark 1:14–15: “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

What is the Kingdom of God? Apologists have often argued that what Jesus means by such a saying is the coming of the Church. But that is not what Jesus talks about in the gospels. The “Kingdom of God” was an eschatological term that referred to the end times when God’s full reign and judgment would be realized on earth. Mark 9:1: And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.” Does this refer to the Church or the transfiguration, as some apologists have claimed? The answer is no. In the previous verse, Jesus defines what he means: Mark 8:38: “For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” There is an explicit link between the Kingdom of God and the “coming of the Son of Man” with the angels in judgment. Jesus seems to have predicted the imminent arrival of a heavenly figure for judgment. Such ideas were well-known in Judaism, such as in 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, etc.

Again, in Mark 13, Jesus predicts the imminent arrival of God’s kingdom, the Son of Man’s descent from heaven, and the gathering of the “elect.” Jesus said that all this would happen before his generation passed away. Mark 13:30: Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” “All these things” means exactly that, and just a few verses before, in vv 24-27, Jesus says that after the destruction of the temple (an event which did occur in 70 CE), the Son of Man would arrive in judgment with the angles and gather the elect. “Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my word will never pass away.” (v. 31)

Matthew makes Mark even more explicit about the meaning of the Kingdom: Matthew 16:27–28 “For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Jesus predicted the imminent eschaton. He was wrong.

Paul

The apologetic that Jesus was referring to the Church, spiritual renewal, or the transfiguration is refuted. Many other verses in synoptic gospels speak of the same thing. Our earliest Christian writings confirm this view of Jesus, that of Paul. Paul was also an apocalypticist. Interestingly, Paul cites a bit of Jesus tradition in one crucial passage to confirm the imminent return of the Lord and the arrival of God’s Kingdom: 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 “But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words.”

1 Corinthians 7: Paul advises the Christians at Corinth to stay in their social structures (i.e. not getting married, staying single, staying as a slave) because the “present form of this world is passing away.” (v. 31) Paul couldn’t be clearer: “I think that in view of the impending distress, it is good for a person to remain as he is.” (v. 26). The “distress” he is referring to is the Day of the Lord which would be a day of wrath. In the same letter, Paul says the parousia (return) of Jesus will happen soon, and he will live to see it. 1 Corinthians 15:51–52: “Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.”

Romans 13:11–12: “Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.” Most scholars see the “salvation” being referenced here as the return of the Lord.

A failed eschatology equates to a failed religious faith. Christianity is running on fumes, dealing with its long overdue savior, as well as the ineffectiveness of prayers, and a lack of any verified miracles. All it has to go on is tradition and the subservience of followers who believe without applying critical thought.

(5123) Christian churches are bad for society

It should go without debate that if Christianity was true, then Christian churches would be a highly effective salve for our word- a source of truth, assistance, and enlightenment. But the opposite is true as discussed below:

https://new.exchristian.net/2024/12/blog-post.html

It’s considered bad form to condemn all versions of Christianity, so most leading voices in religious journalism will only speak negatively of “high-control” religions or simply “cults.” However, the subtle implication of those terms is that “low-control religions” or “non-cults” are not harmful. This has always caused me to stop in my tracks. It’s wrong. Even though Christianity is a continuum of beliefs, all versions of Christianity are indeed harmful.

For the purpose of this article, I need to define the word “Christian”? Any version of “Christianity” that does not believe in the redemption from original sin through the crucifixion of Christ is probably misnamed. Based on this definition, every Christian, in spite of all the good things they might do, are still partly responsible for America’s toppling into the chasm of a police state. They are all responsible for making parishioners chronically insecure and susceptible to strong-man leadership. They are all responsible for enabling Christian Nationalism and the myriad of abuses done at the hands of terrible church leaders.

So as much as I’d like to say this nicely, all Christians are bad for our society. Let me explain why.

Ailment 1: The Requirement to Believe Without Evidence

My friend Robb Smith has a saying:

 “When it comes to Conspiracy Theories, all roads lead to Auschwitz.”

This sounds like hyperbole, but it’s not. I’ve been saying something similar for years: any belief system that requires you to believe without evidence WILL, eventually, be taken over by sociopaths who will ask its followers to commit atrocities.

We’re about to see a very clear example of this happening in the US.

Every religion (not just Christianity) has this self-condemning prerequisite: you must believe something without ample evidence. If a group does not do this, I would argue that group is not a religion.

Belief in Christianity requires a leap of faith. You have to jump across a chasm of ignorance, believing without evidence that there is an imaginary island on the other side.

This non-evidentiary path to “truth” is inextricably bound to every conceivable version of evidence. This has created a fatal flaw in the Christian American mentality and even the best of Christians not only possess it, but are responsible for it.

Christian tenets of faith (which change year over year) do not come from the Bible, they come from people. Usually men, and usually white men. This has set the stage for a certain type of creepy, smarmy authoritative voice to evolve over the decades. That voice has become an emotionally coded language for evangelical Christians. When they hear that code, it’s as if they fall under hypnosis and believe whatever is spoken.

This condition is a cancer on our society. It has allowed Right-Wing Extremists to hack into 30 – 40% of our population simply by issuing a few dog whistles and mimicking that sickening code. Not all Christians have been hacked, but 80% of White Evangelicals have. This embrace of “faith,” as if it were a virtue, is the line of source code that has left all Christians susceptible to being hacked. If you’re not a White Evangelical, you might fall prey to the next scam.

