#seeing a band from the bible belt write a song about growing up in a christian environment | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

batpwoods · 6 years

Text

NONBELIEF: MY JOURNEY FROM CHRISTIANITY TO SECUALRISM

“All is for the best, believe in what we’re told

blind men in the market, buying what we’re sold

believe in what we’re told, until our final breath

while our loving watchmaker loves us all to death.”

- RUSH Clockwork Angels 2012

By RW James

Contents:

1. Introduction

2. The problem with the Old Testament

3. The problem with the New Testament

4. The problem with Original Sin and Hell

5. The problem with a God who allows suffering

6. The problem with Christian Culture

7. The problem with Christian Apologetics

8. The problem with Creationism

9. The problem with Liberal Christianity

10. Conclusion

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

"Train a child up in the way they should go" - Proverbs 22:6

The subconscious is a fascinating thing. It can whisper thoughts to you, that you don't want to hear. Throughout the course of my life, I have encountered things that I didn't see coming, visited cities that I never thought I would set foot in, studied subjects that I thought I would never study, said things to people that I didn't know I could say, and have traversed other obscure places that were once alien to my tiny little mind.

However, every now and then, there are some things about the universe that are more complicated than the average, unexpected plot twist. Sometimes you can see something coming, even if it's a long way off. Sometimes you may not even see it - you simply feel it. It gets even more nebulous when you realize that the one thing you felt coming was so intrinsically small, that it almost seemed like you imagined it or that it was invisible. So small in fact, that it actually didn't blow up in my face until decades later.

My religious background was like most kids growing up in the Midwest. I grew up in a Christian home, in a Christian town, went to a Christian school- kindergarten through 4th grade, and went to church at least twice to three times a week.

When I switched to public school in the 5th grade, everyone I knew was still Christian - even the teachers. The only thing that was different, was the fact that we were simply abiding by the rules of the state, and many of the kids did not come from the upper class homes like the ones in my former, private, Christian school did.

Of course I had no idea at the time that my area of the country had been dubbed, "the bible belt." This surprised me, for I felt that my indoctrination had not rubbed off on me so precisely as it had with most others. There isn't any explanation as to why some kids "behave" better than others when it comes to religious upbringing, but even as I went along with everything, even as I mouthed the nightly prayers, sang the songs in chapel, tried my best to pay attention to the sermons on Sunday mornings, something about it all - just never felt RIGHT.

Believe me, I tried. I tried to get more "serious" about my inherited beliefs. Because looking back at it, that's what they were - inherited. I believed because my parents believed, but I never could get into reading the bible. It seemed like I was always being pestered by my elders, be it my parents or someone else above me who was constantly beating me over the head about "getting into the word" or "spending time with god." In my Christian school, I was constantly memorizing bible versus, but they were simply like memorizing multiplication tables. They were empty words, which at best meant that I got a decent grade on an assignment.

The bible just seemed like an endless harangue of repetition - stories that were told over and over again, by Sunday school teachers and pastors. I had heard all the stories from the time I was a toddler, so what was the point of reading the bible?

I tried to start from the beginning of that massive 1000 page book, but I caved every time - somewhere half way through Exodus. It was just too much to take in, and it seemed like the perfect cure for an insomniac. The only thing I ever got out of reading the bible, was feeling guilty for not reading it enough. Why couldn't I feel the magic that everyone else did? What was wrong with me?

I went to a Christian college for a couple of years, and played guitar in a Christian rock band. This is when I began to get more serious about faith.

I rededicated my life to Jesus during this time (regardless of the fact that I had already done it about three different times in the past) and I was never in short supply of friends who would encourage me at every turn. We had a great time, but again - my lack of passion for “god’s word” began to show.

Everyone seemed to read the bible way more than I did, and could quote scripture from memory. Suffice to say, it put me to shame, and even though no one questioned how much bible reading I actually did, I think some people instinctively knew that I wasn't as dedicated as I should have been.

I didn't finish college, but I kept going to church long after that. Not because I wanted to, but because it was something that I felt I had to do, in order to fulfill some civil duty. Even though I was living on my own away from my parents roof, I actually felt that if I didn't keep attending church, then I was somehow morally bankrupt.

I never really liked going, but I didn't want to disappoint anyone - especially god, so I kept up the charade. Regardless of my apathy, I met many great people through the church, and made some incredible friends. I thought I knew and understood the bible, because I was brought up with it. However, that assumption slowly began to unravel itself in a devastating way.

The heavy irony in all of this was that I never bothered to actually get interested in the bible, until I started questioning it. That's the truth. Reading the bible, spawned more questions which finally led me to the doorway out of Christianity. Many religious people do not do enough homework to find that door. Narrow is the gate, indeed. I was constantly being hounded by my elders, family members, and friends to "get in the word."

Upon receiving a bible as a graduation present from some of my relatives, they wished nothing more than for me to become immersed in it. Well, that's exactly what I did 20 years later. They got what they wanted. A word of caution to Christian families -be careful what you wish for.

I think it's easy to see why there are so many Christians across the globe today. Christianity has become a full fledged phenomenon, that has been pressed into the soil of our culture, and spread throughout much of the world, dominating just about every single facet of people's lives.

It has literally affected every aspect of western society; everything from the way people think and act, to what kind of relationships they have, to what kind of products they consume. There are many Christians who did not grow up with the religion, and converted on their own. Yet it's all too obvious that the majority believe because they were raised as such, and there is no escaping that fact.

It’s easy to follow a path that has long-been carved out, and illuminated. We are now entering the third millennia of Christianity, and the faith is on autopilot, no longer depending on crusades, or hard missionary work in order to spread it’s message. Christianity no longer has to fight in order to be heard. Something that has been around for so long, is often accepted without hesitation or question, or investigation of it’s origins.

My experience with Christianity is akin to finding a gigantic palatial mansion in the middle of nowhere. The architecture is extraordinary, the exterior is opulent, the lawns and gardens are perfectly groomed. It looks so good from the outside, that nothing in your mind can convince you that it is anything less than divine - something coming directly from god. Then one day, you get curious and decide to go inside.

You quickly find out that the interior is completely different - the paint is pealing, the electrical wiring is all wrong, the lights flicker, the staircase is wobbly and unsafe, the plumbing is outdated, the pipes are rusting, and the very foundation was built on rushed architectural scams. What went wrong? This is the moment where you realize that looks are not what they seem, and what you thought was divine turns out to have been completely built by man.

The Very First Trigger

For me, it all began after seeing a comedian on television one night. His name was Bill Maher, and I had no idea who he was. He was a guest Jay Leno, and completely made it clear that he hated all religion. He kept referring to it as "childish" and as a "neurological disorder." It was shocking to see someone attacking faith with such barbed sarcasm, and it made me mad. Who was he, to say these things? It was my faith, he was attacking.

That led me to Maher’s website, and I learned more. Out if curiosity, I started watching more videos of him. Little by little, I began to develop not only a tolerance for his jokes about religion, but an appreciation for him.

I still disagreed with him on pretty much everything, but I could at least respect him for having the guts to say controversial things on television. He had a charmed wit, that I really appreciated.

Then from there - I found out about other famous atheists such as Richard Dawkins. His book “The God Delusion” had just come of age, and he was the new champion of secularism. The articles that I had read about Dawkins, painted him to be an irrational, angry, human being. Without wanting to be swayed by hearsay, I got on you tube, and watched my first Dawkins video.

I liked him immediately.

He was calm, relaxed, and clever. He could vent his frustrations about religion, but on the whole I thought he had been portrayed unfairly. Dawkins seemed like the type of guy that if you gave him respect, he would give it back. I finally caved and bought "The God Delusion."

It was nothing like I had ever read before. Never had I read a book that caused me to vehemently disagree with the author, and at the same time - have respect for him. There were things in there I thought were absurd, and to this day - still think are absurd, but his writing style was elegant, brilliant, and for the first time in my life, I really started to think for myself. He informed me about how evolution actually worked, as opposed to what I had been taught.

Even though I was still a creationist, I had started to gain an appreciation for the subject matter. Before, I thought that scientists were just assuming we came from apes. Dawkins helped me understand that there was actually a method to understanding evolution, and it wasn't something that scientists were making up.

Why did it take an atheist to make me think? Why couldn't any church do that?

After reading The God Delusion, I was still a Christian, but I was also in a completely different headspace. I needed to know if Dawkins was right, or if he was just trying to get people to become atheists. My question at that point was not about whether Christianity was true, but could Christianity stand up to scrutiny?

I read and researched as much as I could, during the next year and a half. I looked at all of Richard Dawkin’s arguments and found refutations for them. The Christian side at the time seemed to present themselves with great comebacks. After all, much of the slaughter and genocide in the old testament, was ordered by god to protect them from wicked societies.

They deserved to be done away with. The Israelites were under attack, so it was just a self-defense situation. The bible didn't condone slavery, the "slaves" at that time were simply indentured servants. Evolution didn't have all the answers. All of the fossils were just a jumbled mess underneath the earth, and that was evidence for a global flood, not evolution.

After about a year and a half, I re-dedicated yet again, my life to Jesus. I was really serious this time. I honestly believed that Jesus was the true savior of the world, or at least I wanted him to be. I knew that whatever questions or doubts that surfaced in my mind would be taken care of by god, because I was under his influence and protection. I thought that as long as I kept believing in Jesus, everything was going to turn out okay. Except.............something kept eating away at me.

Backsliding Back Into Faith

Those first couple of years after I made a final re-dedication, were pretty darn good. I was never a "praise Jesus" person, or a loud and proud evangelical. I knew that the bible still had problems with it, but I naturally thought that over time, I would read and understand more, and those doubts would get filled in with the right information. I was never a big prayer guy, but did my best. I prayed whenever it felt necessary to do so, but that wasn't every week or even every month. It was just when I felt I needed it, or whenever I got stuck in a dark place.

As I delved into reading more about science, I started to let go (very slowly) of a literal creation story. Here is the strange thing......I never believed in a 6000 year old earth. I thought "young earth" meant somewhere around - perhaps 100,000 years. When I found out that at least 50 percent of Christians in the US believed that the earth was only 6000 years old, I was in shock.

How could this be true, and how could anyone believe that the universe was the same age as cuneiform writing?

As I studied further, it turned out that the genealogies in the bible only go back as far as 4000 BC, but that didn't put a damper on my faith, it just told me that the bible was only a small snapshot of what really happened. Yet, I slowly and surely went from a creationist, to believing in intelligent design over millions of years, to finally letting go and just accepting evolution for what it was - life flourishing from natural selection over billions of years.

I was relieved when I found that the majority of the Christians in science accept evolution, such as Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins and other. Whew! That was a load off. I eventually accepted Noah’s flood as “metaphorical” and only a local flood, which a great number of Christians now believe. I could not accept the flood as literal, knowing what I knew about geology and continental drift. However, that was okay. At least the rest of the bible was true. Right?

I was proud of the fact that I could question things, and still believe in the bible. Now that I no longer believed in creationism, I also became familiar with other famous atheists such as Sam Harris, Christofer Hitchens and Daniel Dennet. At this time, the internet had become a beacon for atheist videos. There were hundreds of them. I thought that most of them were ridiculous, and some of them hateful, but I started to see that the Christian responses to them, weren't any better.

I first thought that Christian apologetics was the greatest thing. I read books by Lee Strobal, Alistair McGraph, CS Lewis, and others of the same ilk. I watched debates with William Lane Craig, Daniel Wallace, John Lennox and Dinesh D’Souza. However, the more I watched and studied I began to notice tiny discrepancies in their arguments. At First, I waved it away as no big deal. We’re all human, and everyone makes flawed statements.

Over time, it became clear that those tiny canards added up to some major problems. What began as innocent little mistakes, started to morph into huge intellectual blunders, and wild misrepresentation of fact. Everything that I thought was cool and hip about apologetics, turned out to be a boys club who were all reading from the same script. It amounted to obfuscation, intellectual dishonesty, and at times - outright lies. The unfortunate conclusion that I was forced to come to, was this:

Christian apologists weren't really interested in giving skeptics real answers.

They only existed for one reason - to keep the faith going. If you can give Christians "feel good" medicine, then they become satisfied, never straying too far from the sanctimonious herd. This "preaching to the converted" tactic, left me frustrated, and disgusted at the whole idea. I decided to go a different route to find the answers I needed.

My curiosity carried me onward, and I started looking on the internet for atheist websites. There were spades of them from around the world. Secularism in the 21st century was a rising force, and I had to know what made it tick. I wanted to know why so many people were becoming atheists, agnostics, or something other than religious.

I started reading people’s deconversion stories - loads of them. I became obsessed. This was where my faith started to take a downward turn.........if only just a little.

My Choice? Really?

As I read people's stories about growing up and what religion had done to them, it was like a knife through the heart. I wanted to scream at them that they were reading the bible all wrong, and that Jesus never would have hated anyone. And yet, the more I read about people's deconversions, the more I began to realize:

Unbelief is not a choice that you make.

It’s simply something that happens as a result of questioning, and how your brain happens to be wired. You can only believe that which makes sense to you at different points in your life. That ‘s really what it boils down to - following the evidence where it leads.

I started thinking that if you had never read the old testament all the way through before, then how could you blame someone for thinking that god was a mass murderer? How could you blame people for being appalled at his actions and temperament? Ignoring it and pretending it isn't there, no longer works.

Do people really choose to feel this way?

Ancient people viewed myth and truth, to be one and the same. That’s fine for them. They lived in a time, where that kind of thinking was commonplace, and none of them should ever have to apologize for it. They wrote things down in a way that made sense to them, and only to them. Ancient civilizations simply carried out their actions in a way they thought was right, for their place and their century.

I am also a product of my time, and neither should I have to apologize for the way I think, or the way our society operates in the modern age. I shouldn’t have to read an ancient book that claims it’s author is divine, and then dig endlessly for answers. When you are told since you were young that the bible is the word of god, and it has “authority.” then you expect for divine authority to be crystal clear. If the holy spirit actually works through the ink on the pages, as our beloved churches would have us believe, then why are some people getting it, and others aren’t? Why all the distortion and confusion?

It's all too evident that some people read the bible for the first time, end up being becoming Christians, while others who do the same, think it's morally offensive. How could you not cringe a little, when god was okay with Jephthah burning his own daughter? Or shudder with horror when Moses tells his own people to run each other through with the sword?

Many people people will never notice contradictions in scripture and for others, they will leap right off the page. Once again, we have the problem with some individuals believing in Christianity, while you have skeptics rejecting it as a result of reading the same bible. Did god purposely whisper truth into some people’s ears but not others?

What I finally had to realize, was that there is no right or wrong way to view the bible. It basically all boils down to how your individual brain works, and how you view the world. Which lens you view the bible through, heavily depends on where you are at in your life, and how much of your thinking has been steered by certain influences.

Everyone is going to react to the bible differently, because everyone's mind is different. It's quite clear that it has nothing to do with a spirit, living within it's pages. If that were the case, the bible would at least convince everyone that god was real. It makes no sense that a divine book has driven just as many people to doubt as it has to faith, unless that book was invented by man.

Christians are still arguing that "god wants people to make their own choice." But is belief or unbelief really a choice, when everyone's mind is a product of their own time and place, limited knowledge, and unique circumstances? If something no longer makes sense to you, then you can't simply wish it away. If you know something is wrong, then you cannot just choose for it to be right.

A great example is a former pastor’s story; a Canadian named Bob Ripley who was a guest on “The Thinking Atheist” podcast. When he was still active in the church, they read the Psalms one Sunday. He then came across the part of Psalms that isn’t so pleasant - about dashing infants heads upon the rocks. He was horrified.

He went back and re-read the entire old Testament, and what did he find? He didn’t realize that all of the carnage and slaughter was commanded by god. Somehow, he had glossed over that in seminary. It got to the place that he could no longer hold on to his belief. At that point, what do you expect him to do? Just wave it all away, and ignore what he can no longer ignore?

These types of mental triggers are apparent in all kinds of glaring ways. Out of all the atheists I've talked to, no one ever mentioned that they suddenly woke up one day and decided to be an non-believer. One day you're in church, and the pastor says something that doesn't seem right. You decide to check it out, which leads to more questioning and confusion. Then you try your best to keep believing, until it becomes impossible.

Shannon Low, a former Christian metal vocalist said that his whole downward spiral with Christianity started the moment he read a story in the Old Testament. It was the story of the prophet Elisha, who was threatened by a mob of young boys who were calling him “baldie” and then god sent bears to kill all of them. He was flabbergasted. “How could I not have noticed this?” That lead him to start questioning the bible, and he found out way more than he ever wanted to know. Needless to say, he is now an atheist.

Other people have reported that their pastor waved away the tough questions, and just simply told them they had to have faith. Such rhetoric is the equivalent of implanting a ticking time bomb in a doubter's mind. Other times, it's just an epiphany that people suddenly have out of the blue, such as "Why do I believe this?"

Dan Barker, the leader of Freedom From Religion Foundation became a non believer when he started realizing that many passages in the bible were considered metaphors. Upon discovering that whole stories in the bible were metaphorical, such as Noah's flood, or the Exodus, he then had a thought: "What if GOD HIMSELF, is a metaphor?" After that epiphany, it all came crashing down.

Marcus Borg, a biblical scholar and liberal Christian says this about his college years when he began to doubt:

"Every night for several years, I prayed with considerable anguish, 'Lord, I believe. Help thou unbelief.' The inability to overcome my doubt confirmed for me that I had become more of an unbeliever than a believer. In retrospect, I can also see that, for me at least, belief is not a matter of the will. I desperately wanted to believe and to be delivered from the anguish I was experiencing. If I could have made myself believe, I would have."

My thoughts exactly.

Are you really going to tell me that an all-loving god allowed people to be in these situations, so that they would end up rejecting him? It's their fault for not suppressing these thoughts? Many Christians after hearing these kinds of stories, still ignore them and just insist that there is something deep down inside of us that STILL made a choice. Or that something bad happened to us to make us angry at god. Fine. The burden of proof is on YOU, to show me where I went wrong.

That's why I'm beginning to get sick and impatient of these lazy, pious cop-outs. It's obvious that evangelicals just can't get their head around why anyone could walk away from their beloved faith, so they take the easy way out by calling it a "CHOICE." The fact that I even have to explain it, should be embarrassing.

Unbelief is simply a conclusion you arrive at, whether you like it or not. If there is any choice involved at all, it's choosing to be honest instead of trying to keep your inner thoughts at bay and living out a charade.

I understand that people can know something to be true, and choose to still deny it. In many cases, people have made a choice to deny truth in their mind, whether it be historical fact, or a witness to something. Yet, religion doesn’t work that way. In the case of Christianity, it cannot be proven or disproven. It’s impossible to deny something, when you can’t even prove it’s true in the first place. The best you can do is simply evaluate what evidence is there, and then decide for yourself.

Some might say that I at least had a choice to start questioning things - that I could have chosen not to go down that path of inquiry, or curiosity. I disagree. Once you run into something that makes your brain desperate for answers, you can’t just turn it off. If I had chosen not to question, Those thoughts would have only resurfaced later.

Once the wheel starts turning, you can't stop it. I had no idea at the time that I would end up a non-Christian. I just needed answers. If it were possible for me to magically force the bible to make sense - I would have done it, but in reality, it just doesn't work that way.

Yet, even if it was a choice, so what? If any belief system cannot prove itself to be true, then you should have a right to walk away from it, anytime, anywhere, for ANY reason.

If your only motivation for leaving the faith is because you simply got bored sitting in church, then you should be respected for that decision - period. End of story. That should be your human right, choice or no choice. You should be able to give it up without any guilt, fear of eternal judgement, or any pre-afterlife threats.

Basically, the argument that I keep hearing is that I didn't come to god with humbleness, and depend on him. My intellect got in the way of my heart. When I hear Christians say this, they're actually admitting that their faith doesn't have to depend on any intellect at all. "Just trust God like a child", they say. Evidently, this was my problem. I did too much THINKING instead of praying. Of course, when prayer doesn't answer tough questions, then the problem persists. It's like they're saying that I don't deserve any answers, or any reconciliation to my doubts. The reason for my backsliding - according to them, is that I just didn't trust god enough.

It’s Never Enough

I have also had to deal with the erroneous claim that I just didn’t study the bible thoroughly, or that I didn’t read enough history, or that I got the wrong answers from the wrong people, and so on. Simply put, according to certain Christians, nothing I do is enough. It’s always me who is the ignorant one, despite the hundreds of hours I’ve put into studying, reading, researching, talking with people, and thinking about the subject over the past ten years. I’ve given more than a decent amount of time to your side, dear Christians!

Yet, I'm still criticized for not giving the subject matter more thought. I'll be the first one to admit, I haven't done near the amount of study and work that many Christians have, and no - I don't have any scholarly credentials, nor can I recite bible verses from memory, but that isn't the point here.

The point is that I went out of my way to make time for it, when I could have been doing other things, or pursuing other interests that I'm far more fond of. I have given both sides a fair read, both from the skeptical point of view, and Christian point of view. I have read books by secular scholars who know just as much about the bible as Christians, and yet they agree with my position.

In my opinion, one shouldn’t even have to do that much reading on the history of Christianity before they makeup their mind, but for us non-believers we are forever cursed to be held prisoner by our accusers that we still “don’t know enough.” This is why certain relatives of atheists and agnostics, will send them Christian apologetics books out of desperation, to try to get us to change our mind. The question I have asked to this day is:

How much reading do I have to do, before I'm "truly" informed? How much more time do you honestly want me to dedicate to understanding your faith?

Either I didn’t read it enough, or if I did - I was accused of not reading it the right way. Again, it doesn’t matter how much time you devote to understanding the arguments for Christianity, the game is always rigged so that you’re always ignorant - or always in the wrong. The goal-post is always moved, so that the bible always wins.

I can remember certain people telling me that the reason why I hated Rush Limbaugh’s show, was because I didn’t listen to it enough. Rush Limbaugh fans kept saying, “you’re just misunderstanding him, you have to listen to him more” regardless of the fact that I had already listened to his show about 50 times. And I am still convinced that Rush Limbaugh is deceptive. How much listening is enough?

I finally figured out of course, that no amount of bible education is good enough until you become Christian. That's what it really boils down to. Many believers keep asking me, "well, how much have you read?" A better question is - how much do I need to read, before I get to decide that something is nonsense?

Another irksome claim that believers love to throw at me, is that I have a bias. Of course I do, and so does every Christian who ever lived. Everyone, no matter how balanced they try to be, at the end of the day - still has a bias. So what? What mileage are you going to get, out of accusing me of such an obvious human trait?

No one should feel guilty about having a bias. It just goes to show that you’re not going to be easily swayed, no matter how convincing someone’s argument may sound. The best I can do as a human is at least look at both sides, regardless of how “biased” I am. I have given a great deal of time to listen to both Christian and secular points of view.

Just because I have concluded that secular arguments are better, doesn't mean that I don't think Christians aren't worth listening to. The moot point of my bias, need not be made.

Once again, many Christians just can't understand that we all have different brains, and they all work differently. That means Christianity just does not make any sense to some people's brains, including mine. How are you going to sort that out? Are you going to assume that our brains which we can't control, are in open rebellion against God?

You can control many different things with your mind, and you can make choices in many different areas. The one thing you cannot control is what makes sense to you, and what doesn’t. If something doesn’t sound logical, then the only way you can alter it, is if certain circumstances intervene and make you change your mind. You do not have the free will to decide when or where that will happen, if it does at all.

If any Christian tells me that I decided to reject god on purpose, then I assume that there is a switch in their brain they can turn off and on anytime they want to believe or reject something. I'm assuming YOU - dear Christian, could have walked away from Jesus even when the feeling was so strong you couldn't deny it. Even when it made sense to you, you could have got up the next morning and become a skeptic in an instant if your mind had wanted to switch. Right? Get back to me, when you can find a Christian who can do that.

Now.......can we all just admit that unbelief is an unexpected conclusion, instead of a choice?

Christian Platitudes on Repeat

I began to get weary of Christians who had somehow in their mind, developed this idea that unbelievers like myself wanted "autonomy" from god. It's the notion that suggests you are in the position you're in because you chose to run from god on purpose. You ran away from him because you wanted autonomy from him - to be completely separate from Yahweh.

I’m going to say this: If you’re one of those Christians who uses this terrible accusation, then please stop. These kinds of shallow proclamations, are egocentric, and completely dismissive towards the inner turmoil that people go through before becoming apostate. It is nothing more than sheer arrogance to assume that your god is the victim, and I’m the bad prodigal son who just got up one day and decided to run away from him.

That's not how it works. Deconversion is a long, hard, treacherous road, and it's not something that I would ever want to go through again. Former religious people have told me they wept like a baby when they finally gave up Jesus. Others go through depression before finding peace. These are not things people do, when they actively choose to run away from something.

Coming to unbelief is never easy, at least for most of us. Do you really think that these people WANTED to just give up God?

They went through the whole struggle, with their doubts keeping them up at night, tip toeing around family members, enduring extra stress, just so they could be autonomous? They enjoyed going through these situations? It’s blatantly obvious that these stark denouncements from Christians about autonomy, were pre-programmed into the brains of believers from a young age by their church. How can I be so sure? Because I used to believe the same things.

Even years ago when I was still a follower, I began to notice that bible bookstores acted as a center to help Christians affirm their beliefs about their faith. Although - when I would walk into a Christian bookstore, I would see that there were many different versions of the same god - all coming from other authors with differing viewpoints, with some Christian writers even living in different centuries.

Then I realized, that the bible was much the same way - written by multiple authors all with different struggles, cultural biases, opinions, living in different time periods. The bible, simply put - is nothing more than an ancient Christian bookstore.

It also made me self-aware that half of the claims made about the Christian god, don’t even come from scripture. They are simply people’s whimsical rhetoric, acting as buzzword devices. As famous pastor John Piper quotes:

"God knows 10,000 things about your life right now, and you might be only aware of two of them."

How can Piper possibly KNOW that? Another notorious evangelist, Joel Osteen says:

"God wants us to prosper financially, to have plenty of money, to fulfill the destiny he's laid out for us."

Where in the bible does it say such a thing, and how does Osteen arrive at his conclusions?

There are myriad of Christian sayings I could touch on, but some of the more popular 'god' quotes are:

* god is outside of time

* god isn't going to give you more than you can handle

* god works in mysterious ways (the most famous one)

* god gives his hardest battles to his bravest soldiers

* if god controls the big things he controls the little things

* if god has called us to task then he will qualify us for the job

* disappointments are god's way of saying that he has something better

At the very least, these sayings are only mere extrapolations of what's actually in the biblical text. Neale Donald Walsch's bestselling book 'Conversations with god' is just another example of how humans are the driving engine behind everything that god says. Evidently, Walsch was mad at god, and vented his complaints in an angry manner.

According to him, one night he heard a voice ask him if he really wanted answers. He then got inspiration to write the dialogue down between him and god, as if god were speaking to him, but we all know it was Walsch's own mind telling him the answers he so desperately wanted. He was really just acting as god himself, in order to convince himself that god was speaking to him. If that isn't confirmation bias, I don't know what is.

In the end, we must admit that everything you believe about god, was taught to you by another person - whether it was someone you know, or the humans who wrote the bible. There has never been a point in history where a god stepped out from wherever he's hiding, and talked to everyone at once. It just doesn't happen, and continues not to happen.

What are we left with? People's words, and their faulty imaginations. Man simply fills in the silence, where no god has ever spoken, and then claims that his own words are god's words. No wonder religion has a reputation for being so flawed and contrived. At one point in the New Testament, the apostle Paul comes right out and says - "these are my own words, not god's." I rest my case.

If you are going to tell me that god spoke to the people who wrote the bible, then I have a couple of questions: How can you tell the difference between man's thoughts and god's thoughts, if it was all written down by human hand? And how did these ancient people get so lucky as to have such clairvoyance bestowed upon them? It would seem that the rest of us would also like to have a bit of that same knowledge.

Why did the holy spirit choose to guide people writing sacred scripture in their time but not our time? What makes them special, but not us? To me, the bible would have much more credibility if it came from all different parts of the globe, and all different time periods, and cultures. The bible could have been an ongoing thing - with people in the 21st century still writing scripture and inspiring others all over the world with it. Why did it have to be written in a certain time, place, and one culture? This makes the bible look like it came together the same way as the religions that existed before it. That isn't a good way to go, if you want to make a belief system look revolutionary.

In retrospect, my deconversion was partly a result of things about Christianity that never made sense to me, from the time I was young.There are certain beliefs that no amount of indoctrination could fix; things I instinctively knew to be WRONG. At that age, you don't know how to talk about it. You are helpless against a whole army of adults, who are the experts. It's commendable to respect your elders.

Growing Up in the Bubble

The hard reality is -that even your elders, despite being well-meaning people - can often be misinformed. It was the teachings and beliefs of those elders that I had fought so hard to swallow, and would find their way back to the surface in an ugly form, later in life.

I would sometimes brush up against something that didn't exactly feel right. It would never be anything threatening. There was just a sense that something was slightly out of place, like having a small pebble in your shoe. I was not born a skeptic, but I do think the seeds were there. No matter how much I tried to live it down, I always had these moments of pure frustration whenever a Christian adult tried to "inform" me about something.

I can remember having a conversation with a family member when I was about 12. The aids epidemic was big news then. They told me that scientists would never find a cure for aids, because it was god’s judgement on homosexuals. I didn’t know how to express my feelings back then, but something inside of me said, “that’s not right.” No one had to tell me that.

It was something I immediately felt. But how do you challenge an adult when you’re 12, and don’t even know where to begin?

I was never baptized, and could never get my head around why it was even necessary. But I was constantly being told by my dad that it was a command from Christ so therefore we must do it. He tried to explain that it was an important step in showing people you were serious about your Christian walk. This concept failed to resonate with me however, simply because it just doesn't make any rational sense.

If your baptism is only witnessed by people from your church, then that means that the majority will never know you were ever baptized. If it's suppose to be a statement of your faith that was only seen by a small group of Christians, then what effect could that have on anyone in the wider world? Being baptized has nothing to do with morality, or whether or not you're a good person, and that's a problem if such a god is that demanding of such an act.

We need to admit - there are many individuals that were baptized who continued to be evil people, so how did it help them? What difference does it make, and why isn't it good enough just to help your community or and be compassionate? It seemed like the only reason to do it, was simply because Jesus commanded it.

Such a flippant outlook made religion smell of the same foul odor it's so famous for - "Do it because I said so." I got sick of constantly hearing this line that "As Christians we are COMMANDED." Commanded.......

Why do we need to be commanded to do the right thing?

I absolutely hated the phrase, "it may not be fair to you, but it's fair to god". Such a phrase should be outlawed. No child should ever have to accept such idiotic, and insipid nonsense, for being made to feel like god is beyond questioning.

I had heard others repeat similar platitudes that reeked of embarrassment. I can say this with the utmost certainty - my own relatives, parents, and teachers were the ones responsible for planting the first seeds of skepticism in my brain, simply by saying things that sounded utterly ridiculous.

I remember my parents telling me every now and then, that one day we were going to have to stand before god for the sins we committed. Both in church and out, my dad would constantly talk of the "great white throne of judgement" and how we were going to be judged for our actions here on earth.

At age 12, that kind of evangelical gibberish meant absolutely nothing to me. I was thinking about music, baseball, girls and struggling with homework. That's the kind of stuff you should be dealing with when you are a kid, not worrying over what some celestial dictator thinks about you in the afterlife.

When I asked why the bible had certain passages in it that didn't make sense, the answer that I was given was, "Well, god doesn't seem to have a problem with that."

I really wanted to throw something across the room, when I heard such foolish talk. Seriously? Evidently, since god doesn't have a problem writing books that confuse people, then I'm supposed to suck it up, and somehow be okay with it.

Another time, I made a small joke about Jesus to my dad. I thought he would find it funny, but instead he said, "watch it." Huh? I was just making a joke.......a joke that wasn't meant to be offensive in any way. "Yeah", he said, "you need to kind of watch your thoughts on that one." I felt like I was being guilt- tripped into believing that I somehow was offending, or blaspheming Jesus. I started thinking that if god's feelings were so fragile that he couldn't take a joke, then god was kind of pathetic.

I began asking questions around the subject of original sin, and why people would go to hell, simply for not believing. My dad told me that man's mind is so seared, that we can't even fathom how ignorant, and corrupted we are. I tried to swallow this and keep it down, until I finally had to ask the question: How is it my fault for being born "seared"?

You're basically telling me, that I deserve eternal punishment because of a level of ignorance, that evidently can only be known to god. It didn't sit well in my mind, and eventually led to frustration trying to force puzzle pieces together that didn't fit.

I remember being in the car with my parents as a kid, driving in town on a winter day. Suddenly, there was a car that swerved in front of us and my dad slammed on the brakes. We slid in the snow, but stopped just in time. My mom said "those were angels that protected us from being hit." Immediately, I felt embarrassed and slightly offended by hearing her utter such a thing. It made me feel like I had to be a part of some club that used evangelical language, every time something good or bad happened.

I was also told not to read the book "Song of Solomon" until I was married. Now this was just stupid. It's a book of the bible! What does one do with that, if they have no interest in getting married?

It was a book about sexual pleasure - so what? Evidently, I was really supposed to be that much of a prude for Jesus, that I couldn't take a peek at some bronze-age poetry.

All of this, combined with skits performed at youth retreats about the horrors of hell, the constant pressure to be baptized, being pressured to pray, made to feel guilty for masturbating, and indoctrination with endless propaganda about the end times, was more than enough to make me feel the stab of life-long discomfort.

Not once did anyone ask for my opinion on these topics, or asked me if I was okay with it. My feelings on the subject didn’t count. I was simply told it was the truth, and that I had to accept it, regardless of whether or not it made sense. And I grew weary very quickly of Christians calling themselves “brothers and sisters.” It made me feel like I was in a cult, because it excluded people who weren’t believers. Why couldn’t they be brothers and sisters too?

Once again, I am convinced that it was Christians, not atheists, who were first responsible for spawning the embryonic stages of doubt when I was young - simply because of the shallow things they said, that stuck in my brain and never went away.

The Price of Self-Guilt

If all of that flippant, evangelical hubris wasn't enough, I also had to suffer the utterances of loving Christians who would constantly talk down about themselves, telling me what wretched sinners they were, and how they didn't deserve "god's grace."

It was disturbing to hear these good souls downing themselves, and acting as if their god were some kind of self-mutilation device. It was almost like they WANTED to feel bad, because it made them feel emotionally closer to Jesus. They talked themselves into thinking that they were not "good enough" for god - and were constantly reminding themselves of how they deserved hell, until Jesus saved them.

The thing that really got under my skin about this, was the fact that most of these individuals were great people. Some of the kindest, most wonderful humans I've ever known are Christians. All too often, because the bible teaches that every human is accountable for being born a sinner(something that we didn't ask for) - then "all have fallen short" and deserve eternal punishment.

These people live by these words because it is in fact - exactly what the bible says. I knew a very kind and loving Christian man who said that one day he was staring out the window, and just pondered what an evil person he was. When I heard about this, it really pinched a nerve. I wanted to shout "No!" "You're not an evil person, you're a great person! Please don't do this to yourself!"

The red flags, were slowly starting to appear.

Despite all of this, I kept believing. I felt that even though there were rough edges to Christianity, it could still be defended. I had heard the philosophy of “just because you find rough spots, doesn’t mean that you should throw the whole thing out.” At the time, that seemed like a great slogan.

The bible was complicated, and faith was complicated. Why should it always be a smooth ride? The motto of “Faith should never be easy” was implanted into my brain somewhere around college. This blind motto was always pushed onto young adults, because that is the time in life where many people start to question their religious upbringing.

I remember my dad telling me, that many philosophers agreed when something has rough edges, it’s more likely to be true. When something looks too clean or too smooth, it’s likely to be made up, or invented. The bible then, was most likely to be true because of all the rough patches.

Such a clever answer worked like a charm for a little while, until I figured out that the bible wasn’t just a book of rough edges. It had gigantic holes. This changed everything.

Guilt-Driven Conversions

One thing I couldn't help but notice since my youth, was that many of the most dramatic conversions to Christianity came from people who were in rough, dark places. Some of the most pious and devout Christians came from prisons, drug addiction, high crime, pornography, alcoholism and the like. It seemed like many overnight u turns were made to the faith out of desperation to find hope.

More often than not, there is a pattern here. The prison ministry is huge, and there are now more Christians in prison in the United States than any other kind of belief system. Is this a coincidence? I don't think that it is. The Christian faith is founded on the focus of spiritual freedom - "breaking the chains" as it were, so you can have freedom in Jesus.

Millions of ex- prisoners make this claim. In times of struggle, people often turn to religion, because they have not developed the mental tools to deal with personal addiction or pain. They are told that they are set free by Christ. Little do they know, that they have only swapped one set of chains for another.

This is why Christianity so often preys on weak people who are at the end of their rope - it will do anything to gain converts. Indeed, the great commission never rests. But what was more striking to me, was that there were also many religious people who had never committed crimes, never drank, had happy marriages, never struggled with depression, and came from loving families and educational backgrounds.

I myself, was not one to drink, smoke, take drugs, or get into trouble with law enforcement. I have always had a good relationship with my parents, and never went out of my way to spar with the police, or commit high crimes. I'm not trying to say that I'm morally superior to others - certainly not- but my point is this: It was always a struggle for me, to comprehend why I needed Jesus.

Sure, I did some bad things. Like most kids, I lied a few times, yelled at my family, got into mischief, had a bad temper, and used some fowl language here and there. Since I couldn't relate to depression, or had no criminal background, then there was no desperate need for religion in my life. I was simply told that EVERYONE needed Jesus no matter what kind of person you were, so I tried my best to follow that rule. But after I became a Christian, it was very hard to tell the difference between my old life and my new one, simply because there wasn't that much I could change!

Since I didn't have a self-destructive life style, or any history with the law, then there were no big hurdles to overcome other than everyday obstacles - lying once in awhile, yelling at my sister, or being late for work. These are things that Christians still do even long after they become saved, simply because they are normal, human tendencies.

That doesn't mean those tendencies are good, or that I'm excusing them - it’s just that people shouldn't be having this life-long guilt trip that they are somehow horrible sinners because of these pesky human details.

It was always much more of a challenge to find a college professor, scientist, teacher, or people of more educated backgrounds who converted to Christianity out of desperation. There are exceptions of course. Yet, my observation is consistent that if I'm going with the odds - the people that have no criminal history or that had a stable home life, are more likely to be religious simply because they grew up that way, not because they needed this life-altering change.

CS Lewis was such a person. He was an academic who converted to Christianity not out of a desperate need for it, but purely for philosophical reasons. It took Lewis years of convincing and arguing with his friends, until he finally jumped on board.

The Price of Re-Dedication

Let’s not forget that there are still many non-religious people in prison, who overcame their criminal tendencies by getting counseling, accountability, and getting an education. In the end, they didn't need religion to change them - they changed themselves through hard work, and dedication to being better humans. Looking back on the fact that I made a concentrated effort to rededicate my life to Jesus so many times, I now realize why I did it - because Christianity had to be true. For Christianity not to be true was unthinkable, therefore it had to work.

It's like a small viral crutch that gets implanted into your brain, at an early age. You don't realize that being non-religious is even a possibility, so you dig in your heals and try even harder to make religion fit. You keep thinking that if you just keep trying, then things will eventually all make sense. God will make it all okay, if you just continue to believe.

I'm convinced that's why so many people who are miserable in their faith, keep up the act. Societal pressures to stay Christian are extremely powerful, and affect the mind in crafty ways. You are told that if you're not a Christian, then there is no hope. This is a message that has probably been repeated as many times as the word "Jesus". You must never give up, because giving up means losing everything.

We doubt our faith, feel bad about it, and then rededicate. We repeat this pattern multiple times until it's ingrained in us. This is a process that is accepted without question, and the church has set people up for it, in advance. They know that most people will come running back to the faith out of guilt. This kind of mindset was grandfathered in, during the church's infancy to control people with fear, and hellfire. Are you having doubts?

Well, that’s too bad. Just swallow them. Keep them down. Keep them at bay, until you vomit them back up. Then rededicate again, only to re-light a burnt fuse, that has grown weak from years of overuse.

To quote atheist radio host, Seth Andrews:

"Repent. Renew. Receive. Rinse. Repeat."

Evangelist Billy Graham is actually a perfect example of this. In the mid nineties, he began to experience doubt. He struggled with the bible so much, that he prayed fervently for god to give him enough faith to continue his ministry. And he claims that when he prayed that prayer, it was life changing.