All of Christianity is guilty because they all adhere to tenets of faith that cannot be proven with evidence, and that is where the fatal flaw begins.

Ailment #2: Christianity’s Toxic Doctrine

Millions of Americans have been taught that they have “original sin” and are evil by nature. This idea resonates with normal human insecurities, so many follow the prescription and surrender to God in order to receive forgiveness. For a person to believe they have a “sin nature” is wrong and profoundly unhealthy. Sin is an imaginary construct, but natural human behaviors are not. By asserting that a person is ugly to their core robs them of a much more beautiful version of their life that they might have lived had they never met a Christian.

Additionally, implying that someone is doomed to sin creates a tendency to make unethical choices when they might not have without this condemnation put upon them. If you believe you are bad, you will do bad things.

Religions indoctrinate people with this toxic idea, year after year, to millions of people who were born innocent. For that reason, I say all Christian churches are part of the problem. Its doctrine is toxic.

Ailment #3: The Ambiguity of Your Scripture Allows All Manner of Evil to Lie Dormant

Violent extremism is on the rise for a number of reasons, and Christianity is apparently helpless to defend against it happening within its own ranks. I believe this is because of the ambiguity of its scripture, and for this reason, all versions of Christianity will always be a danger to society.

There might be a few splinters of Christianity who do not imbue any version of The Bible with any magical powers. Those splinters are extremely scant, so I apply this condemnation to all Christians. They adhere to a religion that is based on an amorphous scripture. The Bible can be used to justify loving one’s neighbor, or stoning a fornicator. On one page God desires mercy, and on another page he wants his chosen people to commit genocide.

This ambiguity allows religious people to dine on their faith cafeteria-style. Most often, religious people choose to apply the good or benign elements of scripture to their culture or religion. They blithely disregard the depiction of their God as a violent dictator who will send you to hell if you don’t pay him homage. This is why Christians take umbrage when people blame their religion on violence perpetrated in its name. Religious adherents who commit acts of violence, they claim, have lost sight of what defines their faith. They aren’t “true Christians.” But unfortunately, they are.

Christians have integrated themselves deeply into American society. Everyone assumes the faithful have peaceful intentions, until they don’t. Their scripture allows plenty of leeway to invoke violence, and many Christians will as soon as they believe it has become necessary.

Allowing Christianity to exist without criticism is similar to allowing a Country Club in your neighborhood that still has a “no Negroes” clause in its by-laws. Even though the Club might not enforce that by-law, it should not be allowed to remain.

Ailment #4: You participate in and contribute to a culture of unearned trust.

Certain roles in society garner automatic respect: doctors, lawyers, professors, state officials, scientists and clergy.

The automatic respect given to all of those professions is generally deserved. Their professions are backed by organizations that provide oversight and self-correcting measures. Those organizations will disbar bad lawyers, take away licenses to practice medicine, removed bad professors from tenure, or vote them out of office. The outputs of those professions can be measured both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Except the Clergy.

Their respect is illusory, and every Christian who attends church contributes to the illusion. They grant unearned trust to the person behind the podium, who claims to preach “truth” but is making assertions without ample evidence.

I’m going to be fair: many church leaders are fine people, who, even though they proffer gibbering delusion, might actually give people a warm sense of well-being. As John Lennon says, “Whatever gets you through the night.”

Christianity has no central governing body that consistently and justly ensures that pastors who molest children are permanently banished. They have no self-correcting measures to reliably, and without bias, makes sure Pastors aren’t preaching toxic political messages, or using their positions of power to unfairly manipulate people, or saying that climate change is a hoax, or that the election was stolen, etc. Every day, average Americans fall prey to pastors because they are given unearned respect. All Christians contribute to this.

While many churches might be completely innocuous love-fests and pot-luck dinners, each one is neatly arranged in a field that is well-traveled by humanity, and it is minefield.

Conclusion

Leaders in religious journalism should not be afraid of pointing out these ailments that afflict every type of Christian church. While its true that “high control” churches have a worse effect, all churches spread these ailments, and they make our society vulnerable to very real danger.

The world would be better off without the minority-bashing, fear-mongering, science-denying Christian churches. A real god would have done a much better job of structuring a religious faith for the benefit of all.

(5124) Divine misdirection

If Christianity is true, then Yahweh is playing a game of misdirection, devising a religious faith that appeals most fervently to less-educated, less-intelligent, and less-inquisitive people. On the other hand, punishing those who are the opposite. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1jj1zcb/the_negative_correlation_between_intelligence_and/

Thesis: There is a negative correlation between intelligence metrics and religious belief, which is what we would expect to find in a world absent of a personal god, such as the Abrahamic God. If such a god existed, they would not make the world such that intelligence has a negative relationship with religious belief as this paints religion in a bad light and drives people away from religious belief, which is the opposite of what God wants.

Research shows, consistently, that non-religious people are more intelligent on average (see links below).

Whatever the explanation is, arrogance or what have you, the bottom line is that religious conviction is linked with lower levels of intelligence. That’s a fact, as studies all around the world have concluded the same thing.