From that moment on, he was somehow magically convinced that the bible was god's word. Graham's rescue prayer is a great lesson in how the evangelical mind is trained to think. The bible has to be true, and under no circumstances can it ever be wrong. That means that if something in the bible doesn't make sense, then it's never the bible's fault. It's your fault because you failed to understand it.

It turns out that the whole idea of this re-dedication cycle is actually very common in young Christian adults. You're pretty sure you're saved. It's just......are you REALLY sure? This horrible meme has sadly infested itself into the minds of millions, and it has ruined their thinking. Christians will often argue that this kind of fear is actually from Satan.

If it is, then why doesn't god do something about it? Doesn't he want his children to "fear not," instead of being unsure that you didn't get it right the first time? My re-dedications to Christianity just goes to show that I needed something to keep reaffirming my faith, in order to avoid doubt.

Recognizing the Core Problem

I finally came to the point in my life where I decided to question no matter how uncomfortable it made me feel. I always knew that there were things about Christianity that weren't logical, and I was growing sick of not being able to stand up to them. I finally let go of the fear, and just started using common sense. I decided to deal with questions that I always needed to face head on, but had always been too afraid to ask. I started to approach the bible with the same attitude that I would approach any other religion.

Other religious books couldn't be trusted because they were written by man, and not god. So why should the bible be any different? Christianity had been around for 2000 years and just because it had withstood the test of time, doesn't mean that it could withstand the test of skepticism. Could it hold up to common sense? I was terrified of finding out, but I had to go there. I was weary of rededicating my life to Jesus every few years. I started to ask the tough questions:

Suppose I had never heard of Christianity, and just happened to come across a bible one day. If I read about Yahweh's obsession with slaughtering women, children, and infants, would I think that god was loving?

If found an eternal hell in another religion, would I believe that religion had a loving message?

If a person on the street told me I was born a sinner regardless of whether or not I asked for it, would I think very highly of such a person?

If I were god, and a girl who was being raped cried out to me to stop it - would I do it, or let her suffer?

If I had to make a choice between a god who showed himself to humans and talked to them everyday, as opposed to a god who never showed himself and used men to write a book about him, which god would I choose?

What is so terrible about NOT believing in god?.......... This one completely begged for an answer, until I finally gave in to the only possible explanation: You risk going to hell.

GULP.

Other than that, why is unbelief such a bad thing?

But that's exactly what makes religion so aggravating. Christianity deliberately invents problems where there doesn't need to be a problem. A god who is loving shouldn't be bothered by people who don't believe in him, just as a celebrity should not be concerned with people who aren't their fans. A loving father would not blame his children for what their ancestors did. Why should a deity be bothered by such a thing?

There is no reason why homosexuality needs to be a problem. There is no reason why a scantly clad dressed woman should offend you. Denying the holy spirit has nothing to do with human morality or the way you treat others. These things are strictly religious issues that the bible magnifies, and justifies, all for the sake of controlling people.

I tried to avoid calling Christianity a cult for so long, but now have no choice other than to admit it. The reasons why most people don't see it as a cult, is simply because it's the worlds largest one. There are so many denominations, and it's easy to get distracted into thinking that cults are only small fringe groups who have a narcissistic leader.

Cults come in many different forms, and if one is honest, and asks themselves what the main driving factor is in all cults are- the answer is THOUGHT CONTROL. Religious people's brains are constantly being shaped, molded, and scarred because they have put their trust in ancient minds of scripture to tell them what to think, and how to behave. And then on top of that, they trust preachers to interpret what those ancient minds were trying to say. This is pure cult behavior.

These are the types of common sense questions that make most evangelicals cringe, and their frivolous argument, "you're not god" has failed. The bible has been around for about 2500 years, in some form or another. It has been given more than enough chances. It has been given more than enough time to reveal itself as the one true guide for people's lives.

Yet, scholars and historians are still stumped, and are wrestling with the truth. People are still scratching their heads with frustration, while more Christians than ever before are leaving the faith in droves in the 21st century. It's time to face the fact, that the bible is simply one big dark tunnel, with no light at the end.

Impossible Dodges

After watching a plethora of debates, in addition to listening to podcasts, and online discussions between Christians and non-believers, the same ugly reality would crop up again, and again. Apologists, pastors, and defenders of the bible would try to dodge common sense, whenever they were asked tough questions.

Some apologists would believe in a literal flood, while others would not. Some believed that Moses and Adam and Eve actually existed while others would reject them as historical figures. Some didn’t know where the literal truth of the bible began. Some scholars made the claim that the word of god could not be errant, while at the same time admitting to contradictions and inaccuracies. Most Christians couldn’t justify a literal hell, so they kept dodging the question as to what type of hell they actually believed in, if any at all, and then some thought that certain parts of the gospels were true, while other parts were not.

Many believers would see the old testament Yahweh as merely an Israelite invention in the first five books, but after that - he somehow became real. Or some believed in an anti-Christ while others did not. Others said that Yahweh never really killed the Canaanites, but drove them out of the land.

There were the ones who tried to justify slavery being morally permissible, by saying it was "indentured servitude" when at the same time, they ignored the passages about chattel slavery. Some tried to dodge whether or not there were literal demons, and some thought it was blasphemous to accept it as non-literal. Some did not believe in the virgin Mary, but proposed that the word "virgin" simply meant a young woman.

In other words, the bible is inerrant except for when it's not. The bible doesn't support slavery, except for when it does. Yahweh never really kills infants, other than when he commands people to do it. The bible wasn't meant to be taken literally, except for when it is. The bible is always right, except for when it disagrees with you.

The intellectual gymnastics that these people invoke, is nothing short of mind boggling. But they have to do it, if they want to save their belief system from total collapse. They work themselves into a cherry-picking frenzy, writhing like a fish out of water, because of the struggle to harmonize certain passages of scripture with logic. What all of this eventually did, was led me to conclude what I suspected all along:

Most Christians, deep down - KNOW that their holy book is nonsense.

They just don’t have the guts to stand up to it. They would rather live a lie, than admit to any sort of weakness on their part. The reasoning behind this position usually has to do with the fact, that many people have made a lifelong emotional investment in their beliefs that are too precious to give up. Many are active in their church, with kids and families.

Some have been pastors for over 30 years. Some teach at prestigious religious schools, and don't want to give up retirement, or insurance benefits. Much of lying to one's self about their beliefs, is based on fear of losing ones job, marriage, upsetting in-laws, and relatives. My criticism here may sound harsh, but the price we're paying for this sort of posturing, is beginning to rise at a rate that is ridiculously dehumanizing.

This is why I don't feel like I have to refute the bible. It does a great job of doing that all on it's own, because the bible refutes itself. I just let it do the work for me. What has compelled me to write, is not to debunk people's beliefs but to explain why I no longer subscribe to those beliefs. Secularism needs no defense, because it is a neutral position.

Everybody was born secular, before they learned to believe in anything else. Hence, the burden of proof falls on people who have absolute certainty that their beliefs are correct.

Some Christians say they enjoy and embrace the struggle, rather than trying to have finite answers. There are in fact, Christians who went through the exact same experience I did - a time of doubting and questioning. But they came out of it still Christian, and remained convinced that the bible is true despite all of it's flaws.

That's fine for them. It only shows that their brain works differently than mine. It's the same concept as everybody having a different digestive system - some people can eat whatever they want and digest it perfectly, while other people's bodies cannot tolerate certain things.

There were only so many loose ends, that my brain could could afford to hack. It didn't work for me, after years of trying. I became miserable as a result of this process; constantly going back to the drawing board, and forcing myself to make sense of the mess. For me, there is no point in trying claw my way through a sea of cognitive dissonance, just so I could find a way to justify a story about Abraham passing an evil test from god to see if he would actually sacrifice his son.

That's not something that I can just forgive, wave away, or be nice about. The fact is, if Abraham had existed in the 21st century and claimed that killing his kid was a message from god (like Andrea Yates did), then there wouldn't be one Christian who wouldn't want him jailed, or put away in a mental institution.

It doesn’t matter, because somehow, such an appalling belief is okay as long as it's in the bible. The bible justifies the means. It's the same old routine that religion has had for centuries - if something in the bible looks bad, then just push it to the side, and cover it up. Keep on telling yourself that because god is god, then he can do no wrong. It will make those disturbing stories in the Old Testament easier to swallow. In other words, when you see something that you're not supposed to see - pretend you didn't see it.

The Final Nail

I spent the past decade trying my absolute best to defend the Christian position, until the foundations started to crack. When you can no longer hang on, and your muscles give out, then you have to let go. But we can argue all day about historical evidence. What it really boils down to isn't whether or not the bible is true, but whether or not it makes moral and logical sense.

In the end, I had to choose honesty over blind faith, and admit that the god of the bible was incompatible with morality and human reason.

And still, Christians will continue to gloat over how loving Yahweh is.

Let me get this straight..........you want me to believe in a god who allowed people to be born into inherited sin, so he could save us from something that was beyond our control.

Then if that wasn’t irrational enough, god allowed Lucifer to become Satan, so that he can continue to tempt you into sinning in order for you to ask forgiveness for it, so that you can be saved from a hell that god created himself, but you deserve it, because you were born inheriting something that you had nothing to do with.

Wow.......

We must also admit that your "loving" god, doesn’t speak, is not visible, and cannot provide any evidence for his existence. You want me to believe in a being who sits idle while people get killed, raped, tortured, while the innocent get imprisoned, and while the nature that he "designed" continues to destroy homes and cities.

You want me to believe in a god who does nothing while children continue to get molested, and die of cancer, while you preach from your pulpits that there is a mysterious reason for it all - that god is somehow going to make it all okay in the end. This god acts more like a blind puppet master, than a loving father. And I'm supposed to THANK him for his forgiveness? I'm supposed to praise him for his mercy? I'm the one, who's supposed to make the effort to understand him?

Sorry Christians, but you can have it. I'm DONE with the mystery.

This is the part where many believers will point the finger and accuse me of being "angry at god." If I were really angry at a deity, I would pray to him and curse him, using more than a few choice words. I can't be mad at something I don't believe in, and reducing me to some form of misotheist isn't going to help your case.

If you want to say that Yahweh as a fictional character in the bible makes me angry, then that is no different then getting mad at a character like John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged", or hating O'brian in Orwell's "1984." The fact is, what I'm really angry at is Christian culture, the bible, and the people who invented it. I'm angry that such a book indoctrinates people to think uncritically, and to believe in harmful ideas that they never would believed had they not been religious.

The glaring reality is getting easier and easier all the time, to see. When you have a society that is being poisoned, you want to know where the source of the harm is. You want to know what is making people think the way they do. And when you realize that 2000 years of church indoctrination is being heaped upon the masses, then you start to feel the frustration from the inside. Yes, it makes me angry. Angry at man, for pretending to know things he doesn't know, and his ignorance that guides the blind acceptance of fallacious ideas without any proof.

It’s not that religion doesn’t encourage questioning - it does, as long as you ask the right questions. As long as you ask the questions that can be easily explained away, and brushed aside, then religion has no problem with you asking. But the minute that you start to go deeper, then you are going where you shouldn’t be treading.

When the church has weak answers to brutally honest issues, it makes the bible look less powerful, and this they fear. Christianity actually encourages thinking, because a little thinking can strengthen your faith. They just don't want you to think TOO MUCH. It's always a threat when you start asking questions that lead to more questions.

Christian apologist and former singer Alisa Childers demonstrates this perfectly when she encourages Christians to doubt, but to doubt "towards faith", not "towards skepticism." So according to her, it's okay to doubt as a believer as long as you don't have the wrong doubts.

This smacks of dishonesty to me. The whole point in having doubts about anything is to explore your mind, and if those questions lead you to somewhere different then so be it. You don't explore different options just so you can end up back in your comfort zone every time. The idea of questioning is to get your head out of familiar territory, and realize that it could take you ANYWHERE. If that means becoming a skeptic, then too bad.

The bible says to test everything. But what good is that, when testing your belief leads you to another place? Would the writers of the bible approve of such a position? I was simply trying to challenge myself, and ended up somewhere different. I ended up becoming an apostate, as a result of defending very the bible that instructed me to test my faith. How do you solve that one?

This is the one line that I'm getting sick of hearing: "It's not about a religion, it's about a relationship with Jesus."

You could say that about ANY religion. Islam is not about religion. It's a relationship with Allah. Hinduism isn't a really a religion either - it's a relationship with Krishna and Vishnu. In fact, no religion that ever existed is really a religion - because it's all about your relationship with the gods. Please, dear Christian for your own sake, and the sake of others, quit repeating that. It will do you no good.

Most Christians don't understand apostasy or what it's like to go through it. The majority of believers will never have a faith crisis, and that isn't the point. The point is, that no one is immune to it. You can think it will never happen to you. But the fact is, it CAN happen, and often to people who were at one time, extremely devout Christians. Which makes more sense? To say that doubt is a temptation from Satan, or to admit that your mind is telling you there is something wrong?

Whether you have ever experienced deconversion or not, it's always right there - WAITING.

The biggest difference between religion and secularism is that one makes a claim about the universe, and the other does not. I think we can safely say, that the secular world at large is not trying to prove or disprove a god. We simply do not start with that conjecture, and we certainly don't start with the opinion that the bible is true. Secularists start with questions, not the answer. We simply take baby steps towards the truth, not blind, gigantic leaps.

Religion however, does the opposite. It starts with the answer, and then forces everything in the universe to fit with a particular belief. History has shown us repeatedly that this doesn’t work, and this is why I am convinced that secular thinking is superior to religious thinking in every way.

That's why it's always funny to me, when I hear religious people say, "science doesn't answer the big questions." The irony is of course, that religion doesn't answer the big questions either - it just makes an attempt to fill in the blanks where knowledge is incomplete. I would ask why I even need an answer to the "big questions" anyway, when I am perfectly happy not knowing.

In the end, I was faced with two options: Either I was too smart for Christianity, or was too dumb to understand it. I finally realized that if the logic in my mind came from a god, then god had to be something entirely different then what was in the bible. The bible would not be written by any god with half a brain, and could not be penned by any human with the ability and intelligence to communicate clearly.

Let me make it plain, that I am no scholar, and do not have any academic credentials. I am no smarter than anyone else. I simply decided to do the homework on the bible - something that most people do not bother to do.

I believe that I have developed an awareness of how Christianity formed. I am aware of why so many people still believe it. I am documenting what has plagued my mind during the last ten years, and the twists and turns that led me to the path I am on today.

CHAPTER 2

THE PROBLEM WITH THE OLD TESTAMENT........

“In the beginning.......God created?” - Genesis 1

The bible may be a lot of things, but the one thing it's clearly not - is a history book. I had to learn this the hard way. These days, that shock has long faded, but it still amazes me how many people (even non-religious) think that the "good book" is at least somewhat historically credible. That's not what the bible is. It is a work of fiction with historical bits thrown in, and Christians will claim the bible is true, because of those small historical pieces.

Some of the stories in the bible were probably based loosely around minor events. This I can accept, because much of ancient history was written that way. What I can no longer believe, is that it's the infallible word of god. Anyone who tells you that it is, has been completely misguided or they have been lied to.

I started reading books, and watching documentaries on the bible in it's infancy. I then realized, that most Christians sitting in church every Sunday, have no idea about how their bible actually came together. They have no clue that the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament - were most likely passed down orally for a few hundred years before it was actually written on down on tablets, then parchment.

Not A Real Genesis

Most people have not looked into where the Genesis story originated. Genesis was actually not the first book to be written down, like so many Christians assume. According to many scholars, the first Old Testament book to be written down was actually Job, depending on who you ask. The date is uncertain, ranging anywhere from 700 BC to 600 BC. The Torah (first five books of the bible) was written down a bit later, probably somewhere in the range of 500 BC.

What frustrates many scholars, is the arduous task of deciphering Masoretic text. The origins of Masoretic text only go back about 1000 AD, or a little before. The Masorites were people who basically took the earlier Hebrew language of the Old Testament, and reworked the language, so they included more dotted words that originally had no vowels.

The original text of the bible has been lost, and the Septuigent is really the closest thing we have to the original. In addition to corrupting the text, the Masorites also took liberties in leaving out certain books.

This presents a problem for present-day bible readers, because it's a considerable departure from the original Hebrew bible. The Masorites worked with texts that were already corrupted, used a different alphabet, added extra vowel points that were not there originally, changed prophecy and doctrine in the process, and excluded several old testament books from the cannon.

The original Old Testament scriptures were written in Paleo-Hebrew, which shares similarities to the Phonecian writing system. Thousands of years before the Masorites, ancient Hebrew was written with only consonants, with no vowels. The vowels that they did have, had to come from oral tradition. Vowels can make a world of difference, and a slight change can alter the entire meaning of a single word. That means, that the current bible most people read today at home, is not the original bible.

The additional books that are not in the bible, were written around the same time period and they did not get included. These include: Tobit, Judith, 1 Estras, Maccabees, Baruch, Bel and the Dragon, Enoch, Ecclesiasticus, Prayer to Azariah, The Prayer of Manasseh, The Sybyline Oracle, The Book of Adam and Eve, The Book of Jubilee, and many others.

This is why there was controversy in the early church about what books should be read as scripture. In the end, there is just no good reason besides silly unexplained, rhetoricized answers from church tradition that assume these books just "weren't good enough" to make the cut. Why did they get passed over? Or more importantly, why do we have some bibles that exist today with those books included, and most do not?

I have listened to, and have read arguments by Christians who have tried to explain why certain books that were once part of the Old Testament, were eventually discarded.

One of the most common defenses that I hear for this dilemma, is that the books in Old Testament we have today are inspired scripture because they were quoted so many times in the New Testament by Jesus, and the gospel writers. This reasoning quickly falls apart when you realize how many books in the Old Testament did NOT get quoted.

These include: Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Ezekiel, Lamentations, Obadiah, and Zephaniah. If you can't find any explicit passages from these books in the New Testament, then what are they doing in the Old? Anyone care to tell me?

Another problematic issue arises when you discover just how vague some of these references to the Old Testament actually are. A good example includes a quote from Paul when he says he was “rescued from the lion’s mouth” (2 Tim 4:17). But is Paul referring to Daniel 6:22 or Psalm 22:21? It has also been suggested that Jesus in John 10 was "alluding" to the passage in Ezekiel 34 about the shepherd and his sheep. The similarities are once again are so vague, that it's useless to say one way or the other.

This problem especially comes to light when you consider the book of Jude makes a mysterious reference to the book of Enoch - a book that is not in our bible today. You could say that Jesus also alludes to Enoch when he quotes in Matthew, "It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” Enoch 38:3 actually reads: "It had been good for them if they had not been born." Slight difference, but you can see the similarity. Besides, you also have to take into consideration that the gospel writers had control of what they put into the New Testament. Jesus himself as a teacher, MAY have quoted the non-canonical books and it didn't get mentioned, because the writers of the gospels chose not to use it.

In addition to this flawed reasoning, Christian apologists will tackle the argument from another angle -that the apocryphal books got discarded because they weren't as prophetic. In other words, the Old Testament books that exist in the bible today, all foreshadow the coming of Jesus and his death on the cross. They claim that the apocryphal books did not have strong ties to the coming of the messiah, therefore they could not have been inspired. At best, this is a flippant excuse.

How can books such as "Song of Solomon" a book about sexual pleasure - be about a messiah? How can a book like Esther - a book that doesn't even mention god, foreshadow Jesus? How can a book like Ecclesiastes - a book about questioning the very existence of god, have anything to do with a savior whatsoever?

Certain Christians have mentioned that the cannon of the Old Testament was finalized at the Council of Jamnia, (a council that we know very little about) - supposedly rejected the apocryphal books from the bible, and from then on there was no more argument as to what books were to be accepted. We know this is a false claim. Most scholars do not support this view, and at best we have have very little information as to what went on at the council, which is dubious.

If there was such a decision at this mysterious council, then Christians largely ignored it. The apocryphal books were widely read in the 4th and 5th centuries by Christians, and some of the church fathers accepted books like “The Wisdom of Sirach.” Even the earliest Protestants included the apocrypha in their bible. It took all the way up until the 18th century, before the apocrypha was finally excluded from the Protestant Old Testament.

That means that if you were a Christian living 400 years ago, you would have been reading a different bible then what you have now. If these books got tossed aside because they weren't inspired by the "holy spirit" then why did it take so long for people to figure it out? It's all too obvious that the decisions about what books to include, were all based on people's feelings, and theological bias.