If Christianity, for example, was true (any of the hundreds of versions if it) then God would have absolutely no reason to mislead so many people away from Christianity with these revealing facts.

Why did God make the world so that the more intelligent ones are less religious? To test us? To trick non-believers into being even more confident in their non-belief?

If non-religiousness causes higher intelligence, why didn’t God make it so that religiosity leads to attainment of higher intelligence to give believers advantage and faith?

If higher intelligence leads to non-religiousness, why did God make it so that religion seems to be the less attractive option to smarter people?

If intelligence fosters arrogance or whatever, then why did God make it so? Why did God make intelligent people less likely to be saved? Why is there no satisfying answer in the thousands of pages in the Bible or Quran? Why is this issue not even addressed?

This isn’t just Divine Hiddenness anymore, this is divine misdirection — purposeful, intentional misdirection by God, making religion seem less and less plausible the more you learn and the more you think.

This shows that it’s much more likely for God to not exist, at least not in the way that you believe.

References:

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289608000238?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[2] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://bigthink.com/articles/the-more-intelligent-you-are-the-less-religious-and-vice-versa/&ved=2ahUKEwjPltiouqKMAxWSVUEAHfXqO0s4ChAWegQILBAB&usg=AOvVaw2kB9azloiZHJrdr-XyUbS1

[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23921675/

[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289617301848?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[5] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.asanet.org/wp-content/uploads/savvy/documents/spq/Kanazawa_2010_SPQ_Snap.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjPltiouqKMAxWSVUEAHfXqO0s4ChAWegQINhAB&usg=AOvVaw2dt0jhTIk1778yLGGyUAP8

[6] https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/TheRelationshipofReligiosityAtheismBeliefandIntelligenceKristyLungo.pdf

[7] https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.12425?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[8] https://richardlynn.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Richard-Lynn-Tatu-Vanhanen-IQ-and-Global-Inequality-2006.pdf

[9] https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/are-religious-people-really-less-smart-average-atheists?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[10] https://www.newsweek.com/atheism-intelligence-religion-evolution-instinct-natural-selection-610982?utm_source=chatgpt.com#google_vignette

[11] https://neurosciencenews.com/religion-atheism-intelligence-8391/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[12] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34449007/

[13] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201005/the-real-reason-atheists-have-higher-iqs?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[14] https://www.livescience.com/59361-why-are-atheists-generally-more-intelligent.html

[15] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15982104/

[16] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1384630

[17] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1385179

[18] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/223231

[19] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20504860/

[20] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31610740/

[21] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1930-03121-001

[22] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1930-02399-001

[23] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8836311/

[24] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-more-intelligent-than-religious-people-faith-instinct-cleverness-a7742766.html

[25] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170517101208.htm

[26] https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201004/why-atheists-are-more-intelligent-the-religious

[27] https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2014/30-may/features/features/why-atheists-are-brighter-than-christians

The playing field for Christian salvation is heavily tilted depending on where someone was born and into whatever family. But it is further tilted away from those who pursue advanced academic degrees, those who carefully study religious texts, and those who exhibit high intelligence. This would not be the case if Christianity was true- in fact, it would be the direct opposite.

(5125) Christianity- the myth that calls other myths false

Christians are disturbingly indulgent when it comes to asserting their faith to be true and all others false. Especially without a shred of evidence to back up the claim. The following was taken from:

https://new.exchristian.net/2025/03/christianity-myth-that-calls-every.html

It is absolutely infuriating that Christians—of all people—have the gall to declare that their religion is the one and only truth while dismissing every other belief system as fantasy, delusion, or outright deception. The sheer arrogance required to make such a claim is astounding. They ridicule Greek mythology, laugh at Hindu deities, and mock indigenous spiritual traditions—all while demanding that everyone accept their set of supernatural absurdities as objective reality.

Let’s be crystal clear: Christianity is mythology. It’s a collection of ancient stories, borrowed traditions, and heavily edited scriptures, repackaged as divine truth. The only reason it gets a pass is because it wormed its way into political power centuries ago and has been gaslighting people ever since. If the Roman Empire had favored some other sect, modern Christians might be worshiping Mithras and claiming that was the one true faith. But no, because history played out in their favor, they now stand atop their artificially elevated pedestal, wagging their fingers at every other faith and calling them false.

The Staggering Absurdity of Christian Exclusivism

Christians who insist their religion is the truth love to talk about divine revelation. But if God revealed himself only to a tiny Middle Eastern tribe a few thousand years ago, what does that say about the billions of humans who lived before that? Were they just collateral damage? Why should a child born in rural India today be doomed to eternal damnation because they weren’t lucky enough to be born into the “right” culture?

If Christianity were truly self-evident, why would the vast majority of humanity throughout history not believe in it? Even today, billions reject it. Yet Christians wave this off with condescending nonsense about “blindness” and “spiritual deception.” In their minds, the billions of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and atheists are just wrong, while they alone have stumbled upon the Ultimate Truth™.

This isn’t faith—it’s unchecked narcissism.

Faith Is a Delusion, Not a Virtue

One of the most pathetic defenses of Christianity is that it “brings comfort” and “gives life meaning.” So what? So does insanity. If a man walks around believing he’s the Emperor of the Universe and it makes him happy, should we validate his delusion? If a cult convinces its members that they’ll be rewarded in an afterlife, does that make their belief real? Delusion is often more comfortable than reality—but that doesn’t make it true.