Doesn't sound like divine inspiration to me.

The first five books of the Old Testament were attributed to the authorship of Moses, and that's what I thought when I was growing up. But nobody can show evidence that Moses actually existed, and the first writings of Genesis appear long after he was supposed to have lived. Besides, the bible was passed down orally before it was written - for hundreds of years. One would have to prove that Moses was at the heart of these traditions. Please tell me how Moses could have written the first five books, when one of them records his death. If I were an apologist, I would not want the job of tackling that one.

The fact is, that nowdays, almost all scholars agree that every book of the bible was written by anonymous authors, with the exception of Paul's letters in the New Testament. He's the only person who we know for sure was the author of his own material. Other than Paul, all we have are dubious claims. We really don't know who wrote the bible.

Evangelical scholars like to cite the documentary hypothesis, which is a theory that once supported the idea of the Torah divided up into four different sources of authorship. There was J for the Jahwist source, E for the Elohist source, P for the Priestly source, and D for the Deuteronomist source. These four sources were allegedly from the late 7th, 6th, and 5th centuries. But this hypothosis has been largely debated, due to more in-depth research and study.

Today, most modern Jewish scholars, and even many conservative ones reject the idea that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament. In fact, a great number liberal and conservative Jewish theologians have given up on trying to find any evidence for the origins of Moses, and in this day and age, he is regarded as mostly, if not complete legend.

Pastors, teachers, and apologists like to cite The Dead Sea scrolls as a reliable source for the Old Testament. What you don't often hear, is the truth about how incomplete these ancient scrolls were. Most of the books such as Ruth, Job, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Ezekial, and Daniel don't even have half of the modern text there as we know it. I and II Kings only have a few verses along with the other fragmented writings of later books - Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, ect. The book of Esther is nowhere to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Despite all of these issues, theologians will still cling to the tradition that the text of the bible was remarkably preserved. It some cases, it was. Most of the Masoretic text that we read today still did not change the original text in every circumstance. The reality is, that if you go to a Muslim or Hindu scholar then they will also tell you that their sacred scriptures for their religion was also "remarkably preserved." The Quaran had the very same problem the bible had - deciphering the original copies into modern language was a chore, and changed the meaning of certain words.

Censored Influences

The majority of believers, still don’t know that there were many other religions prior to the bible. I too, once thought that the word of god was the oldest religious book of all time, until I found out about the Assryian empire, and the surrounding Near East cultures. Not only were these religions around way before the Old Testament - these other religions influenced the Old Testament. Knowing this didn’t settle with me well at all, as you might imagine. Like a moth to a flame, I moved forward, curious to find out anything I could about older Near East religions.

Zoroastrianism, a major Persian religion, was quite possibly around before Judaism, influenced it's doctrines and it influenced Christianity as well. The Zoroastrian beliefs stretch all the way back to about 1200 BC, with it's ancient carvings, statues, and fire temples.

The religion entered recorded history around 500 BC, and it's teachings consisted of one creator who was god over everything, Ahura Mazda. This god also had an enemy - Angra Mainyu who was an evil spirit, and according to Zoroastrian theology, Ahura Mazda will defeat Angra Mainyu at the end of time, which at that point the souls of the dead will be reunited with Ahura - the creator.

Starting to sound familiar?

There are also Zoroastrian doctrines of Heaven and Hell, and a last judgement, except hell is not eternal, and there is no original sin. The religious book of Zoroastrianism - the Avesta, was not compiled until way later - around 1300 AD. The Avesta is simply collections of fragmented poems and documents for which we don't have an earlier manuscripts for. This makes it easy for Christian scholars to criticize Zoroastrianism's so-called influence on Judaism and Christianity. It's been purported that since the Avesta was written so late, then it makes it impossible to know what Zoroastrianism originally consisted of.

Despite this, we have plenty of evidence to work with, that goes way back to about 484 BC. As far as we know, in 440 BC, the Greek historian Herodotus recorded the first descriptions of what appear to be Zoroastrian teachings. If the origins of Zoroastrianism can't be traced, because we don't have any knowledge of what oral traditions came before the Avesta, then neither can we know what Judaism was originally all about before the Torah got written down. The fact remains: The likelihood of Zoroastrianism influencing Judaeo-Christianity, is more than plausible.

Other ancient counterparts of there being one god over everything, was also present in Egytian mythology. The sun god "Aten" contributed greatly to this idea. Hinduism, which was around way before Judaism believed in the concept of Brahman - a type of metaphysical or supernatural formless, timeless, entity that encompasses all things, and is eternal. It’s clear that the belief in one all-powerful deity certainly did not originate with the Isrealites.

The Garden of Eden story and Noah’s flood were both taken from earlier Mesopotamian literature, and in addition to that, there were also many other creation stories that involved some type of serpent, way before the bible was written.

These include the Hindu story of Samudra Manthana, which a giant snake is used to churn an ocean of milk to create the world, the rainbow serpent in Aborigianal creation stories, and others. The Proto-indo civilizations appeared to have developed myths involving gods who slay serpents, and two brothers - one of which kills the other in order to create the world. (Cain and Abel anyone?)

One of the most striking parallels to the biblical myth, was a series of tablets called the Enumma Elish - a Babylonian Creation story mostly about the god Marduk, and how he created the earth, and how he came from other gods. The comparisons to Genesis are very recognizable, from dividing the waters from sky, creating day and night, and using blood to create man. Even these are not exact accounts, the whole idea of creation from scratch was around long before the bible.

The paralells of Ennuma Elish continue to impress: Instead of the earth being created in seven days, they were written on seven tablets instead, and we also have seven generations of gods. The sixth generation created man so that the seventh generation of gods could rest.

In Gilgemesh, Enkidu sleeps with the harlot Shamhat, and then realizes the for the first time that he is naked. In the Sumurian hynm, "Inanna and Utu" Inanna goes into the underworld to taste the fruit of a certain tree, and as a result of eating the fruit, gains knowledge.

In Gilgamish, the godking walks through the sacred garden, he finds the dark maid Lillith with a serpent who could not be tamed.

In Mesopotamian mythology, Adapa refuses immortality and as a result, the Gods send him back to earth and curse all of mankind with sickness.

This doesn't sound like Genesis. Not at all, right? Most of these obvious parallels were written long before the bible or Judaism, around 1400 BC. These myths have turned the biblical narrative on it's head. People of faith often like to tell you that these are just stories all describing the same event.

What sense does it make for Yahweh, who is supposed to be almighty and powerful, to allow his own word to be copied instead of being the original story? Or if the bible was the real story, why confuse people with previous similar tales to make it look like they came first? It doesn’t sit well with logic.

On that note, I would like to ask Christians if they would be happy to use that same logic with other ancient myths, that have nothing to do with the bible. There are myths that come from China, Egypt, Greece and Africa that share parallels with tales that came before it, simply because they evolved over time. Would you say that all of those stories described a similar event? Would you say that a later development of any myth was the "real" story?

Various issues with the Old Testament timeline, has created problems for many historians. Certain anachronisms appear in the text, and threaten the certainty of biblical belief. One such anachronism is the trouble with the Philistines.

In the book of Genesis, it makes it pretty clear that the Philistines were around during the time of Abraham. On the other hand, historical sources have evidence to the contrary - they pretty much agree that the Philistine army didn't come into being until about 1200 BC, nearly 400 years AFTER Abraham. We don't seem to have an arrival date for the Philistines in the eastern part of the Mediterranean before that date. There also seems to be some confusion about where they actually came from and archaeologists are in debate over their origins.

Speaking if origins, there was one surprising item that I found out about - long after I deconverted. I discovered upon reading a few books on the old testament, that Yahweh wasn't really the original God of the Israelites. This is a dirty little secret that the church dare not talk about, and if anyone gets wind of it, then you can bet that they will come up with clever arguments to explain it away.

There is little evidence for the exodus (which I'll get into in a minute), the archaeological record has made it clear that the Jews originated in Canaan. Because of this, the early Isrealite traditions were influenced by Canaanite culture. The Canaanites were polytheists, or people who believed more than one god. This culture was developed around 3000 BC during the early bronze age, and as a result - predates Judaism by about 2000 years.

What all of this ads up to, is the fact that the Canaanites worshiped a chief deity named "El." In the Canaaite religion, El was lord over a huge pantheon of other gods.

The language of the Canaanites was Ugaritic. Scholars have compared the Ugaritic writing to Hebrew, and the similarities are startling. The evidence for early Hebrew being a Canaanite dialect is more than probable. The evidence is clear, that the Canaanites began to develop one god into another, which eventually evolved into Yahweh - and when Yahweh took over, he became the god of Israel. Even the verse in Deuteronomy 32:8–9 describes the nations inheriting Yahweh:

"When the Most High (’elyôn) gave to the nations their inheritance,when he separated humanity, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings. For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage."

There is no one fixed opinion on where the name “Yahweh” came from or what the original meaning was. If you go and ask about 20 different experts, you will get about 20 different answers. The name “El Shaddai” comes from the original god of ancient Canaan. Much like Yahweh, the meaning of “Shaddai” is debated, but the name “El” has Canaanite origins.

Christians will often argue, that El and Yahweh, weren't really separate gods - they were names both referring to the same thing, but the archaeological record clearly points to the Jews adopting El as their god, and only later on during the Babylonian exile, did Yahweh take over as the main god.

As if that wasn't enough to make me start doubting the historicity of the Israelites, then in addition to all of this confusion, I stumbled upon another surprising twist that causes Christians to cringe: Yahweh may have had a wife. Yes, you read it right. Her name was Asherah, god's other half.

Most archaeologists are in agreement on this. Ashera is actually found in the bible, and there are references throughout the book of Kings to numerous gods. The verses, 2 Kings 23:14 and 2 Kings 21:7 make stark references to Ashera. She is also referred to as "The Queen of Heaven" in several other places in the Old Testament.

In the northern Sinai desert, we have inscriptions on storage jars with phrases such as, "Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah" and "Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah." It's also worthy of note, that some of these early inscriptions also include the Canaanite god "El" showing further evidence that El was indeed worshiped by the Israelites as a chief deity, before Yahweh took over. Many female figurines have been uncovered in ancient Isreal, supporting the evidence for Ashera being a functioning goddess in Israelite culture and a consort of Yahweh. What is clear, is that the ancient Israelites were wholly polytheistic in the early part of their history. They didn't start out as a monotheistic society like so many people believe, and did not invent monotheism.

Genesis 6:1 is another example of how mythological the writing style of the early bible is, describing the sexual relationship between angels and humans. The whole idea of demigods or angels procreating with people also existed in Greek and Hindu mythology, and is also found in the apocryphal books of the Old Testament such as in Enoch, and The Book of Jubilee.

The Hindu epic "Ramayana" describes how the gods descend upon the earth to mate with apes and bears. In the bible, the procreation between the "sons of God" and women gave rise to a mysterious group called the Nephilim. To this day, scholars debate who or what the Nephilim are supposed to represent.

Floods and Other Tales

Finding out that the Adam and Eve story, and the flood were borrowed from near eastern myths was when more cracks started to appear. Out of all the stories in the bible, the flood is the most absurd, outlandish, and the most disprovable. We can say with confidence that the worldwide flood simply did not happen. Period. The reason why many Christians still believe in it, is because they have never really stopped to think about it, such as I once did. In order to refute the flood, one does not even need to know anything about science - all you need is common sense. Most often, using common sense, clashes with literalist faith.

One of the most obvious problems with the Noah story, is that it borrowed from ancient Mesopotamian myths like The Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Legend of Atrahasis, which are written on Cuneiform on tablets that today, can be viewed in the British Museum. These stories were written about 1000 years prior to the bible. Same basic stuff - a man builds an ark, the world is flooded, he rescues all the animals and sends out a raven. The Israelites simply rewrote the story and concocted Noah as the hero. If the flood actually wiped out the entire Earth, then what are the odds of uncovering the Epic of Gilgamesh in the first place?

The ridiculous implications of such a flood story, are insurmountable, and literally impossible to ignore - if you know anything about our planet. The flood has been debunked by every single area of science including archaeology, geology, dendrochronology, zoology, physics, astronomy, and paleantology.

How did Noah, and his family, retrieve two of every single kind of species on the earth, and get it back safely to the ark? How could they know the diet of these animals? How did they travel all around the globe - to the islands, and different continents to collect all the millions of different insects, herbivores and carnivores, not to mention the tiny microscopic mites that are unseen to the naked eye? How did penguins and polar bears survive outside of their environment on an ark for over a year?

All of these animals would need water. Where could they store that much water into an already crowded ark for all of the animals to drink?

If the continents were apart after the flood - how did each animal get to their respective habitats, all over the globe? How did the kangaroos and marsupials get to Austrailia? Did they migrate across two oceans? Do you really assume that a pair of penguins hopped off the ark, walked across the Mediterranean, and swam all the way to the south poll? If there were only two of each "kind", then how can you have any sort of food chain?

The carnivores must have been ravaging, impatient predators, chasing down their victims because they couldn’t procreate fast enough. One lion can eat ten pounds of meat a day. For every single carnivore that size, you would have to have several other species per carnivore just to satisfy their hunger.

No animal or insect could have survived a journey on foot to other locations around the planet, with the rest of the animal population completely wiped out. It would be the equivalent of trying to hike from New England to California, walking backwards on a pair of stilts, a hundred feet high. You wouldn't make it very far.

You also cannot ignore the fact that fresh water mixed with salt water, would kill the sea life. Any credible scientist will admit, that a planet under water for a full year would kill the vegetation of the entire earth. Where did all the water go, once it went away?

You would also have a very difficult time escaping the fact that there were ancient civilizations all around the globe that existed both before the flood, and after the flood. These ancient societies kept calendars, recording their history with pictograms, and idiograms. These civilizations include, the Mayans, Egyptians, Yazidis, Harapans, Chinese, Sumerians, the Acadian Empire, and the Ho Dynasty in what is now Vietnam.

The problem then remains: If there was a worldwide flood, then somehow these other societies never seemed to notice. Their writings and codices would have all come to an abrupt halt at the same time in history, if such an event occurred.

The evidence is far too damming to wave away, that ancient civilizations were continuing to flourish long after the date of Noah's deluge. Too bad. They missed out on one heck of an adventure.

Most Christians of higher education will say what the bible is actually describing is a local flood, not a literal one. That's exactly what I used to believe. Until you realize, that if you believe it was only a local flood, then you are still stuck reconciling how only 8 people were left to re-populate the earth.

If you believe that the flood was only a local one, then you have to deviate from the biblical time line, meaning that you might as well not believe anything from the Old Testament at all. If so, then where does the literal truth begin?

Many people will also argue that in certain parts of the world, we find seashells on mountain tops and that is indisputable evidence for the flood. But we have a perfectly good scientific explanation for all of that. The mountains of the world get a few inches higher each year. Why is this?

Because of plate tectonics. When the earth's tectonic plates collide, they push the land upward - including what was once the ocean floor.

Despite the facts, the flood literalists will continue to come up with reasons to believe. It has been said that every ancient culture has a flood story, and it's true. Somewhere in the ballpark of 350 flood legends have been recorded from all over the ancient world. This seems like a great argument for the for the biblical deluge, until you realize that most of the other flood tales have nothing to do with an ark.

Most of the flood legends that were known to ancient people might include boats, people drowning, and maybe some form of escape, but for the most part these tales vary greatly. The only place where you can find any story related to Noah's Ark is in the middle east - go figure. The Gilgamesh epic is really the only flood story that has stark similarities between it, and the Genesis account.

Lastly, one has to explain the moral complications of the flood myth. This was supposed to be Yahweh's punishment for sin, but you would have to ask - why was it necessary to destroy a whole planet just because you have a wayward society? God could have easily snapped them out of existence, or vaporized them without affecting the planet in such a disastrous way.

He could have at least saved the babies, and put them on the ark. Or saved all of the other innocent animals that he destroyed. Were they guilty of sin too?

The early stages of Egyptian culture were starting to form, almost immediately after the date of the flood. How then, do you repopulate an entire planet with only eight people to form different cultures around the world in such a short amount of time? All archaeologists know that forming a culture, takes hundreds of years to develop. That’s only if you have thousands of people to start with.

It’s interesting that the religious continue to protest, when the evidence is against them. They claim that before the flood - people lived for hundreds of years! Of course Noah could have built an ark if he lived to be 500 years old - isn't that the truth? Like so many of the other parallels that I have mentioned, people living hundreds of years is a very common ingredient in ancient myth-making.

These are called Longevity myths, and you can find them in all ancient cultures. Unfortunately for the believer, these are merely exaggerated mythical claims that are unfounded and which scientific evidence does not support. According to Hinduism, Devraha Baba lived to be over 700 years old. In Chinese legend, Peng Zu was said to have lived for 800 years. Tiersias, the blind seer of Thebes was 600 years old according to Greek myth. And in Jainism, people lived for 10,000 and 20,000 years. The same can be said of the Sumerian King list. Like the bible, the Sumerian culture shows the gradual decrease in lifespan over time.

The Tower of Babel is another story that may have Sumerian origins. More notably, there was a ziggurat dedicated to the Mesopotamian god Marduk in Babylon, during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar II. The Babel myth was most likely built on this actual ancient structure, at the time of the Babylonian captivity.

In addition to all of this alarming new information, I also found out that there was very little evidence for the Canaanite slaughter, the battle of Jericho, and basically most of the early books of the bible. The later books including characters like Saul, king David, king Solomon, and Nebuchadnezzar were surviving on shaky ground as well. Those people probably did exist, as Israel's kings - but the events surrounding them are what I found to be questionable.

Will the Real Exodus Please Stand Up?

The Exodus was a huge shock. I had no idea, that historians to this day - cannot locate any evidential support for the mass exodus as it happened in the bible. There are differing opinions of course, but the mainstream consensus is that a full-blown exodus with half a million people disappearing from Egypt overnight, simply never occurred. For hundreds of years, people naturally thought that the bible was true and trusted as a historical source - including the exodus story.

In the past 50 years or so, archaeology began to divide itself into two different camps - the minimalists and the maximalists. Maximalists are scholars who believe that the exodus happened, and believe that the archaeological evidence supports at least some kind of migration from Egypt - even if it wasn’t on the same scale recorded in the bible. Minimalists are scholars who side with more of a skeptical view - that there is very little evidence for the exodus, if any at all.

The Egyptians were known for keeping detailed records. It’s been discovered that there were a few minor things that they did not record, but we’re talking about half of the population of Egypt disappearing overnight. Nobody noticed this? Were the Egyptian people simply uninterested in such an event that would have turned history on it’s head?

One thing we know for sure is that Egypt never recorded their defeats, which is true for just about every ancient society. Even so, that doesn't tell us much about the Israelites being slaves in Egypt, or if they were - it was on a much smaller scale.

This is where the argument really begins to get juicy -the minimalists and the maximalists are constantly at odds with each other to the point of making personal attacks, and having acrimonious debates over what really happened. How could anyone possibly know anything?

The Jewish Rabbi David Wolpe quotes:

"The truth is that every modern archaeologist that has investigated the story of the exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the bible describes the exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all."

I set out to find if there was any information I could dig up. There are three archaeologists who are considered some of the best in their field that I found the most promising - one cultural Jew, one atheist, and one orthodox Christian. These three are Isreal Finklestien, William G. Dever and Kenneth Kitchen. Wanting to really challenge myself, and try to get to the heart of the issue - I was ready to take it upon myself to read their books and see what I could find.

Isreal Finklestien is one of the most famous archaeologists of the 21st century. Although he's a minimalist, he's not as extreme as some. Indeed, he has doubts about the biblical texts being dated early. His opinion does in fact, fall in line with what most mainstream OT scholars have believed for years - that most of the Old Testament was written around 600 BC, and the majority of it long after. In his view, we have evidence that King David and King Solomon at least existed, but the stories in the bible were completely made up, and are nothing more than fabricated tales, and so was the exodus.

His dating methods have been criticized however by the wider community of archaeologists, and have called out Finklesiten on some of his tactics on this issue. All in all, I was impressed with Finklestien's knowledge on the subject as he takes you back through time.

I will admit however, that he completely dismisses some important evidence, such as certain treaties, and military reports from the second millennium BC - which might tell more of a story on how to date the exodus. Overall, Israel Finklestien is a fine scholar, who is definitely in the minimalist camp.