Christians brag about how their faith gives them hope. Hope in what? That the universe was handcrafted just for them? That an invisible cosmic dictator is watching their every move, waiting to punish or reward them like a celestial game show host? That their dead loved ones are waiting for them in some paradise?

The fact that these ideas feel good doesn’t mean they’re anything more than wishful thinking. In fact, that’s exactly why they’re so seductive. People cling to Christianity for the same reason they cling to any comforting lie—it spares them from dealing with the terrifying uncertainty of reality. But that doesn’t make it profound. It makes it intellectually dishonest.

Stop Shoving Your Myth Down Everyone’s Throats

What makes Christian arrogance so unbearable isn’t just their belief in their mythology—it’s their obsession with forcing it on others. They want schools to teach it, governments to reflect it, laws to enforce it. They sneer at other religions while demanding that society cater to theirs. They pretend to be persecuted whenever someone dares to challenge their unearned privilege.

Enough is enough. Believe whatever you want, but don’t pretend your myth is anything more than what it is—one story among countless others, no more valid than the legends of Odin or Zeus. And certainly don’t expect rational people to indulge your fantasy.

The world has suffered enough from Christian arrogance. It’s time to call it what it is—delusion, wrapped in entitlement, masquerading as truth.

If Christianity enjoyed an advantage of evidence against other faith traditions, this would be a different story, but it doesn’t. If this was baseball, Christianity would strike out. Strike 1- contradictory scriptures replete with mythology and fantasy elements. Strike 2- scientifically-proven ineffectiveness of prayer to Jesus, Yahweh, or the Holy Ghost. Strike 3- no evidence of miracles now or previous. Actually there are more strikes, but that’s enough to get it to limp back into the dugout.

(5126) Second Commandment fail

Christians rarely confront the entire text of the Second Commandment in Exodus 20 (neglecting for the moment that the only place where the term ‘Ten Commandments’ is used is a wholly different list in Exodus 34). If they did, they would confront the disturbingly odious concept of punishing children for the deeds of their parents. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1jjbbza/ever_notice_that_christians_censor_the_ten/

This is an argument that I’ve not seen very often, but IMO, it’s extremely revealing of the dishonesty of Christians when it comes to the Mosaic commandments. (We all know there’s a lot more than 10, but that’s not the main point here.)

Specifically, commandment #2 always gets cut and usually also edited. Here’s what the passage actually says (emphasis added) (Exodus 20:4-6, NIV)

You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Everyone, including Christians, knows it wrong to punish children for what their parents have done. In our era, it’s a war crime. So when they post the “ten commandments” in the public square, they always leave out that part. In fact I’m convinced many Christians don’t even realize that’s in there.

Let’s also notice that there are really a couple of commandments here. The first one (verse 4) is that you cannot make statues of any kind, period. And the second one (verse 5) is that you cannot worship any statues of any kind. So, at minimum, in Exodus 20, we really have 11 commandments.

The few times I’ve seen Christian apologists deal with the jealous god who punishes children and grandchildren and great grandchildren and even great great grandchildren, they say he didn’t really mean it that way, and those children were going to end up being bad anyway because of their parents, so it’s not Yahweh’s fault it’s the parent’s fault.

But what it means in practical purposes, if you take it literally, is that if any one of your 16 great-great grandparents worshiped anybody but Yahweh…. you’re cursed. Better go research that family tree!

It’s the closest thing I’ve found to a knockout punch for the average Christian. They never have an adequate answer. Best they can do is handwave and say Jesus fixed it.

If God is omnipotent then the text of the Second Commandment must have met his approval, meaning that he endorses the punishment of children for what the parents have done. If he doesn’t, then he is neglectful for allowing such a concept to be presented in his holy message to humankind.

(5127) Absurdity of the Jesus story in modern times

The story of Jesus is pounded into the defenseless brains of millions of children every year, leaving a permanent mark on their minds. Obviously, some overcome this stain, but for many, the damage remains until death. The story itself is absurd, especially when we compare it to the day-to-day reality that we all live in. The following was taken from:

https://new.exchristian.net/2025/03/a-three-day-death-sentence-absurdity-of.html

Imagine, for a moment, that someone told you today that a man was executed, stayed dead for three days, then got up, dusted himself off, and walked out of his grave like a guy waking up from a nap. You’d assume they were joking—or that they had been taken in by some fringe internet conspiracy. Yet, this is the foundational claim of Christianity, a belief held by billions, despite being the sort of thing that, if it happened now, would be filed under “bizarre hoax” on Snopes within hours.

To make it even stranger, the story doesn’t end there. After a few weeks of post-death appearances—appearing to his disciples, having breakfast, and showing off his spear wound like a party trick—Jesus decides to leave Earth by ascending into heaven. This was before we knew about outer space, of course, because “going up” in those days just meant “going where God lives.” Today, we know better. If a man literally ascended into the sky, he wouldn’t be transported to some celestial paradise—he’d eventually either suffocate, freeze, or get cooked by radiation. At best, he’d be orbiting as the world’s first accidental astronaut.

The absurdity of these stories becomes even clearer when you compare them to the miraculous claims of modern cults or fringe religions. We laugh at Scientologists believing in Xenu, the galactic overlord, or at Heaven’s Gate members thinking a spaceship was hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet. But how is Jesus teleporting through locked doors or turning water into wine any less ridiculous? If someone today claimed their spiritual leader had just fed five thousand people with a couple of loaves and some fish, we’d demand video evidence. Yet, because these stories were written down in an old book, they are treated as profound instead of preposterous.

Consider the other supernatural highlights from the Jesus mythos:

• • Walking on water—something only possible if you’re a magician performing a Vegas trick.
  • Healing the blind with spit and dirt—medieval folk medicine at best, unhygienic at worst.
  • Cursing a fig tree for not having fruit out of season—the divine equivalent of throwing a tantrum at an ATM for being out of cash.
  • Raising Lazarus from the dead—if this happened today, medical experts would want to study the case, not canonize it.

And yet, many of the same people who dismiss UFO sightings or ghost stories will insist that these ancient supernatural claims are true. Why? Because they were told the stories as children, and childhood indoctrination is powerful. It allows bizarre tales to be accepted uncritically, even when they defy everything we know about reality.

At the end of the day, the Jesus narrative isn’t significantly different from the wilder tales of modern religious movements—it’s just older, polished by tradition, and protected by social norms that discourage people from pointing out its obvious absurdities. If a new cult leader today tried to sell the exact same story, they’d be ridiculed. And yet, here we are, treating the resurrection as sacred while laughing at the likes of L. Ron Hubbard.

Perhaps in another 2,000 years, people will look back on today’s bizarre religious claims with the same unquestioning reverence. Or maybe—just maybe—future generations will see them for what they are: elaborate fairy tales, nothing more.

Human minds are highly susceptible to brainwashing. Although children are most effected, it can happen in adults as well. Christianity’s bizarre claims are the stuff of fantasy fiction and the entire faith would die out if children were inoculated from this bullshit from birth to 18 years old.

(5128) Luke’s adoptionist view squelched

There is ample evidence that the author of the Gospel of Luke considered Jesus to have been the adopted son of God, and not the pre-existing eternal son of the Lord, as per standard modern Christian theology. His original writings were later distorted to coincide with the majority view. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1jlxa39/proof_that_codex_sinaiticus_the_earliest_codex_is/

Majority of the translations in Luke 3:22 says “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased”. But is it what Luke or the original author actually wrote?

This picture here, which shows the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript, actually says that. However, the Codex Bezae 5th century manuscript says a different thing altogether. According to this particular manuscript, it says “You are my son, today I have begotten you”, possibly mimicking Psalms 2:7.

Justin Martyr, who was one of the earliest church father, actually appeals to the newer manuscript of Codex Bezae, same as Clement of Alexandria.

Justin Martyr says “but then the Holy Ghost, and for man’s sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: ‘You are My Son: this day have I begotten You;’ [the Father] saying that His generation would take place for men, at the time when they would become acquainted with Him: ‘You are My Son; this day have I begotten you.'” (Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 88)

Clement of Alexandria says “For we were illuminated, which is to know God. He is not then imperfect who knows what is perfect. And do not reprehend me when I profess to know God; for so it was deemed right to speak to the Word, and He is free. For at the moment of the Lord’s baptism there sounded a voice from heaven, as a testimony to the Beloved, “Thou art My beloved Son, today have I begotten Thee.” (The Instructor, book 1 ,Chapter 6)

It seems like Justin and Clement version allude to a different kind of “lost” manuscript. They could not have possibly be citing the 2nd century P4 manuscript as shown here, because it parallels with the 4th century Sinaiticus. This proofs that it is highly possible that the scribes of Luke changed and interpolated text even early within or a bit after Justin’s time.

Below are one of the commentaries from critical scholars:

New testament scholar Bart Erhman says “This is the reading of codex Bezae and a number of ecclesiastical writers from the second century onward. I will argue that it is in fact the original text of Luke, and that orthodox scribes who could not abide its adoptionistic over¬ tones “corrected” it into conformity with the parallel in Mark, “You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11)… Granting that the reading does not occur extensively after the fifth century, it cannot be overlooked that in witnesses of the second and third centuries, centuries that to be sure have not provided us with any superfluity of Greek manuscripts, it is virtually the only reading that survives. Not only was it the reading of the ancestor of codex Bezae and the Old Latin text of Luke, it appears also to have been the text known to Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and the authors of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Didascalia. It is certainly the text attested by the Gospel according to the Ebionites, Origen, and Methodius.

Somewhat later it is found in Lactantius, Juvencus, Hilary, Tyconius, Augustine, and several of the later apocryphal Acts. Here I should stress that except for the third century manuscript p4, there is no certain attestation of the other reading, the reading of our later manuscripts, in this early period. The reading of codex Bezae, then, is not an error introduced by an unusually aberrant witness. This manuscript is, in fact, one of the last witnesses to preserve it. Nor is it a “Western” variant without adequate attestation… The magnitude of the textual changes in Luke, coupled with the virtual absence of such changes in Matthew or Mark, suggests that the change was made for doctrinal reasons pure and simple—to eliminate the potentially adoptionistic overtones of the text.” (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament pg 62)

The question now is this. If this claim is true, then what else could the scribes maliciously change? Could it be that some other stories inside the current bible be fake? How can we verify without having any manuscript tracement back to the original authors?