Kenneth Kitchen is another animal altogether, coming from the opposite position. An extreme maximalist, he displays his passion for wanting to drive a stake through the heart of minimalism. He is without a doubt a conservative Christian, but that's what I was looking for - at least one scholar who could give me an opinion from the Christian point of view - and that he does. Kitchen is one of the most sought after, and respected Egyptologists in the scholarly universe and he is in fact, no apologist.

He makes sound evidence based historical arguments for his position, and works from a impressive field of knowledge that at times, is almost too much. His work deserves to be taken seriously and at least handled with some careful consideration. He makes a strong case for David and Solomon's existence, as well as many of Israel's other kings like Jeroboam or king Josiah.

Unfortunately though, the further he goes back in history, the harder he has to strain to make the evidence fit, and by the time he gets back to Genesis he goes completely off the rails, trying to show evidence for Eden, Noah's flood and Israel's early patriarchs. This leaves him in a corner without any historical corroboration to back him up, and I'm afraid that's his biggest weakness.

The evidence for the exodus which Kitchen presents, is interesting but not really that flattering. He makes the claim that the style of writing that is used in the Exodus dates back to the time it happened - somewhere around 1300 BC, and also is a little too overconfident that this form of writing could have only come from Moses. In Exodus, it describes that Moses grew up under the supervision of the Pharaoh's daughter but nothing more.

Because of this - Kitchen creates the theory that only someone that had such knowledge and background of Egyptian government could have written the Exodus. This is a broad leap, however. We have absolutely nothing from the bible about the details of Moses's childhood, or what he was taught. Therefore we cannot conclude that he had the knowledge that Ken Kitchen claims that he had about government affairs.

Sure - it's possible, but the information is far too scant. How much does one have to know about Egyptian government to write tales of plagues, parting the Red Sea, and burning bushes? Oral tradition could have also played a vast role in the writing of the exodus. The language used at that time could have been passed down, and preserved for a few hundred years and elaborated on by later writers. We just don't know.

By the time Kitchen gets back to the garden of Eden, he defends the possibility that it existed because Genesis describes the rivers that came out of it - the Tigress, the Euphrates, Pishon, and Gihon. This is the equivalent to saying that because New York City exists, therefore Spider-Man.

It does no one any good to go against the grain this hard, when they know all too well that they are fighting a losing battle - even if it's someone as well respected in their field, such as Kitchen. In the end, it doesn't matter if there was an exodus or not.

The further you go back in the bible - at some point, it's going to level off into myth. I would be totally fine if the exodus was proven, and if there was a Moses who led his people out of Egypt. All of that could have been historical, and it wouldn't have proven anything about the existence of Yahweh. Indeed, do we have clear evidence?

For my money, William G. Dever is the winning candidate for what I perceive to be closest to the truth. As an agnostic, he was what you would call a maximalist earlier in his career - someone who thought that a big portion of the Old Testament was historical.

Obviously he didn't believe in a literal flood, or a garden of Eden but after much study, he felt strongly that many ancient archaeological sites in Israel supported the biblical account. He even went as far as to support that there was some kind of exodus, even if it didn't match the exact story in the bible.

Fast forward to today. His position has changed more towards the skeptical side. After several years of thorough study and research, he was forced to follow the evidence where it led, and that was right through the exit door of maximalism. In light of his recent research, he admits to there being no evidence for the exodus as we know it in the bible, and hardly any evidence for many of the other tales in the Old Testament.

Nowdays, Dever is simply fighting to preserve what little history we have left. He still criticizes other archeologists in the field who completely discount the bible altogether, and still says it's possible for some type of minor exodus to have occurred that the story is based off of.

In any case, he does not hold to the air-tight position he once had about archaeology supporting the biblical account. So we can see clearly, that Dever was both a secular person back when he was a maximalist, and now as more of a minimalist. His worldview had absolutely nothing to do with changing his mind - the evidence did.

That's why I'm getting sick of conservative Christians accusing secular scholars of trying to discredit the bible, when you have people out there like Dever. Since Dever is a non theist - it's safe to say that he has no problem with the evidence going either way. The bible doesn't have to be true for him to start with. Only the evidence counts. I think most atheist archaeologists would prove the Exodus if were possible for them to do so, because after all - that's how you get famous an make your mark. Plus, you would probably have enough money for your great grandkids to retire on.

For one, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest if the bible is historical or not. If it is, then great. Even if there was a real garden of Eden, a huge flood, an exodus, and all the rest - that still wouldn't have any bearing on whether or not Yahweh existed. Christians have been told that secular archaeologists are biased against it, and often accuse them of just not wanting to believe.

This is not true in the slightest, because after all - you could still reject the supernatural events, while still accepting the bible as history. There are a overwhelming a number of atheists who believe that Jesus at least existed as a person, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

The bible doesn't have to be supernatural, in order to believed as history. There doesn't have to be a single bias against the bible's history at all- if that's all you're looking for. Forget about Yahweh. The bible has to prove itself to be historical first, before any god enters into the picture. We take baby steps to get to the truth, instead of depending on belief as a compass.

The reason why Christians are so bent on proving the exodus happened, is because it's so central to their belief system. Without it, it presents problems for the faith in general. For if there was no Moses, or no law, then how could Jesus have fulfilled the law?

A large minority of liberal Christians aren't at all bothered by this, but to the average church goer, the exodus matters. If that theology gets ripped away from them, then it can feel threatening. It also sheds light onto why there are still so many bible literalists. No wonder Christian scholars like Kitchen are so strident and over-confident in their views.

The exodus has to be true for them. Or else their faith, finds itself in the path of the wrecking ball. To these people, the bible is like a well-oiled machine. If one part gets removed, then that causes the other parts of the machine to fail.

In order for the bible to work properly in most people's lives, then everything has to be in exact alignment. This is why the doctrine of inerrancy is so ferociously defended, and must be preserved at any cost.

A man named Ron Wyatt, who was an amateur archaeologist - has been proven to be a fraud. This man claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant, the Tower of Babel, the Garden of Eden, and even Christs blood in the earthquake during the crucifixion. This is laughable that one man could manage to find all of these miraculous sites within his lifetime.

He stated that his main goal was to "help somebody get to heaven." No true archaeologist would make that their main goal, even Christian ones. A true a archaeologist sets out to find the truth by testing things, and have their work scrutinized by the wider archaeology community. Wyatt always fell short of that benchmark.

One of Wyatt’s most famous claims, is that he found chariot wheels under the Red Sea. Evidently, some pictures he took, look like wheels under the water - covered in coral. Yet he could never show these “wheels” to anyone, and no museum has ever housed them. According to real scientists, it was that the coral underneath the ocean took a circular shape. It’s easy enough to conclude, that Wyatt’s Red Sea chariot excursions are dismal failures.

As a result of so much evidence being scant, it has led archaeologists to conclude that Israel's chief patriarchs - Moses and Abraham most likely never existed. Most archaeologists have since given up of finding any credible sources for such people. Apologists say that the exodus isn't a myth in the sense that it isn't true at all, but true in the sense that it has a wider cultural meaning.

If that's the case, then any story could be true in a "wider sense." I am totally okay with the exodus narrative describing a certain type of escape, or a smaller exodus with a handful of people, if in fact that is really what happened, but there are so many theories that have been tossed around, and none of them have been shown to have any more proof than the biblical narrative.

What’s not really all that surprising for ancient historians, is looking into the parallel stories that reflect the later Moses myth. Such a story is the legend of Sargon, written somewhere in the realm of the 7th century BC. Sargon of Akkad was a legendary Sumerian king - who like Moses, was born being put into a basket in the river.

"My high priestess mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me. Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener."

In the Moses narrative from Exodus 2, it reads:

"But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then she placed the child in it and put it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile."

And then, Moses was rescued..............

"When the child grew older, she took him to Pharaoh’s daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses, saying, “I drew him out of the water.”

You can find this same similarity of "basket birth" narratives in other legends as well, including the stories of Karna and Oedipus, and many other ancient tales.

There seemed to be much borrowing, and a lot of copying and pasting going on within the flourishing cultures of that region, but then again - we shouldn't be surprised by this. This is the way that myth-making works - it's an evolution of stories. In totality - Moses was a basket case!

If there was no Exodus, - where did the Israelites come from? The answer is stupifyingly simple, and one that most scholars now agree with. The Israelites never attacked the Canaanites, because the Canaanites WERE the Israelites. The Canaanites became different people.

Real Prophecies or Delusional Thinking?

There was never a Canaanite slaughter, or at least not by Jews. The history of the Canaanites is a complicated one, but from what we are able to tell, the Canaanite conquest in the Old Testament was a story representing a certain ideology. They wrote the story about themselves, and it represents their new nation as a Jewish nation.

Which brings us to the bible's failed prophecies. One of the biggest of of course, is the prophecy that King Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city of Tyre, an ancient Phoenician city in the country of what today is Lebanon, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Today, the city still stands but in actuality, it isn't that simple. It really depends on which version of Tyre you're talking about - today's version, the island version, or the city of Ushu next to Tyre that actually did get destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.

This event was prophesied in the book of Ezekiel, which was written somewhere around 500 BC. Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer the city of Tyre. Of course there were armies coming through there all the time including Assyrian kings, trying to conquer the city of Tyre, so it's no surprise that Ezekiel would take a chance on predicting such an event. Ushu had the reputation to be easy prey for invading forces. It would just be too easy to do.

Here is where things get complex - the city of Tyre wasn't actually on the mainland. Tyre was actually more of a suburb off the mainland on an island. The mainland city was called Ushu, and was easy enough for an army to conquer, which was often the case throughout the course of history.

Of course, Nebuchadnezzar did conquer the “old Tyre” which was Ushu by that point, but his quest to breach the actual island city did not prevail, where the people had been secretly migrating and taking their possessions with them. In ancient sources, these two cities were almost always kept distinct. Ezekiel’s prediction failed on that account.

However, when the army of Alexander the Great came through a few hundred years later, they constructed a bridge so they could get to the island and take the city. Alexander ended up defeating Tyre successfully, so many Christians will claim that the prophecy came true after all. In Ezekiel verse 12, it changes the pronoun from "he" to "they."

"They will break down your walls, and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber, and rubble into the sea."

Some Christians think that "they" refers to Alexander the Great in order to make the prophecy sound legit. Nonetheless, there are other passages in the bible with prophecy, and it has these same shifts in pronouns. In Jeremiah 20 it clearly talks about Nebuchadnezzar as the one who will bring about the Babylonian exile, yet it uses both types of pronouns to describe it:

"He shall carry them captive to Babylon, and shall strike them down with the sword." And then it says, "I shall give over to the hand of their enemies, and 'they' will plunder them."

In conclusion, the pronouns "he" and "they" are actually making reference to the same person. The word "they" in the prophecy in Ezekiel has nothing to do with Alexander the Great, but it is referring to Nebuchadnezzar and his armies.

Plus, the city would not have taken Nebuchadnezzar 13 years to conquer, as it reads in the biblical text. Ushu had been captured time and again, with minimal effort. After many armies that were able to conquer the city of Ushu so that they could cut all of it's supply lines to Tyre, it would have been extremely unlikely that the city put up a fight for 13 years.

That's just not realistic. By the time Alexander the Great conquered the island of Tyre, it simply had nothing to do with the same kind of conquest that was predicted by Ezekiel. If you still want to insist that the prophecy was fulfilled by Alexander the Great, then okay...........but considering that Alexander was known for conquering just about everything in his path, and with Ushu being so easy to take, this was a scenario that could have been easily predicted by just about anyone. It just so happened to take place a few hundred years later. Today, the modern city of Tyre stands, in close vicinity to the ancient island city.

If Ezekiel's failed attempt with Tyre wasn't enough to make you think that prophecy is unreliable, then consider his second prophecy about Egypt. In Ezekiel 29, he says the the lord spoke to him, and told him that Egypt would be totally destroyed. It says "Egypt will become a desolate wasteland. Then they will know that I am the Lord." It continues on:

“I will make the land of Egypt desolate among devastated lands, and her cities will lie desolate forty years among ruined cities. And I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them through the countries. I will bring them back from captivity and return them to Upper Egypt, the land of their ancestry. There they will be a lowly kingdom. It will be the lowliest of kingdoms and will never again exalt itself above the other nations. I will make it so weak that it will never again rule over the nations.”

As we know from history, this NEVER once occurred. Egypt has been through defeats and hardships, but they were never completely dispersed, and they were never reduced to rubble, as the bible suggests.

Isaiah 53 is the one big prophecy of all prophecies that Christians love to punt around in front of people. Missionaries use this constantly, to convert people to faith - simply because it sounds so convincing. The verse seems to foreshadow the coming of Jesus perfectly, but educated Jews can easily debunk this claim. Christian scholars will tell you that the passage in Isaiah is about the messiah, while Jewish scholars will tell you it's more about a messianic AGE. In the Jewish tradition, the messianic age represents the idea that the Jews were waiting for someone to be the great king of Israel, and to save the nations.

The big problem I see with this so-called prophecy about Jesus, is that all of Isaiah 53 is written in past tense, as though it had already taken place. For example, the wording of the passages in this section read as:

"he was oppressed and treated harshly," "He was wounded and crushed for our sins," "From prison and trial, they led him away to his death," "he did not open his mouth," and "he was put in a rich man's grave."

This kind of specific wording isn't used in other prophecies, or at least not as much. It never says that "he WILL suffer," or that "he WILL be oppressed." It only indicates that, "he was" as if it had happened already. Something isn't right here.

In addition to those problems, there is the fact that Isaiah 53 never mentions the most important aspect of the gospels - the resurrection. It never mentions an ascension either, or any of the miracles that Jesus did. I wouldn't expect such an important prophecy to mention everything, and you would think that it would at least predict the resurrection, but is says absolutely nothing about it. It's all based on suffering and torment.

Moreover, the argument that the Jews keep making is that Isaiah 53 is just one of four "servant songs" found in the chapters of the book. The surrounding songs, are connected to the whole idea of ushering in a messianic age. When you read the other three servant songs, they seem to flow together pretty well together.

That means that it was meant to go in harmony with the other songs, instead of getting a commercial break for a future Jesus. If Christians are going to accuse people like me of "taking things out of context" then I can just as readily accuse them of taking the Jewish verses out of context. I can say that Christians are cherry picking Isaiah 53 to mean what they want it to mean, instead of reading the wider meaning found in the surrounding songs.

A note to my fellow skeptics: If a Christian ever accuses you of taking the bible out of context, just remind them that the Jews accuse Christians of taking Isaiah 53 out of context - and even if they weren’t, the gospel writers still could have pulled their ideas from it.

Many scholars think that the Jewish servant songs are about Hezekiah or the passage in Isaiah 7:15 - referring to Hezekiah's mother being a virgin at conception which in this particular Old Testament passage means, "young woman." The word "virgin" that appears here does not have anything to do with having a kid as a woman who has never been with a man. It's not referring to Mary, but instead a woman who is young and gives birth. It doesn't get much deeper than that, I'm afraid.

We can't forget that most Christian scholars who are not strict evangelicals, have no problem agreeing with the Jews on these passages. The Christians who are hellbent on Isaiah 53 predicting Jesus, are the pro-orthodox who insist and hammer home their message that the Jews are in denial.

How do we know who's right? Christianity or Judaism? There have even been strict Jews that have converted to Christianity, because they became convinced that the Christians were correct.

The situation seems to get even more convoluted when you realize that the New Testament writers could have easily taken influence from the Old Testament, and made it look like the prophecy was fulfilled. It would have been so easy, not to mention tempting for the four gospel evangelists to write the fulfilled prophecy into the narrative. Once again, who's right?

Daniel is of course, one of the bible's most beloved prophets. The book of Daniel was supposedly written by Daniel himself, but scholars have found it to be problematic, considering that the actual style of writing is dated about 500 years after the prophet was supposed to have existed.

The story tells of his exile in Babylon at a time when the Jews were being held captive, and that was somewhere around 600 BC. The author who calls himself Daniel, apparently wrote it around 150 BC - far removed from the time it was supposed to have been written in. What does that tell us about the author? It was obviously someone who wasn’t Daniel, and may have been using that name to fit a certain agenda. In retrospect, the book of Daniel is nothing more than an ancient forgery.

These failed prophecies also have a contradiction problem with Deuteronomy 18:21, where it talks about how to test whether or not someone is a real prophet of god. The first test is to see if a prediction made in god's name came true. The second test is if a prophecy does come true, and that prophet tries to get the people to worship some other god, then the prophet should still be rejected.

However, the conundrum lies with the fact that many prophecies in later books did NOT come true. These prophets have books named after them, and are regarded as real men of god. Of course the problem gets even more messy when you realize that a prophecy may not come true for hundreds of years after it was predicted, or after the prophet was long dead. Why do later prophets get off the hook with their failed predictions?

To be conclusive, there has never been one prophecy from the bible that has predicted an exact date, or time and place for something to happen. It’s all so dubious and vague, and wrapped up in metaphorical imagery to the place that it’s ridiculous to try and sort any of it out. The Christian claim is of course, that “all of the bible’s prophecies have come true.” Where does this ignorance come from?

Most educated Christians know that this claim is patently FALSE. There is no prophecy in the bible you can point to, and say that it happened just the way it was described on a certain date, and time. Any prophetic claim made by the Old Testament authors is at best - an endless pattern of easy confirmation bias or bronze age mumbo jumbo.

This is so simple for any religion to do, or for any fake psychic to accomplish. The bible has completely flunked out in the prophecy department.

We have little, or absolutely no historical evidence that the prophets of Israel ever existed. There may have been a prophetic school of sorts, and some of the stories about the legendary prophets might have stemmed from it. The scholarly opinions on Ezekiel are all over the place. Some say he actually did exist, but there are multiple strands of information that suggest the book was actually written in several stages, and may well have had embellishments. Everyone from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Hosea, Nahum , Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah are debated constantly over whether or not these prophets actually lived. But there are those like Obadiah, Haggai and Malachi that we know almost for certain were NOT real people.

There are more prophecies in the Old Testament are packed with dubious suspicion. These include: The Nile drying up, Egyptians speaking the language of Canaan, Israel being extended from the Red Sea to the Euphrates, Israel living in peace with its neighbors(LOL big laugh), the line of David going on forever, and Cyrus will conquer Babylon. These events as far as scholars can tell, if they are honest, will admit they never happened.

Why would an all-omnipotent being allow only one nation on earth to know the revealed truth about him? There were obviously many different societies surrounding Israel in ancient times - all over the globe. Why didn't god just speak to everyone at once? What was so special about Israel that god just HAD to choose them?

This is a big part of the problem with divine revelation; making Judaism look no different than all other religions. It makes no sense why any god would choose a specific territory as his favorite, and ignore everyone else.

Don't you think that rest of the world would have wanted in on the secret? The most logical conclusion that we can draw, is that the Israelites thought that they should be god's chosen nation, so they wrote it down. It would have been very easy for any society to give themselves such a title.

One must ask themselves- if they're being candid, which explanation is more reliable? That an all-powerful god chose to reveal himself to only one nation, or that one nation made up stories about an all-powerful god?

The old testament makes it clear that god more or less spoke to people in an audible voice during ancient times. If god made himself known to the Jewish people simply by talking to them out loud, and everybody knew it, then what's stopping Yahweh from doing it today? What's the point of the silence?

Even in the new testament, it seems that god still used his audible voice from time to time - specifically where Jesus gets baptized in the Jordan and a dove descends above his head, and a voice from heaven says," this is my son, with whom I am well pleased." Would this be so hard for god to do in the 21st century?

Any god who was deemed "all-powerful" could find a way to speak to everyone, and somehow prove that it was the god of the bible and no other god. When we look at a rock, tree, or the ocean we know with 100% certainty what were looking at. We don't have to question it. Is it too much to ask for a god to present himself in the same way?

Yahweh’s Chosen Bloody Nation

Israel has not proven themselves to be more moral or special than anyone else. They have been just as violent and militant as other nations. They do not deserve special treatment, especially from a god who chose them for some mysterious religious reason. There were other ancient societies who were far more peaceful than the Israelites, including the Tamil, Minoan, Moriori, and Indus civilizations.

While these other ancient societies got on with their business of building cities, irrigation systems, writing systems and educational facilities, the Israelites were busy getting themselves into trouble, killing, enslaving, and raping their Near Eastern neighbors. The Old Testament depicts the ancient Israelites as a bloodthirsty lot, and their god Yahweh was manufactured to be just the god who would match their violent, and bloody fairy tales.

You can't blame an ancient culture for doing things a certain way. That doesn't help the skeptic - who is living in the 21st century. What is any intelligent person supposed to think, when they read about the incessant slaughter and ruthless genocide of the Israelites - all carried out in the name of Yahweh?

God specifically ordered that they slaughter, kill, pillage, and burn city after city in the old testament, because the bible claims that these wayward societies were destructive, and sacrificing their children to other gods. If that's the case, the way it was dealt with looks just as destructive and menacing.

Any modern-day person with half a brain could see that even what the United States did to Hiroshima, pales in comparison with Yahweh's brutality. To say that god was a bit of a meany-pie, is the ultimate understatement. It's like saying that Hitler wasn't exactly the best example of a humanitarian.

There are many things about ancient culture that I understand to be customary in terms of self-defense when it comes to warfare. Sometimes, when you warn someone to stop attacking you, and they keep doing it then you have no choice but to retaliate. I get that. Nonetheless, there is something about the way that the biblical god carried out, and ordered massive slaughter on such a brash level, that even by ancient standards - it is nothing short of reprehensible.

I don’t need any Christian apologist to tell me why putting infants to the sword is somehow, morally justifiable for god. I can take a look at it, use my moral instincts, and say “that’s wrong.” I don’t need anyone to tell me how it was okay for Yahweh to use Abraham’s son Issac for a prank in a mock suicide. I can read it, use my common sense, and say “that’s crap.”

Christians will no doubt clamor to try to answer these tough questions, even though they fail. It’s not so much about what god did, it’s more about the blatant inconsistencies of his actions that I find toxic. This is not a deity who is consistent on any level. This is a god who punishes people for doing one thing, and then makes it okay for someone else.

One great example of this is when Christian apologists try to defend Yahweh, and say that the Canaanites deserve to be destroyed, because they were so wicked that they were sacrificing their children to the god “Molech.” According to ancient history, there were people who built fire temples and certain statues in which they would force their children to burn themselves, as a sacrifice to their gods.

In the book of Judges, we meet a character named Jephthah of Gilead. He was in a fierce battle against the Ammonites, and he turned to god for guidance. He promised Yahweh that if he won, would burn alive the very first thing that came out of his house, when he returned home from the battle. Yahweh gave him victory, and when he got home his daughter races out to greet him. He tore his clothes and wept in anguish when he knew he was going to have to sacrifice his daughter. I guess it was supposed to be one of those, "careful what you wish for" stories.

How stupid do you have to be, to give Yahweh permission to sacrifice the very first thing that walks out of your house? Was this guy high?

According to the Judges account, his daughter asked to go away for two months and weep in the hills. After Jeptha let her do that, then he burned her as an offering to Yahweh almighty.

You can try to steer around this, anyway you want. You can say that it was Jephthah's idea, and not God's. You can say that Jephthah was kind not to sacrifice his daughter right away. You can even say that his daughter went along with the whole idea:

"Father, you have made a promise to the lord. You must do to me what you have promised." (Judges 11:36)

What you CANNOT say, is that it was evil for other societies to burn their children to the god Molech, but it was somehow okay for god to allow Jephthah to burn his daughter as a sacrifice. That is massively inconsistent, and it's morally impossible to square one with the other.

There is also a verse in Leviticus 21:9 which allows for priest's daughters to burned alive in certain circumstances:

"If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire."

In most cases in the old testament, the Israelite armies destroy everything, when it comes to sacking a city. But in the case of the Midianites it was different. Moses gets mad at his army in Numbers 31:15 - "Why have you let all the women live? Now kill all of the boys, and every woman who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live, you may keep them for yourselves." It was okay to kill young boys, but not young virgins.

For Christians who think that this was strictly Moses's idea and not god's, you should read a little further in Numbers 31:36 where it says:

"16,000 young girls, of whom 32 were the lord's share. Moses gave all the lord's share to Elleazar the priest, just as the lord had directed him."

Then a couple of verses later - in Numbers 31:47 it quotes, "all of this was done just as the lord had commanded Moses." No, sorry Christians. This was not just Mo's idea.

God is usually telling the Israelites to “kill every woman, man and child.” Why would god have Moses change up the rules in this case? At best, this is worse than any modern attempt at sex slavery, and dividing the plunder among the Israelite army, and then giving some of the young kidnapped virgins to god as his “portion” is nothing short of disturbing.

This is inconsistent with Deuteronomy 21:20 where it says if you take a woman captive, you must take her to you home, and let her mourn for her parents for a full month, and then if you decide you don't like her - then let her go free, and you must not treat her as a slave, for you have humiliated her. Lol. Like kidnapping her wouldn't be humiliating enough in the first place?

Exodus 22:21 quotes - "do not mistreat or suppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt."

But what does it say in Leviticus 25:44?

"However, you may purchase male of female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."

Even though you're not supposed to oppress foreigners, you can still make them slaves for life and treat them as your property, but not the Israelites, because they were special. How nice.

In summery, the Israelites and the god they made up, seem to just insert, twist, and change the moral compass wherever they see fit. This is a deity who lacks any sort of decisive control when it comes to double standards, and is just content to make up the rules as he goes along.

By the time we get to the story of Jephthah, we can start to see how this whole relationship thing with Yahweh works. It's a complete slave mentality, a binding contract in which the human faction has to be in complete submission to an iron age god of sadism. No matter how low god stoops in treating his customers, it's always the human who is wrong, and god is always thought of as the ultimate, moral judge.

This kind of Stockholm paranoia, reminds me of what scholar Robert Price said about god's character in the OT. He humorously compared Yahweh to a twilight Zone episode where a young boy named Anthony has superpowers to do away with anyone he pleases, at anytime. His family are so terrified of him, that they constantly pelt him with fake praise:

"It's GOOD that you did that Anthony! It's REAL good!"

One of the best examples of this kind of phony surrender, is in the book of Job, when he is hanging on by a thread to his faith. Then when he asked god why, god starts to question Job and not in a very nice way. Yahweh dodges his questions by telling him that it's basically useless to question anything, since he is so far above Job. Then like a quivering wraith, Job falls to his knees and repents to god for even asking! Shame on him! Job 40:3 says:

"Then Job replied to the lord,'I am nothing, how could I ever find the answers? I will put my hand over my mouth in silence. I have said too much already. I have nothing more to say."

It's REAL GOOD that you did that Yahweh!

CMBW.org, is a Christian website which stands for the council on biblical manhood and womanhood. Like many Christian apologetics sites, they attempt to explain away why "rape" doesn't mean what you think it means. In the passage of Deuteronomy 22:28, we find a disturbing scenario. It reads:

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

Basically, in so many words, the bible is saying that the woman is being forced to marry her rapist, but CMBW.org will disagree with you. They think they have cleverly solved the problem. They say that even though the woman was violated and humiliated, according to them:

"It’s likely that the woman in verses 28-29 experienced overwhelming persuasion, perhaps an erosion of her resolve, but not necessarily a sexual assault."

They try to say that the word being used to describe the man’s actions is the Hebrew word “tapas” which means “lay hold of” or “seize.” These people claim that “tapas” does not carry the same connotation as the Hebrew word “hazaq” which means “forced.” They say that there is a subtle difference between the usage of these two verbs. It goes on:

“Had the author of Deuteronomy, Moses, (and the Holy Spirit who inspired him) intended to depict this as a sexual assault, it seems unlikely that he would have chosen tapas instead of hazaq. This is distinct from hazaq, which describes a forcible overpowering. It’s likely that the woman in verses 28-29 experienced overwhelming persuasion, perhaps an erosion of her resolve, but not necessarily a sexual assault.”

First of all, there is no evidence Moses ever existed, let alone wrote Deuteronomy. Second of all, if the "holy spirit" was guiding the writer to put a verb to describe lesser force, then why didn't the "holy spirit" guide modern bible translators to not use the word "rape?!"

How do you explain how the word "rape"got in there, if it wasn't meant to describe something forceful? Oops. Would these people say that the word rape was used the same way in 2nd Samuel 13, when Ammon rapes Tamar, his half-sister?

"But Ammon wouldn't listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her."- 1 Samuel 13.

I suppose you're going to tell me that, "stronger" doesn't really mean stronger than the woman, or that "rape" really means something different. In verse 11 right before the rape passage, it reads:

"he grabbed her and said, 'come to bed with me my darling sister."

Are you going to tell me that "grabbed" doesn't mean to take? Or what about the passage where Tamar protests: "You know what a serious crime it is to do such a thing in Israel!"

Of course, "serious crime" doesn't really mean he's actually raping her. Right? While you're at it, give me a revolver so I can blow my brains out.

Furthermore, what these people don't tell you, is that the word "tapas" is used in almost every instance in the Old Testament where it was meant to describe force, or a violation of the will.

"But they captured [tapas] the king of Ai alive and brought him to Joshua." (Josh 8:23)

"He captured [tapas] Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." (1 Sam 15:8)

"David was hurrying to get away from Saul, for Saul and his men were surrounding David and his men to seize [tapas] them." (1 Sam 23:26)

Maybe there is a slight difference between "tapas" and "hazaq" depending on the context, but it's so slight it's utterly ridiculous that we should have to keep on drilling for an exact meaning. Why would god allow the word "rape" to get in there if it didn't really mean rape?

CMBW.org is just another sad example of how Christian apologetics were designed to work - fake it until you make it. They might also be interested to know that the LXX translates "tapas" in Deuteronomy 22:28 as "biazomai", which means “to experience a violent attack” or “to employ violence in doing harm to someone or some thing.”

One man’s story in the bible perfectly demonstrates god’s over-the-top lust for brutality, and that is the story of Saul. The bible says that god regretted making Saul king - as if an all-powerful deity couldn’t have prevented it in the first place. The problem Yahweh had with Saul wasn’t something that Saul did, it’s actually what he didn’t do.

In 1 Samuel 15 we read about Saul's victory over the Amalekites. God, in his usual style wanted Saul to slaughter everything that moved - men, women, children, babies, cattle, and sheep. Saul did just that. He went in and cleaned house, killing everything in his path. Except.......he spared the livestock, and spared the life of king Agag. However, this didn't sit well with god.

Yahweh felt insulted, not by the fact that Saul didn't kill, but that he didn't kill ENOUGH. When god commands you to slaughter people, then doing things halfway won't be scoring you any points with the almighty. Good ol' Yahweh wanted every last thing destroyed, and Saul just wasn't cutting the mustard. What did god do? He fired Saul from the job.

No more king for Saul.......except god had no one to blame but himself for making him king and later regretting it, but god would have known ahead of time that he was going to be disappointed with Saul, so how could he get angry with him? It's a contradiction that is impossible to unravel, unless you want to resort to the "it's complicated" excuse.

I guess it all boils down to the fact that Yahweh likes to test people, to see who will obey him. This is just as hilarious as it is horrifying.

It gets more complex when you consider Saul's successor, David. David committed a horrible act, deliberately sending a man to the front lines of battle so he would get killed, all so David could cover up the affair with his wife. This was a much bigger mistake than Saul made, and yet god calls David "a man after my own heart." I guess the more of a jerk you are, the more Yahweh favors you.

No one knows for sure if king David really existed, and if he did we don't that much about him. No one seems to know his real story. And no one knows if he really wrote the Psalms as espoused by hundreds of years of church tradition. Most scholars now, think that the Psalms had several different writers, not just one - and that David had little to do with any of it, if at all. All of that being said, there are some other strange things going on with David.

In 2nd Samuel 24, god incites David to go and take a census of Isreal. But in 1st Chronicles 21, we find that it says it was SATAN who incited David to take a census of Israel. Both god and Satan could not have been on the same team here, hence the inconsistency.

And the Goliath story is entirely fictitious - most theologians would agree. But what is really striking, is that there is some confusion over if David actually killed Goliath in the story. In the book of Samuel, David was not the one who killed Goliath. The credit actually goes to an Israelite named Elhanan.

"In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair a the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod." - 2 Samuel 21:19

This was the original version of 2 Samuel 21:19, written by the original scribe. But sometime later someone came along and changed the verse, and altered it slightly to where it says that Elhanan killed Goliath's BROTHER.

"In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair a the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod." - 2 Samuel 21:19

Whoever the later scribe was, obviously wanted David to be the real hero of the story, and to get the credit - so he changed “Goliath” to “Goliath’s brother.” The real story, according to some scholars was written about 500 years before it was altered.

We really will never know the real truth, but it's an interesting start. This is why so many modern bible theologians now claim that the stories of King David were written for political reasons, and are nothing more than fabricated tales.

This is definitely consistent with the story of Elisha in 2nd Kings, where he curses young boys who are taunting him and causes bears to come out of the woods and torture the children. The verse reads, "and he turned around, and cursed them in the name of the lord." Christians have strained and strained, to figure this one out, and the best that they can come up with is that the "boys" weren't actually boys, but dangerous teenagers who were more like a gang.

Where is the evidence for this? There is none. Apologists simply have to assume this, because otherwise they’re stuck. There really is no getting around it. Even if the boys turned out to be a dangerous band of teenage punks, why couldn’t have Elisha just put a curse on them that blinded them, or frozen their legs so that they couldn’t move? Why does god always insist on being violent towards people that oppose his beloved prophets, and his nation of Israel?

Yahweh even punishes his own people, for not being loyal enough. That’s the key word right there for the god of the Old Testament - nothing is ever good enough for him. All through the Hebrew bible, there are consequences for not following the law. When you choose to offend Yahweh and his followers in the slightest, all kinds of horrific and gratuitous gems await you, including:

* Stoning a woman on her wedding night if she's not a virgin

* Cannibalism (yes, God thought it was okay to eat other people's kids)

* Stoning anyone who collects firewood on the sabbath

* Killing each other at Sinai

* Putting rebellious kids to death

* Beating your slave

* Dropping hot coals on your enemies

* Dashing infants heads on rocks

* Cutting off a woman's hand for defending her husband

And....... it's really alarming when you realize that Judaism as far as anyone knows - was the very first religion to put homosexuals to death.

Homosexuality was quite common in the ancient world, and most societies thought nothing about it or at least tolerated it, just not the Israelites. For some reason, they developed a no-tolerance stance for gays, and this has plagued Christianity and Judaism ever since. As a result, the law says that any man that lies with a man should be put to death.

The Lord's almighty word isn't just bigoted against homosexuals. It is quite apparent that god has jealously issues when his followers worship other gods. Such is the case in Numbers 25, when Yahweh puts to death Israelite men for worshiping Moabite idols. And the Israelite god doesn't seem to be too fond of handicap people either, such as in Leveticus 21:17:

"For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord."

And it continues:

"He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary."

A holy god who could of easily made humans without any deformities, is complaining that a cripple is "desecrating" his sanctuary?

Leveticus 12 makes it clear that if a woman gives birth to a boy, she is ceremonially unclean for seven days, and must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. However, if she gives birth to a girl, she must wait even longer - sixty-six days to be purified. What gives here?

There seems to be no skating around this one. It's crystal clear that these passages are treating women as second class, just as most ancient societies did.

Numbers 5: 11 takes things a step further. It says distinctly that if a man suspects his wife of adultery, then he must bring her to the priest, and the priest will have her drink polluted water that is cursed. If the curse doesn't work, then the woman is found not guilty. If it does work, then the cursed water will cause her thigh to "waste away" and her abdomen to "swell." This language simply translates as a miscarriage for the woman, even if Christians will push back hard from admitting it. It's disturbing for believers when they realize that their bible in cases such as this one - condones abortion.

Every woman's body reacts to things differently. What if the woman actually WAS guilty of adultery, and the curse didn't work? Even more gut wrenching to think about - what if she wasn't guilty at all, and drinking the polluted water made her sick? She would have so easily been punished for something she never did, all for the sake of her husband's privileged status to accuse her without any evidence.

Exodus 10:2 makes it clear that god wants the Israelites to pass down stories to their grandchildren of what he did to the Egyptians, so that they would know who was god. This same sentiment seems to be echoed in Ezekiel 26:

"I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord."

Fill them with horror............Don't forget who's boss.

The “Moral” Character of Yahweh

You will find stories in the OT where from time to time, god kills people for no other reason than simply keeping them on their toes. Every now and then, it’s always good to kill at least one or two, just to serve as a reminder of who’s in charge. The following examples amplify this trait of Yahweh perfectly, and by the end of it you know that he means business, and he ain’t messing around.

In Numbers 21, god kills some of the Israelites for complaining about the quality of bread. They didn’t like the Manah that got dropped from heaven, so god decided that to teach them a lesson, he would send poisonous snakes to bite them, and to cause them to die. Don’t complain about the food. It could be fatal - case closed.

The ark of the covenant was one of Yahweh’s most prized possessions (nevermind that he instructed the Israelites to build it for him). God told them to build a box, covered with gold, and specifically said that if anyone touched it, that they would die - instantly.

Er, okay - fair enough, it was just that sometime later, god had a little surprise in store. You wouldn't die just by touching it - you would also die if you LOOKED at the ark, and not just by looking, but by glancing at it the WRONG way.

1 Samuel 6:19

"But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they had looked into the ark of the Lord. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the Lord had dealt them."

This also echos a similar law in Exodus, where anyone who dared to touch Mount Sinai would die.

Exodus 19:12

"Whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death. He shall surely be stoned and shot with arrows."

Evidently touching mountains was off limits as well - so much so that killing someone with arrows was the required punishment.

In 2 Samuel 6, a poor fellow was trying to save the ark from falling over because of stumbling oxen . All he was trying to do, was keep his balance. But Yahweh didn't like that. So there were were consequences:

"When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of god, because the oxen stumbled. The lord's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore god struck him down and he died there beside the ark of god."

In summery, you cannot touch the ark for ANY reason, even it it's to keep one's balance, and you REALLY have to watch how you look at it. Avert your eyeballs, people.

The entertaining saga of Yahweh's police personality continues. In 1 Kings 13, we learn that eating and drinking at the wrong time and place can get you killed:

"You came back and ate bread and drank water in the place where he told you not to eat or drink. Therefore your body will not be buried in the tomb of your ancestors. When the man of God had finished eating and drinking, the prophet who had brought him back saddled his donkey for him. As he went on his way, a lion met him on the road and killed him, and his body was left lying on the road, with both the donkey and the lion standing beside it."

How could we forget the classic story in 1 Kings 20 where god tells a man to strike another man with his weapon, just to see if he would obey. When the man refused to be violent towards his fellow neighbor, Yahweh wasn’t going to have any of it:

"By the word of the lord one of the company of the prophets said to his companion, 'Strike me with your weapon,' but he refused. So the prophet said, 'Because you have not obeyed the Lord, as soon as you leave me a lion will kill you.' And after the man went away, a lion found him and killed him."

It's starting to be evident that Yahweh has a thing for lions. Can't say that I blame him, since they are great beasts for killing people. Poor Ezekiel who in Ezekiel 24:15 gets the test from Yahweh who tells him he is going to kill his wife, for no other reason than well.......... just because he can.

"The word of the Lord came to me: 'Son of man, with one blow I am about to take away from you the delight of your eyes. Yet do not lament or weep or shed any tears. Groan quietly; do not mourn for the dead. Keep your turban fastened and your sandals on your feet; do not cover your mustache and beard or eat the customary food of mourners.' So I spoke to the people in the morning, and in the evening my wife died. The next morning I did as I had been commanded."

In Deuteronomy 13 in states specifically to put people who worship other gods to death, and to kill "prophets and dreamers." In Leviticus 24:23 you can get stoned just by blaspheming the name of the lord because he doesn't like it when people hurt his feelings, so he kills them.

"Then Moses spoke to the Israelites, and they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him. The Israelites did as the lord commanded Moses."

In Exodus 20:5, Numbers 14:18, and Deuteronomy 5:9, god says he will punish the children for the sins of their parents all the way to the THIRD and FOURTH generation.

Let that sink in for a moment..........How would you feel if your dad punished you for something that your great, great, great grandpa did? Would you consider such a dad to be a fit parent?

Of course we cannot ignore the fact that the bible says without any accident that god is a "jealous god" and he doesn't like it when you use his name the wrong way, or if you worship other gods. There are places in the bible that are also very strident in defense of god's jealous character. In James 4:5, it drives the point home that god is an enemy of people who aren't friends with him:

"You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us?"

Deuteronomy 4:24 states that, "He is a passionate god" and "tolerates no rivals."

To put it in perspective, the situation reminds me of that spoiled bratty kid that you knew in grade school who didn't want you to have any other friends besides HIM. "Johnny isn't your best friend, I AM!"