Evidence of scriptural manipulation is rampant in the Bible, as theologians frantically raced to make what it says consistent and in compliance with their wishes. A competent, omnipotent god would have had no need for such human assistance to ‘perfect’ his holy scriptures.

(5129) Three reasons to discredit prayers

Jesus in the gospels promoted prayer as a sure-fire way to get God to do whatever you wanted. Real-world results have failed to confirm this promise. The following, presenting three problems with standard Christian claims about prayer, was taken from:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2025/03/precise-reasons-why-prayer-is-fantasy.html#more

There are three primary reasons for suspecting that prayer is a fantasy exercise.

One: We reside on an extremely tiny speck in the Cosmos: How are we NOT lost in space? 

Over many millennia, humans have imagined/invented gods who pay close attention to our deeds and thoughts. Because humans assumed that our habitat was the center of divine attention, which is the attitude we find in the Bible. But now we know there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, with trillions of planets—and we can only guess at how many life-forms there may be scattered across the light-years. It should be noted as well, that since the spectacular discoveries about the Cosmos have been made, cosmologists have not detected a creator deity that matches in any way whatever the one depicted in the Christian scriptures—supposedly all knowing, all powerful, and obsessed with human behavior—which theologians have been redefining endlessly over the centuries. And the theologians themselves have failed to show us where we can find reliable, verifiable, objective data about gods. Billions of the laity—thanks to brainwashing at an early age—have accepted their speculations, guesswork and fantasies.

In view of these realities, what are the probabilities that such a creator deity pays careful attention to life forms on trillions of planets? What are the chances that he/she/it wants to help humans find parking spaces—or that it cares about those in the trauma/distress of illnesses, especially since horrible diseases happen to be part of his intelligent design?

Given the very low probabilities, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that prayer is talking to yourself.

Two: By what mechanisms do the thoughts bouncing around inside our skulls escape to reach a god? 

A recent article published by The Onion was titled: Report: 32% of Prayers Deflected Off Passing Satellites. It includes this sentence:

“Of the remaining prayers, research confirms 64 percent fail to make it past the stratosphere because they aren’t prayed hard enough, 94 percent of those with enough momentum are swallowed by a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy…”

If nothing else, this bit of satire should prompt curiosity about how prayers manage to get from human heads to god. Christians don’t seem to object to the affirmation in Romans 2:16. In this text the apostle Paul stated: “…on the day when, according to my gospel, God through Christ Jesus judges the secret thoughts of all.” Paul was certain that his god was able to monitor human brain activity—although he may not have realized what a “brain” is. But how does that work? The clergy are so fond of claiming that “god works in mysterious ways,” but this has become a cliché to cover a wide range of things we don’t understand about god. However, for us to accept that a divine being knows what each and every human being is thinking, at any time of the day or night, we need an explanation: how is this possible? “Well, our god knows everything”—also fails as an explanation. It’s no more than a cliché too, which the devout accept because they’ve heard it since they were toddlers. No, this won’t do: Please, clergy and theologians, tell us exactly how our thoughts escape our heads to be heard and understood by a creator deity—who might be settling major problems in distant galaxies. Don’t forget, our tiny planet is lost in space.

Three: There is overwhelming evidence that prayers are not heard by god(s).

This reality has been summed up well by Darrell W. Ray, in his book The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture:

“It took two world wars for Europeans to realize that the prayers of millions of people were not answered. It doesn’t take much intelligence to see that the god isn’t working too well when 92 million people died in two world wars, or to see the complicity and cooperation of the Pope, Lutheran clergy and Christians with Hitler during WWII.” (p. 75)

There was one horrendous event that illustrates the inattention of god especially. On 10 June 1944, just a few days after the Allied landing at Normandy, German soldiers assaulted a small village in France, Oradour-sur-Glane. Their goal was to murder everyone. The men were herded into barns, which were set on fire. The woman and children—452 of them—were packed into the church, then machine-gunned and firebombed. Only one woman managed to escape. This happened in a church. Was god not in a mood to hear their prayers that day? (See especially, Sarah Farmer, Martyred Village: Commemorating the 1944 Massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane)

Of course, the Holocaust—one of the most thoroughly documented crimes in human history—makes us extremely skeptical that prayer works in any way. As one stinging meme has put it: “How did you sleep last night? Like God during the Holocaust.”

Such realities are commonly ignored by the faithful, who embrace confirmation bias. That is, they know their prayers have been answered when a cancer patient they pray for beats the disease. “See, prayer works!” Their cherished assumptions are confirmed. But the cancer patient in the next bed, whom no one prayed for, dies. What does that tell you about god? If a creator god has the power to cure one cancer patient, why doesn’t he/she/it eliminate cancer from the planet altogether?

There are far too many things about prayer that the devout do not want to admit, that they decline to think about. Because to do so would jeopardize their religion instilled during formative years.

The failure of prayers to show any meaningful impact on everyday outcomes is extremely strong evidence against the truth of Christianity. In fact, it represents, by itself, sufficient enough to conclude that Christianity is false.

(5130) Fifteen questions that stump Christians

Logic is a stumbling block to much of Christian theology. In the following, 15 questions are asked about which Christian answers would leave any objective questioner unsatisfied.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1jmo0wk/believers_typically_have_a_problem_explaining/

A world with a true religion would look very different. First, there wouldn’t be a lot of competing religions as the one true one would easily win out and dominate. Second, there would be verifiable evidence that meets scientific scrutiny. Neither of these exists, so we can confidently state that all religions are false.

(5131) Six flat tires

If you imagine Christianity as a truck sporting six tires, then consider the amount of air in each tire, it turns out there’s a good case to assume that they are all flat, and the truck is stuck in place. The following discusses six aspects (tires) of Christianity that are going nowhere:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2025/03/with-so-many-flat-tires-how-does.html#more

I can think of at least six Christian tires that have been totally, permanently destroyed. They will be flat forever.

(1)  God is good, loving, and all powerful. Horrendous human and animal suffering—ongoing for millennia—provide abundant evidence that this claim is feeble, indeed ridiculous.

(2)  The resurrection of Jesus, that is, god raised Jesus from the dead, thereby rescuing humans—those who believe in it—from eternal punishment. Yet the accounts of Easter morning in the gospels are contradictory and confusing. There are no reports of anyone actually seeing the resurrection happen.

(3)  We can be guided and inspired by the god portrayed in the Bible. Anyone who has read the Bible cover-to-cover can see that his claim is baseless. The god described in both the Old and New Testaments is cruel, bad-tempered, vindictive. Apologists deflect attention from this painful truth by quoting feel-good texts…and most churchgoers are none the wiser.

(4)  The Bible was divinely inspired—it was imparted to human authors by the Holy Spirit. Yet it’s so easy to see that individual authors did not agree on theology. I have often issued this challenge: read the gospel of Mark, straight through without stopping. Take a break, then do the same with the gospel of John. These two glaringly different portraits of Jesus undermine the claim of divine inspiration.

(5)  The Christian god watches everything that every human does, says, thinks. This claim is based on the biblical concept of the Cosmos: our earth (the Bible authors didn’t even know it is a planet) is just below the heavenly realm where its god resides (above the clouds and below the Moon). Thus this deity is able to spy on, monitor, everybody on earth. But this biblical view has been thoroughly discredited by smart humans who have, for centuries, been searching for facts about reality. Our earth is one of trillions of planets in our galaxy alone, and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies. What are the probabilities? Is a creator god—yet to be discovered by cosmologists—really obsessed with every human, and keeping track of our sins?

(6)  We can feel god/Jesus in our hearts, thus we know our Christian religion is the one true faith. When we don’t understand things, we are assured by apologists that god moves in mysterious ways. This is perhaps the worst flat tire of all: theologians, apologists, and clergy have never been able to show us where we can find reliable, verifiable, objective data about god(s). Feeling god/Jesus in your hearts falls far short of this requirement. What believers feel in their hearts in only evidence of what they’re feeling. Period. Why would devout Christians accept feelings as proof of their religion, but brush aside such feelings as expressed by Jews, Muslims, and Mormons? John Loftus has famously suggested The Outsider Test of Faith, that is, apply to your own religion the standards by which other religions are said to be false.

These flat tires—and many others as well—have been noticed and discussed by hundreds of serious thinkers since the time of the Enlightenment. Yet the huge ecclesiastical bureaucracy keeps chugging along, even as it has fractured into thousands of different brands that don’t agree on theology. This is a major defect, yet another embarrassing flat tire!

The point cannot be over-emphasized that in a reality where Christianity is true, none of these ‘tires’ would be flat- they would all be fully inflated. Critical analysis of the faith would be practically laughable in its insincerity, rather than powerfully convincing, as it is.

(5132) The virgin birth didn’t happen

There is compelling evidence to disprove the virgin birth of Jesus, thus providing a solid anti-proof of Christian theology. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1jmm15o/the_virgin_birth_disproves_christianity_and_islam/

Thesis: The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ is part of Christianity and Islam, but it didn’t happen, therefore Christianity and Islam are false

Pre-emptive rebuttal

Before even making the argument, I have to get this out of the way.

“Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence!”

That’s a good saying, but have you heard of this one? “EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!!!”

Don’t forget it’s Christians and Muslims that make the positive claim that Jesus had a miraculous birth. Something something teapot in space.

Technically, all I have to do is sit here and ask people for evidence that it happened.

But I’m not gonna do that. I’m gonna go above and beyond. I’m gonna show you significant, compelling evidence that the Virgin Birth didn’t happen.

Argument Section

Some of you may know that there are four gospels which each attempt to recount the story of Jesus in their own (contradictory) way — we have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

We know the order in which these gospels were written — Mark is the earliest source and John is the latest source

Can you guess which gospel DOESN’T have the Virgin Birth? Do you think it’s the earliest source Mark? Or the latest source John?

That’s right! It’s both!

(1) Mark, the earliest gospel, fails to mention the Virgin Birth even though we expect it to be there — to make matters worse, John doesn’t mention it either

The fact that the earliest gospel fails to mention such an important detail is evidence that the Virgin Birth myth was invented later.

And do you know what was written even before any of the gospels? Paul’s Epistles.