In the book of Amos, we are witness to a parade of hissy fits from Yahweh concerning how he deals with people who have turned away from him.

In Amos 4:6 it describes that god has punished the people by starvation, pestilence, killing their young men with the sword, drought, and locusts to ruin their crops when they don't obey him. These are passages that describe exactly what can happen to an Israelite - simply for not worshiping Yahweh enough.

Christians like to kick around the argument that god is jealous like a man has a right to be jealous of a wife who cheats on him. The claim is that if you have dedicated your existence to such a god, then him being jealous shouldn't be a problem when you worship other gods. Well, yes....I can admit that. Yet, would most husbands kill their wives for cheating? Some definitely have, but they go to prison.

Yahweh is looked at differently in the fact that since the Israelites had a bond with him, it was okay for him to do whatever he pleased. I get so sick of the argument that a creator has a right to do whatever he wants with his creation. Sure, you've got that right. Does that actually make you moral?

This is heavily stressed again in Deuteronomy 13:5 where if you even think about suggesting another religion or god, even when it's a close friend or family member, you kill them instantly.

"Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them, your own hand shall be the first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Stone them to death for trying to turn away from the lord your god."

In Numbers 16, we learn that just by disagreeing with Moses, you and your relatives can land yourselves in a world of trouble. A man named Korah was in open rebellion against him so what did god do? Well, Yahweh was in a bit of a creative mood that day..... he supernaturally had the earth swallow them up.

"the earth opened it's mouth, and swallowed them with their households and all Korah's men and their possessions. They went down alive into the grave with everything they owned, the earth closed over them, and they were gone from the community."

This isn’t the only time that your entire family could get killed, simply for annoying Moses. Remember what happened at Mount Sinai? For those of you who don’t recall just how intense things could get, let’s take a look at what kind of next-level insanity is required to pull off such an event.

Moses was gone a little too long on the top of the mountain, somewhere around six weeks. In the meantime, the people became a little stir crazy. To sooth their boredom, Aaron (Moses's sidekick) sculpted a golden calf for the people to worship out of the jewelry they had made.

When Moses was still on top of the mountain, god informed him that the people had become corrupt, and that he was going to destroy them (Exodus 32:10). Moses begged him not to, so god decided that he would relent, and not bring punishment on the Israelites (Exodus 32:14).

In spite of that, Moses went back down the mountain. What did he do? He was so angry at them, that he commanded the people to kill each other (Exodus 32:27).

Here is where things get interesting.............Moses explicitly states:

"This is what the lord the god of Israel SAYS; each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and fourth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother, his friend and neighbor."

Of course, god never said that. Oh, the irony. For once, maybe Yahweh was having an okay day, so he told Moses he wouldn't punish the people - and he didn't...........Moses did. Moses said what many people claim about the bible's authors - that their own words were god's words. That's pretty deceitful if you ask me.

The end of this story is particularly chilling: In Exodus 32:29 it settles everything by Moses saying:

"You have been set apart to the lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

Being "blessed" for killing your family........................if this isn't cringe-worthy, then nothing else will be. This is what happens when you sign on to be part of a horrific desert cult.

A Christian might respond that when god said he wouldn't punish the people, it meant the people as a whole. It reports that 3,000 people died, as a result of Moses's commanded slaughter. According to the story, the Israelites were in the number of at least half a million. It would have been a small portion of the people that were killed, but there is nowhere in the text where it indicates god told Moses to carry out this particular act.

Why wasn't Moses punished for it? I assume the "corrupt people" god was warning Moses about at the top of the mountain were the same people who participated in the pagan worship of a calf - the people that Moses BEGGED him not to destroy. Then like a spoiled brat, Moses goes and does the opposite, and gets away with it. Go figure.

In today's Christian culture, there has been a strident voice to keep the Ten Commandments in the minds of public consciousness. This is especially true in America, who's reputation is laced with Christian influences in the government. I think that most Christians would be surprised to learn that if they actually picked up their bible every once in awhile, then they would see that "The Ten Commandments" aren't really all that simple. All throughout my youth, I used to think that Moses magically whipped up ten laws that stood the test of time, for everyone in the world to follow.

Turns out, the ten commandments aren't exactly a one-time event. There are FOUR different sets of ten commandments, not just one. What is even more startling, is the fact that not only are there four different sets, the stripped- down simple version that you see today was pulled from a much more detailed description of the laws.This is where conservative Christians run into inerrancy problems. If the word of god is inerrant such as they claim, then why does Yahweh say that the first two sets of commandments are identical?

"The lord said to Moses, 'cut two tablets of stone like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets, which you broke.”

Of course, to most people’s chagrin, it didn’t quite work out that way. For as we can see, the second set of commandments reads differently than the first set. In Exodus 20:2-17 the laws describe: Not having gods before Yahweh, making the wrong use of god’s name, remembering the Sabbath, resting on the seventh day, honoring your father and mother, no murder, no adultery, no stealing, no bearing false witness, no coveting anything that belongs to your neighbor.

In the second set of laws in Exodus 34:11-28 we read: being told to tear down the alters and pillars in foreign lands and steal their wives, being told to eat unleavened bread,observing the festival of weeks, and not boiling a kid in it's mothers milk. These details do not appear anywhere in the first Exodus set that we are told was going to be on the former tablets, like Yahweh said he would.

People need to remember that the ten commandments you see today on the front of public buildings only resemble only a fraction of what is actually displayed in Exodus and Deuteronomy. To say that, "Thou shall not have any other gods before me" may sound simple enough, but that comes from a much larger portion of that law where it also states,

"I am the lord your god, punishing children for the iniquity of their parents."

I wonder how many Christians would want to see THAT on the front lawn of their courthouse? Or how about the fourth set of commandments where it says:

"Cursed be anyone who moves a neighbors boundary marker."

This would indeed, look peculiar on church property. So we can honestly say that the ten commandments are really more like the "watered down" commandments taken from a much larger pool of laws - laws that which no moral person living today would want anything to do with. I saw a church sign once that read, "the ten commandments are not multiple choice."

Are you SURE?

Moses was suppose to be one of the most faithful servants to god - one of god's chosen, the apple of god's eye. But something happened. Moses started to get on Yahweh's nerves, so god decided to force Moses into early retirement and end his career because he used his staff .............TO TAP A ROCK. Worshipping other gods, using god's name the wrong way, and looking at an ark from the wrong angle might get you killed, but hitting a rock?......that's just crossing the line.

Yahweh didn't like that, because according to the story god commanded Moses to speak to the rock, and Moses decided that he would rather tap it with his staff instead. So god demotes Moses to die in the desert for the unthinkable crime of rock-tapping.

Let's not forget that god absolutely had no problem with Moses doing this same act, back in Exodus 17:6 where he tells Moses to strike the rock at Horeb. "Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for people to drink."

Evidently, god is okay with Moses hitting rocks as long as it's on one of his good days. God was kind of having an off day when when he barred Moses from entering the promised land that he worked so hard to earn, all because Moses didn't speak words that the lord so desperately wanted him to speak. Maybe he was just tired, and didn't feel like saying much, or had a parched mouth.

Whatever it was, Moses got on god's bad side that day. Of course, the water gushed out and the people drank the water anyway, so god was only ticked off at Moses in this particular scenario. Then Joshua took over, and became the new manager. After that, things were great. That is, until someone started to get on Yahweh's nerves.

An apologetic favorite argument to defend god's actions is very often laced with the fact that the people "knew the rules" and that they "knew the consequences" if those rules were broken. You signed on, you know the rules, and you know what happens when you break the binding contract with god. In other words, if you KNOW what you are getting into, then you shouldn't complain. That's true in one sense.

It does however, pay to take a deeper look at things here.

This is an ancient text. Ancient people understood this stuff. We don't. It may have been moral for their time, but it is not moral for us. The Old Testament laws are NOT considered good for our moral system, in the time in which we live. We have evolved since then so this would be pretty common sense stuff, I would assume.

If you had a son or daughter who ran off to join a cult that had these same laws in the 21st century, would you try to stop them - or would you assume that because they “knew” what they were getting into, it was okay for them to do it? My guess is, that most parents would be outraged, and would try to do anything they could to get their kid out of such a horrifying situation - even if their kids wanted to join.

That’s why you cannot say that the Israelite laws were different, because they were more spiritual, and dealt with the human condition. There has been this overarching frame of mind, that Old Testament law was distinctive from other societies and the code of Hammurabi, because it dealt with human sin and that people have a responsibility to their creator.

It has been said by many scholars that the Israelites were the first to do this, and the other surrounding nations did not. Well no, because the other surrounding nations were not theocracies, and for a good reason. The Israelites were actually an example of what NOT to do, and how not to behave.

Theocracy, simply put - is a horrific, and creepy way to live. Whenever you have a nation that bases it’s laws that come from a divine dictator, you will always have people who constantly live in fear, and that’s exactly what we find in countries today who’s national laws are centered around theocratic governments.

These countries have an uncanny resemblance to the Old Testament, and you can connect many atrocities to divine authority from a holy book. Christians like to think that Old Testament laws were the first to address human morality and the cause of the crime, and not just the effects. As we can see, many of these laws were no less harsh than other Near Eastern tribes, and many of the laws that dealt with spiritual holiness were completely mired in micromanaging how one worshiped Yahweh.

This is not what you want, if you want to try to create a free nation. Laws about worshiping other gods, or idols, or how not to touch holy objects have absolutely nothing to do with morality. They are solely there for the purpose of creating fear, and submission.

In essence, I’m not blaming ancient people for the way they thought. I’m blaming Christians in the 21st century who keep making excuses for a god who was invented by a tribal desert culture, and then defending his actions. You can keep telling me that Jesus made everything okay in the New Testament if you want, but it’s not going to help you.

You can say that the Israelites would not have understood a modern system of ethics like we have. The fact is, Yahweh could have divinely made such a system possible, if he really wanted to. He could have shown the Israelites how to have an economic system without slavery, he could have had them make scientific discoveries, that would have blown the doors off of the Egyptians and Greeks.

He could have shown them everything that we in the 21st century now know about common morals. That kind of god would have been revolutionary, and consistent throughout time, but we don't get that. We get exactly what we would expect from an ancient culture, who's god is just as violent and intolerant as they are.

A Stark Confrontation of Copan

The god of the old testament is indeed ruthless, in his narcissistic quest to kill anyone who doesn't bend the knee to him. Their are certain individuals who think differently. No matter how blood-soaked the bible gets, there is always going to be someone to defend Yahweh and his shallow, fallacious bubble in which he lives.

Christian apologist Paul Copan, wrote a popular book among the evangelicals called "Is God a Moral Monster?" In the book, he tackles many of the skeptical arguments against the Old Testament, confronting issues such as slavery and the Canaanite slaughter. Unfortunately, as so often happens with Christian apologists, his schtick is easy enough to see through, and he resorts to making excuses, finding loopholes, and looking for patterns where they don't exist.

In Paul Copan’s world, much like the CMBW site, stoning doesn’t really mean stoning, kill doesn’t really mean kill, and slave doesn’t really mean slave. According to him, those words were just used metaphorically, and Yahweh isn’t really the giant schmuck you thought he was after all.

Just when you thought you were on top of your game, look out. When you're riding a wave of success, and everyone thinks you have the answers, then it's easy to think you've won the argument. Every once in awhile though, someone notices that you made a mistake.

Someone’s been watching you, and they’ve got your number. That “someone” was a liberal Christian scholar named Thom Stark. Stark challenged every single argument made in Copan’s book, and smashed it apart into tiny shards. Stark was going to let the evangelical’s know that Copan wasn’t holding all the aces, and rightly so. The Christian community did not see this coming - especially from another Christian. Thom Stark’s brilliant online PDF rebuttal is titled “Is God a Moral Compromiser?”

Copan likes to argue, that the Isrealites were one progressive step ahead of their Near Eastern counterparts, and other countries that surrounded them. He wants to make it look like since they were Gods'chosen people, that they somehow were on the cutting edge of moral codes, and that their rules and laws were actually quite tame, compared to what most skeptics think. Is this really true?

Copan knows that there were still moral problems with Irsaelite law, however. In order to smooth this problem over, he makes the mistake of saying even though Israelite law was better, it still wasn't perfect.

But what does Psalm 19:7 say?

It proclaims “The Law of Yahweh is perfect.” He tries to make the case that the code of Hammurabi (which was around before the ten commandments), was more barbaric than Israel's law, and that Israel's law was morally superior to the neighboring tribes. Copan wants to make it look like that Israel had never-before-seen advances in their laws. This is far from being accurate.

Thom Stark isn't buying this stuff. Stark points out that the big picture is actually more complex. Israel's neighboring nations had laws that were more harsh to be sure, but then the Israelites had OTHER laws that were more harsh than their neighbors. Other Near Eastern nations also made moral advances in their legal systems just like the Israelites did, and Copan knows this.

There were progressive moral advances in ancient societies long before Israel, but evangelicals will stop at nothing to make it look like Israel was the VERY first nation to have any such laws.

For example, in Mosaic law, if you have a rebellious son who is a drunkard, and a glutton, then according to Deuteronomy 21:18 you are to bring him before the elders of the town, and have him stoned to death. The Code of Hammurabi is actually more sensitive:

It states that if you have a rebellious son who will not obey you, then you give him a trial. If he is found guilty, then he is to be forgiven. (forgiveness before Jesus? You don't say!) If he is found guilty a second time, then the father simply disowns him. Now are you really going to say that Israel was always morally superior?

Copan is basically exaggerating Israel's laws to be more tame than they actually were. This is a very common argument among Christian apologists, out of fear that the Old Testament laws won't sound very nice if they tell the truth.

Copan also has a bad habit of defending verses that dehumanize women. Deuteronomy 25:11, is the verse indicates strongly that a woman's hand should be cut off, if she tries to defend her husband when he gets attacked. Copan argues that "cut off her hand" actually translates to "cut off her palm."

It's obvious that he is desperately attempting to get the bible to not sound so bad. The original Hebrew word "Kaph" does not allow for this ridiculous interpretation. Kaph simply translates as "whole-hand."

Copan argues that slavery in the bible was not anything like the American south. Well, let's find out.

Chattel Slavery or Indentured Servitude?

The real truth, is that the slavery issue in the Old Testament is so freakin’ complicated, that it’s almost useless to try to argue about any of it. There are endless interpretations, loopholes, tunnels, bridges, detours and derailments all depending upon what your position might be.

One thing is certain- no matter what view you take, it is clear that owning a slave as property was permissible - for certain people. Copan is actually correct that slavery in the Old Testament is not like the American south, but neither is it moral by today's standards - and that's where apologists like Copan get themselves into trouble. It's not fair to say that ALL slavery laws were bad, but Copan attempts to paint the picture more rosy than it actually is.

The way Copan likes to get around this issue is say that Hebrew slaves were indentured servants, and most of them served for just seven years. The law in the OT also rejected kidnapping of indentured servants and treating them harshly.

It turns out that these tame slavery laws were only for fellow Israelites. Leviticus 25 makes it abundantly clear that any surrounding foreigners could be slaves for life. Slavery was justified for people who were not Jews, and there were laws on how to treat them, and deal with them.

The key word here is "nuanced." There were many kinds of slavery in the OT, and you have to be careful when you're looking at certain versus, but the fact remains - you could take foreign slaves if you wanted to, and they would NOT be indentured servants. The laws about stealing slaves do not apply to Israelite slaves in Deut 24:7. Once enslaved, you could not leave. Slaves had certain freedoms, and some slaves could also testify in court.

On the whole, slave life was not pretty - it was a life of hard, exhausting labor. Slavery might have been not bad, if you had a good master, but we don't have good knowledge of how many slaves were treated harshly and how many weren't.

In Exodus 21, we see yet another moral struggle with the slavery issue concerning Hebrew servants. It basically says that if a master gives a servant a wife and children, then only he is allowed to go free, and the woman and children belong to him. Nonetheless, if the servant wants to keep his wife and children, then he must forfeit his freedom:

"But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free' then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life."

In Leviticus 25, many believers like to quote the passage that says "do not make them work as slaves. Treat them with respect." Again, Leviticus 25 is indicating that things will get better for the Israelites and that they are no longer to be treated as slaves. Even so, it makes it very clear that foreign slaves are not to be treated the same.

This kind of practice is in fact, racism in it's most primitive form. Make all the excuses you want, but to a modern 21st century person such as myself, I shouldn't have to put on another pair of lenses to try and strain to see things from their point of view.

This will not quell the Christian arguments however, and many apologists will keep coming back claiming that a master will be punished if he beats his slave. This of course is only true if the slave DIES. And just what kind of slave are we talking about here? Are we talking about a debt slave or a chattel slave? Does the word "naqam" mean to kill? What does the phrase "he is his money" specifically refer to?

There is general consensus as to the overall meaning. If the master beats his slave and the slave dies, then the master is to be put to death. If the slave survives after a day or two, then it is most likely that the master did not intend homicide, and is not punished. Of course - how do you know for sure if the master intended to kill the slave or not? Many slaves could have survived beatings that were intended to kill.

The Hebrew word "achuzza" means property. Some Christians think that the word "achuzza" doesn't mean their value as a person, but their value in their labor output. This is true in some cases, but the noun can also be joined with other words to specify a different type of property. In Leveticus 25 - the word achuzza is referring to purchasing slaves - this is the one place where the word is referring to people like they are possessions.

Yes, in some verses the word can be used to mean the output of one's labor, however in such cases, it's describing how an ISRAELITE should be treated - not a foreigner. The Israelite workers were not to be treated as slaves, and released on the year of Jubilee. Foreigners did not get this same treatment, and it was okay to make them chattel slaves. Terms for foreigners in the

Hebrew bible tend to take on some nuanced meanings in certain passages. Slaves could be beaten, and despite there being restrictions on how to beat your slave - you could still do it.

Apologists love to flaunt the fact that slavery was the only way to sustain the economy in those days. It was needed for society to continue on, so that’s why slavery was legit, and god was regulating it rather than abolishing it. They claim that even if god made slavery disappear, he just doesn’t work that way, and was working with a society in a way so they could understand.

It doesn’t matter, if in Deuteronomy 15 - claims that god would supernaturally intervene and take care of them if they had trouble recovering debts. Leviticus 26 says that if they obeyed god's commands then they would be supernaturally blessed in everything that they did- or supernaturally cursed if they disobeyed.

God promised prosperity for those who lended to the poor, and punishment for those who refused to lend. Since Yahweh was equipped with supernatural means to bless the people without slavery, why didn’t he just take that route instead?

In the NIV Student bible, it says this in the side notes:

"Many of these laws set a new standard of morality: societies of that day oppressed aliens, mistreated slaves, exploited the poor, and awarded lost animals to their finder. The Israelites rules for governing slavery for example, were enlightened for their time. Other societies treated slaves as things rather than persons; Israelites were the first to honor them with formal rights. By beginning with laws protecting the lowest on the social scale, god was teaching the value of every human being."

As we can see, this is a flat-out, bold faced LIE. This smug little paragraph was written in the student NIV version footnotes, by people who obviously knew better. It just goes to show how far some defenders of the Old Testament will go in order to preserve, and continue the tradition that the bible is the ultimate authority on morality. Nothing could be further from the actual truth, when other Near East cultures had laws that treated slaves just as well, or treated them just as harsh.

The main thrust for my point here, is that the Israelites were not the most progressive, or moral society in existence. Other surrounding near eastern nations had laws and codes much like the Israelites, and some of them were way more tame. For example, Law 114 of Hammurabi states that a slave had the right to release after three years of service - about half of the time compared to the old testament.

Kidnapping a citizen may have been illegal in the bible, but it was also illegal in the wider ancient near-east. Codex Hammurabi 14 reads:

"If a man steals the young son of a man, he shall be killed." So please........don't come at me with this fallacious argument that Israel was the ONLY society in existence with "enlightened" laws.

We can find even more reasons why the claims about Israel being an ancient "progressive" society are absurdly false. I will start with an argument that theologians like to make for Numbers 31:17, where Moses tells the Israelite men to "take the virgin women for yourselves"

I mentioned this passage earlier, but Christians like to often point out that this is justified because their families were left over from the Peor incident where the Moabites cursed god, and slept with Hebrew men. They claim that the virgin women did not take part in Peor and had nothing to do with it. Therefore since they were innocent, they should live and have the men take care of them. They claim without the men "taking them" then they would have no one else to provide for them, or take care of these innocent women.