We would expect Paul to write about Jesus’ miraculous birth, especially if he wrote about Jesus’ origins to argue for his authority, which he did in Galations 4:4 where Paul mentions that Jesus was born of a woman but doesn’t mention the miraculous conception. He asserts that Jesus is descended from David in Romans 1:3, and we know that Joseph is descended from David, not Mary. So,

(2) Paul’s Epistles, written before all the gospels, also doesn’t mention the Virgin Birth even though we expect him to mention it

(3) Out of the four gospels, only Matthew and Luke recount the Virgin Birth, but their stories contradict each other

So that the post doesn’t become too long, I won’t dive too deep into this one, but trust me.

Did you know Jesus had a brother?

James the Just, the first bishop of the first church in Jerusalem, headed the Jewish Christians, the earliest group of Christians.

The Ebionites were another very early group who had close ties to Jesus’ family.

What do they both have in common, apart from their closeness to Jesus?

(4) The earliest churches, comprised of Jesus’ own family and closest followers, didn’t believe in his miraculous conception

(5) There are virgin birth myths that predate Christianity — for example Horus in Ancient Egyptian mythology and others — suggesting that the Virgin Birth may have been added to the narrative to make Jesus appear to have more divine authority

You would think that if the virgin birth actually occurred, that this would have been a vital component of Christian theology, and therefore it would have been a consistent and well-understood theme of Christian history. Instead, it appears to have been an added-on myth during the early development of the faith.

If the virgin birth had actually occurred, God would have been careful to make sure that it was consistently documented as such from the start.

If the virgin birth had not occurred, God would have been careful to exclude it from his holy scriptures.

The above two conditional statements collide, resulting in a major self-own for Christianity.

(5133) The mind virus of religion

We have reached a point where we know enough about the world to realize that the ancient myths of religions were not based on objective facts, but rather superstition and fantasy. Yet, wide swaths of the human population remains enslaved by these delusions. The following was taken from:

https://new.exchristian.net/2025/03/the-mind-virus-of-religion-why-are-we.html

It is 2025. We have sequenced the human genome, mapped the cosmic microwave background, and developed artificial intelligence capable of composing symphonies and diagnosing diseases. And yet, somehow, vast swaths of humanity—including, heartbreakingly, young people—are still pledging allegiance to ancient fables, clinging to a mythology that has been refuted by reason, evidence, and basic common sense for centuries.

If religion were simply a personal quirk—like an affinity for astrology or homeopathy—it would be one thing. But it’s not. Religion is a mind virus, an intellectual parasite that thrives on uncritical thinking and the suppression of doubt. As Richard Dawkins put it in The God Delusion, religion is “a process of non-thinking” and “a meme that prays on the gullible and the indoctrinated.”

And indoctrination is key. Why else would a 19-year-old raised in a world of science, reason, and instant access to information suddenly decide that the unprovable metaphysics of Christianity hold “The Truth?” It’s certainly not because of some grand revelation that stands up to scrutiny. No, it’s because belief is a social contagion, passed down from peer groups, emotional experiences, and the relentless grip of religious institutions that have mastered the art of manipulating young minds.

This isn’t just an academic concern. The consequences of religious belief are real and often destructive. Christopher Hitchens, in God Is Not Great, reminded us that

“religion poisons everything.”

It warps moral reasoning, demanding obedience rather than ethical reflection. It replaces curiosity with dogma. It turns perfectly intelligent people into willing participants in their own intellectual captivity.

And so, in 2025, here I am: watching a relative of mine, a freshman in community college—who could be exploring philosophy, science, and the grandeur of a universe without divine micromanagement—choose instead to subjugate his mind to a 2,000-year-old belief system based on fear, submission, and unearned certainty. Instead of seeking knowledge to ensure he is not wasting his life, he seeks my conversion. Instead of questioning the claims of Christianity, he memorizes apologetic answers. When asked why he thinks his religion is true, he responds he feels it is true in his heart, and that’s confirmation enough.

What can be done to fight back against this lunacy? Teach? Challenge? Push for rigorous education in critical thinking and the scientific method.? Remind people—especially the young—that believing something doesn’t make it true? That feelings are not facts? That an ancient book is not an authority on reality?

Carl Sagan once warned in his book, The Demon-Haunted World,

“Avoidable human misery is more often caused not so much by stupidity as by ignorance, particularly our ignorance about ourselves.”

If religion is allowed to continue its viral spread unchallenged, are we surrendering to ignorance, choosing fables over facts, and resigning ourselves to a future where truth is optional and delusion is celebrated?

It is way past time to stop tolerating this nonsense.

Very slow progress is being made, too slow for most of us, but eventually humankind will rid itself of these stultifying myths and emerge into the wonderful world of reality.

(5134) Too many problems

If Christianity is the true religion of an omnipotent deity, there would be no way possible to compile a list of problems anywhere near the size of what is presented here. The conclusion of an objective analysis is that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Christianity is untrue.

One major lesson to be learned about determining what to believe and what not to believe can be summed up in a few words- the things that are real can be observed, measured, or reliably demonstrated. To that end, we can confidently state that ghosts, goblins, poltergeists, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, mermaids, hobbits, leprechauns, alien abductions, wizards, witches, angels, demons, dragons, satyrs, nymphs, banshees, vampires, fairies, zombies, and unicorns are not real. And one more we can add to this list: The god of Christianity.