Even so, trying to rationalize the reason behind taking the virgin women cannot just be explained away as to their innocence in the Peor incident. The reason for this, is because Moses calls for the killing of all of the "young boys" who would also have been innocent, and not taken part in the Peor incedent.

This leaves no other explanation open other than the virgin women being reduced to "plunder" and spoils of war. If the Isrealites were really trying to be humanitarians by saving all of the innocents and taking care of them, then this would have included the boys as well. Once again, we see the foul double standard. This has the erroneous odor of god making things up as he goes, whenever it suits his purposes.

Theologians and apologists will also like to point out that the "foreign slaves" concerning Leviticus 25 is actually referring to prisoners of war. They want to try to paint the picture that the Isaelites didn't just go out and capture foreigners to be slaves, but rather that the Israelites were showing the soldiers mercy by letting them live among them as slaves.

There is little evidence for this theory, and it survives on shaky ground. For one, we can clearly see in Deuteronomy 20 that it was okay to take a city by force if they didn't surrender. Even if you took the city by force, then it was okay to kill all of them men, and take the livestock, women, and children for themselves. This is hardly a"prisoner of war" situation.

Plus it's worth noting that this practice only applied to certain types of cities. Deuteronomy 20:15 states "this is how you are to treat the cities that are a distance from you, and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities the lord has given to you as an inheritance, do not leave anything alive that breathes."

The whole practice of offering peace or war if rejected only applies to cities outside of Israel. Those INSIDE of the land were not given such options. They were to be completely destroyed. So you can't tell me that these "soldiers" became slaves - something that the law did not account for. The soldiers were to be killed, and the women taken. The foreigners were slaves from surrounding nations that were purchased by the Israelites. There is little room here for further explanation, unless you want to resort to a strained answer.

In Deuteronomy 20, we see yet again, a major inconsistency in Yahweh's terms for warfare. It basically says that if you are taking a city by force, offer it terms of peace at first. If the city accepts the terms, then the Israelites won't attack them, but the people inside the city will instead "serve them in forced labor."

Still, if the city refuses the terms, then the Israelites are commanded to kill all the men, but keep the woman, children and livestock - and ENJOY the spoils of your enemies. In other words, the city gets to choose between slavery or slaughter. Again, if killing children is considered mercy, then why the glaring inconsistency about keeping some alive in some scenarios but not others?

This ugly double standard keeps turning up like a bad penny.

It's the same endless rant from Christians that we all hear so often - "you're taking it out of context!" How many times have we heard this? Too many. There are a good number of passages in the bible where if you don't read the story in full, then the context does in fact, matter.

I can admit that. However, there comes a point where the disagreement about context becomes problematic, and from there, things start to snowball into a confusing slew of theological psycho-babble.

When you consider that one scholar can argue endlessly with another, no one will ever win. You can argue all day about context. Yes, context matters - to a point. But really - how much context is enough to justify something? A few surrounding passages? An entire chapter? An entire book? You could even go as far as telling someone that they took a verse out of context, because they haven’t read the entire bible.

You could even go further than that. You could blame someone for taking a verse out of context because they have not taken classes in the original Hebrew or Greek, and have not read everything on the fathers of church history. Or you could accuse someone of taking something “out of context” because they didn’t look at another verse 20 chapters later that would explain it.

Or claiming that another verse in the New Testament explains a passage in the Old Testament, therefore you took it out of context. If I'm simply looking at all of this the wrong way, then we need to ask how much context is needed to understand something - and that could be endlessly debated. Unfortunately, there are no finite answers, and this leads to much frustration for someone who needs reconciliation on such matters.

Copan, once again, fails at trying to make things sound a bit more tame than they actually were during the Canaanite conquest. For one, he says the Canaanites were wicked people and they deserved it. Copan makes it sound as though god waited patiently for them to turn from their wicked ways, but the bible says that god waited for 400 years for them to get as sinful as possible, until their sins reached the absolute limit.

No one was sent to warn these people either. In cases like Jonah, at least god sent men to warn people to turn from their ways and repent. Did the Canaanites get any warning? Nooooope.

In fact, the only people that god sent into Canaan were military spies. He didn't even send Moses to warn them when he could have. When you really get down to it, god waited on PURPOSE until their hearts were hardened, so Israel could attack them and take their land, killing women and children.

During the plagues of Egypt, we get report of the same sort of "heart hardening" that Yahweh is so notorious for. Moses came to the Pharaoh, hoping that he would change his mind after each plague, and god even promises him that surely Pharaoh will surrender with each attempt.

Unknown to Moses, god was actually hardening pharaoh's heart behind the curtain, just so he could torture the Egyptians with different plagues. How in the world could Pharaoh make up his own mind or use his own intelligence if god forced him to not surrender by hardening his heart? If Pharaoh had no freewill in the situation, then who is to blame for the plagues of Egypt?

I will now male the argument for the Canaanites. How can you possibly put the Canaanites at fault if nobody came to warn them, like in other stories? You can say that god “waited” but is this really fair when he hardened their hearts? How much of it was their fault, and how influence did god’s influence did god have on their depravity?

What was the point of waiting 400 years until they ramped up their sin to the ultimate max? This whole situation sounds to me like forced "divine command." It's as if god wanted to find an excuse to invade the land, so he invented a solution where could make the Canaanites look like they were fully responsible for their actions, but were they?

No Room For Mitigation

Copan wants you to believe that the Canaanites had it coming. He says god was going to punish them for participating in child sacrifice, and temple sex. Nevertheless, the Israelites participated in these things as well, at least as far as their involvement cheating sexually with the women of other tribes.

As far as sacrifice is concerned, all you need to do is read the story of Jephthah or Abraham to know that child sacrifice was legit, as long as god okayed it. It doesn't count that Abraham stopped at the last second, when he was about to plunge knife into his son. The reality is that he was definitely going to go through with it, had an angel not stopped him.

It's especially chilling when Isaac asks his father what all the firewood is doing at the site, and asks where the sacrifice is. Abraham answers in a nonchalant manner:

"God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” That's basically translation for, "I'm going to kill you, but I'm too embarrassed to say it."

For Abraham, he went into the whole situation knowing full well what was about to happen. He had the guts to obey his lord, but didn't have the balls to be honest with his kid. In Jephthah's case, it was all his idea but Yahweh never tried to stop him! The irony thickens.

That's why we can honestly say that it didn't matter whether child sacrifice was sinful or not, or whether slaughtering innocent babies was moral or not. It all boils down to what Yahweh commands, and since Yahweh is perfect then he can never be in the wrong, no matter what amount of genocide he decrees.

Apologists will say that killing the children was a mercy killing to prevent them from being raised by the people who killed their parents - and having to live with it. Or that the children would grow up to be just like their parents. It all sounds legit - until you start asking the inevitable question of why the Israelites would have had to kill anyone in the first place.

If these evil Canaanites were really causing children that much harm, then why couldn't Yahweh have just vaporized them, or snapped them out of existence? Or turned their parents into salt like Lot's wife?

Yahweh could have attacked these wicked grownups with plagues - like Moses verses the Pharaoh, or drowned them in a flood. That way it would have been a win-win. The children would have been saved, and the Israelites would have never had to touch them.

In the end, there really is no excuse for slaughtering people the way the Israelites did, when you have an all-powerful god who could have done it a million different ways.

There are other stories in the Old Testament where god insists there are absolutely NO good people in a certain city or land. In Genesis 18:26 when Abraham is communicating with god, god tells him, "If I find 50 people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the city." Abraham keeps bargaining with god for him to spare the city until he stops at about ten people.

Which meant that god was basically saying there was no one righteous in the city - except for Lot and his family, which of course eventually proved to be false as Lot tried to pawn off his two daughters to the men outside his door. This also echos heavily in Jeremiah 5, where god destroys Jerusalem because he couldn't find one honest person. Of course in Noah's flood, Noah and his family were the only "good" people not just in a city, but the entire world.

It's interesting to note that there is no record in the biblical account of Noah that claims that he ever gave the people any warning, or preached to them. In Sunday school, I remember clearly that this was taught systematically - which is probably why I remember it so well. We were all taught that everyone on earth was laughing at Noah, because they had never seen rain before, and mocked him when he warned them about a flood. I saw cartoons in church about this, making Noah look like the good guy.

After reading the flood account that's in the actual bible I discovered that this story about Noah warning the people was NOWHERE to be found!! It's simply more myth, piled on top of myth except the story was completely fabricated by the church.

I found out that this part of the story actually comes from a verse in 2 Peter in the New Testament, where it says Noah was a "preacher of righteousness." That's it. No other clues except for the word "preacher", and the entire fabrication was based off of that one word.

There are other numerous verses about Noah in the New Testament that Christians will try and extract some kind of clue about him preaching to people, but it just doesn't show up. Therefore the inevitable question persists - how did the writer of 2nd Peter know that Noah was a preacher if it wasn't in the Old Testament? Unless that writer had access to some esoteric Midrash literature that was floating around in BC about Noah, then how could he have known that Noah preached anything? Sounds like someone has A LOT of explaining to do.

It was because of Noah, that the Israelites considered the Canaanites to be a cursed people because according to the story - Noah got embarrassed because his sons walked in on him when he was naked in his tent, so he cursed them. Evidently, this wasn't just some passing jab at his kid - this was supposed to be a real hard-core curse - the kind you don't mess with.

Most dads don't think anything about their kids seeing them naked, or at least most would ask if their kid could wait a few seconds until they had some clothes on. Or if Noah needed to blow off some steam because he was sensitive about his nakedness, then he could have opted to be like Kevin's uncle Frank in the movie Home Alone 2 , when he's in the shower and yells at Kevin: "get outta here you nosy little pervert or I'm gonna slap you silly!"

Nope, forget about it - you don't get any forgiveness for minor offenses in the OT. Noah was a strange beast, and he wasn't taking this thing lightly - he was going all the way. And that meant putting a curse on a whole generation for the Israelites to wipe out, take their land, and kill their children - all because a drunk, grumpy old man got butthurt at someone for seeing his pale, baggy body. This was the one man god found righteous? I don't know about you, but I have to strain really hard to think of anything more stupid than that.

All in all, these situations where there is only one righteous family or person to be found is unrealistic. It's like saying that there is only one family in Seattle that is good, or that there is not one honest person in England. It's just not what we know to be true about reality.

Here's another thorny issue - if god punished the Israelites just as much as other nations, then why did he keep them alive instead of wiping them out like the Amalekites? If god punished other nations, then why not give them a second chance like he did Israel?

In conclusion, Copan bases a lot of his fallacious arguments off of faulty cross-referencing, assumptions, and inflated guesswork. It is clear that the Israelites did not attack the Canaanites out of self-defense. Simply put, it was a foreign invasion of the highest order, and apologists can no longer make any excuse for it.

Next time a Christian tells you that the Canaanites "had it coming" you can remind them that those children and infants had it coming too. Copan likes to say that when god commanded "leave no one alive" or "kill everything that breathes" it really doesn't mean everything, just some things. According to Copan, it's totally okay for god to kill a couple of infants here and there, as long as it's done in moderation. That's nice. I'm sure those Canaanite mothers really appreciated that.

The late Christian theologian Norman Geisler is featured in Lee Strobal's book "The Case for Faith." When Lee starts questioning him about all the genocide in the Old Testament that was commanded by god, then Geisler simply responds with the claim that god warned everyone to turn from their wickedness, and when they didn't they were punished. He says, "that's very important to remember."

Of course, the Canaanites were never warned of anything. God just sent military spies into their territory and waited for the precise moment to strike. Geisler also likes to point out that the slaughtering of the infants was a "mercy killing" because they would have had horrible parents. Still, as I have already pointed out, the "mercy" argument is flawed because god didn't have t do it that way, if he's all -powerful. (More grim issues on Norman Geisler and Lee Strobal later).

Let's get into a deeper problem. With an ancient book full of so much gratuitous complexity, and complicated language such as the bible you would eventually have to ask yourself: Is it really fair to blame skeptics when they read this stuff? Think about it. Most of us do not have PHd's in Assyriology or textual criticism. Most people do not have enough time to take courses in Hebrew or wade through an endless amount of information and speculation that would have most of us pulling our hair out.

You can't really blame someone for reading about slavery in the bible, and thinking that these are terrible laws, even though they may not understand the context of what they are reading. How is it their fault for not understanding? So if people walk away from the bible angry with the content they read about, then it's not any different then when a Christian reads the Quran and misunderstands the context.

Why is getting to the truth about the bible always like pulling teeth? Why do you always have to go to the experts at the top in order to get to any sort of answer? Any god who was capable of clarity would not author such a book. It should not be my job to keep drilling for an answer, when a divine book could have made the answers simple and precise- so that everyone could understand.

If the early stories of the bible such as the creation account, and Noah's flood were simply borrowed from earlier myths that came before it- then when did Israelite history actually become history? If the stories about the genocidal, mass murdering Jews slaughtering innocent women and children were simply made up tales by the Israelites themselves - and made the attributes of an angry vengeful God, then at what point did Yahweh actually become real?

I have talked to Christians who tell me that the genocidal old testament god is not the real god - that it was all Israelite storytelling. Just when in the bible, did god become the real article? I keep hearing things like, "God is real when he shows love." A story that many believers like to quote is the story of Jonah, who goes to the city of Nineva to convert the people.

Once the people were converted, god doesn't destroy them, even when Jonah wanted him to. They like to think that this is the example of the real loving god. Despite the situation, all this shows is that the Israelite god likes it when people believe in him, and demolishes societies that don't. In other words, it's all about conforming to god's wishes.

This is NOT so comforting.

In the old testament, when it describes god ordering Moses to "Kill all the boys, and take the women for yourselves" how is that any less significant than when god tells Jonah to do something? How can god be real in one passage, and not another? Let’s don't forget, many of the same people who use the Jonah story as an example of God's mercy, are the same ones who don't take Jonah's overnight stay in the belly of a whale literally. Seems like a fine job of cherry picking to me, and people will continue to be intellectually dishonest about it.

Not only does the biblical god get to pick and choose whoever he wants to kill, but Christians get to pick and choose when the word "kill" becomes a metaphor. It's a never ending cycle of posturing that's almost comical, and if you're one of those Christians who thinks that god was somehow different in Old Testament times, and changed in the New Testament don't forget that Malachi 3:6 makes it plain that "I the lord, do NOT change."

A Disturbing Verdict

If the Genesis story of Adam and Eve was only early myth before the other bible stories came about, then how could Yahweh be real at all? Many Christian scholars now admit to this, and an overwhelming number of Christians now believe that Noah's flood was also early myth, before the actual history of Israel. If this is the case, then how could the god of Israel be real in later stories?

If everything that Adam and Eve did in the garden was only metaphorical, then that would mean god’s actions in the story were also metaphorical, which would mean that he didn’t have any literal or historical basis for his existence. How could a god who was only mythical in the beginning, have raised Jesus from the dead in the New Testament?

Even Christian philosopher William Lane Craig who is conservative, does not believe in the literal flood story, and he does not believe in six day creation. It makes you wonder why he wouldn't give Adam and Eve up as well, but I think it's pretty obvious. He NEEDS for at least some of that story to be real. Because he knows if it isn't, then his god cannot be real. NT Wright is another scholar that does not take the Genesis account completely literally.

Nevertheless, Wright says that it does no good to take it literally, or completely abandon it. According to him, both extremes are unnecessary, and the reality is that it's just "complicated." This is an easy out, that is common among a lot of theologians. Saying that something is "complicated" never solves anything, and at best is a way to dodge the issue completely.

This is why so many Christian scholars, archaeologists, and historians push back so hard against skepticism for the bible. They know that the literal view of the Genesis account is slowly starting fade from cultural relevance. It makes them feel uncomfortable, because they need for Genesis to be at least somewhat historical, in order for the rest of the bible to work for them.

More and more Christians are going with a liberal view, and are just focusing on Jesus in the New Testament, instead of relying on the bible as history. This is the direction we are heading, and it scares bible literalists to the core. They know deep down that if god is a myth in Genesis, then he can't have just magically become real in Exodus. With each passing year, the house of cards becomes more difficult to maintain. Eventually, they will not be able to keep holding it up.

In summery, the Old Testament is rife with all kinds of different stories, poetry, prophecy, doctrine, and political narrative. Some of it's great ancient literature, and some of it is instructional. Most of it, however - is fictional. Simply put, the god of the Old Testament should have been deported to a zoo. He doesn't seem concerned with morality, only allegiance. This is NOT a heavenly father. He's a celestial dictator, who cares nothing more than to have people bow the knee to him out of fear(just like today), instead of being concerned with people's well-being.

He could have had the Israelites be the most scientific society on the face of the planet, and could have invested his time into educating his chosen people. Yahweh could have seen to it that his people build a library greater than the one in Alexandria. Instead, the god of Israel chose to waste his omnipotence on invading foreign lands, sacking cities, stoning people on the sabbath, hardening hearts, burning young daughters, and turning people into pillars of salt for looking in the wrong direction.

Yahweh’s morals are so advanced, that I must be too shallow to understand how loving he is. He must be so good, that he actually makes it look like the opposite- which I’m supposed to ignore. Imagine how ignorant my mind must be, not to have the strength to suppress bad thoughts about him. When you swallow poison, it’s not really poison; just tell yourself you’re drinking tea instead. This is the kind of mindset you have to have, in order to accept god’s actions as moral and loving. If not, you will be doomed to the ignorance you have for his mercy. I must really be that stupid, not to be able to see what other Christians see.

The god of the bible is indeed, a moral compromiser.

CHAPTER 3

THE PROBLEM WITH THE NEW TESTAMENT.....

"Blessed is the one who keeps the words of prophecy in this book” - Revelation 22:7

The methodology that historians have used to track the accuracy of certain events, is the process of trying to find separate corroborative sources. Many historians throughout the ages have also re-written history, distorted it, and have reconstructed it to fit their own biases and agendas, which makes getting to the truth more difficult than ever. Eventually, I was forced to deal with such matters when researching the New Testament. The question still gets asked repeatedly to this day - is the New Testament historically reliable?

The best place to start when asking this question, is to look at the dates of when the gospels were written down. This is still debated vehemently among historians of all stripes, but the most agreed upon dates are anywhere from 70 AD to 100 AD. This means that the majority of the gospels in the bible were written 60 or 70 years after Jesus. Mark is the earliest gospel, dating anywhere from about 70 AD or onward.

Before that, all you have are oral traditions being passed around about Jesus's life. Many scholars cite the "Q" source as an earlier gospel written before Mark, but the problem with the Q document is that it has never been shown to exist.

New Testament experts know that Mark had to have received his information from somewhere, so the theory of the Q document came into play. However, there is still the problem of figuring when the Q document was written - if there actually was one. If Mark took his information from that particular document - then who wrote Q? With lack of evidence, and more scholars doubting that such a collection of writings ever existed, it’s quite obvious that the author of Mark didn’t need to get his info anywhere other than people he would have known or spent time with.

We don't even know if he spent time with anyone. He could have simply taken his information from different stories that were circulating within the church and early Christian communities. It's safe to say that the Q source is nothing more than a phantom document - only existing in the imaginations of theologians.

I for one, still think that Jesus actually existed as a man, and that he probably had disciples. I think that there is enough smoke to conclude that he at least was a radical Jewish reformist, who just wanted the best thing for his people. But it's the miracles, and the resurrection that I obviously no longer believe in. I'm convinced that Jesus was mythified and deified, through decades of storytelling.

We know very little about the historical Jesus, if anything. Other than about three years of his life, we are stuck.

We know nothing of his childhood, other than the tale about him running off to the temple when he was 12 - which many scholars now say is unlikely to be authentic. What was he doing in his teens, and in his 20's? Why do we get only one to three years about his life?

The writers of the four gospels were not eye-witnesses, but people who wrote in another language, and simply took their information from people's stories about Jesus. On top of that, the earliest full manuscripts that are available to us do not appear until the 4th century, after the time of Constantine. Before, all we have are fragments, and there are not many. The earliest fragment that we have dates back to the mid-second century, called p52.

It's a piece of what appears to be the gospel of John, about the size of your wallet. Only a few dozen or so fragments have been found, prior to the 4th century. From the first century, we have absolutely nothing. The original manuscripts for the gospels have never been found, and as a result, much of what we know about the New Testament had to be reconstructed from copies of copies.

Christian apologists love to brag that the New Testament is the most copied book in all of antiquity, claiming that we have over 6000 copies of the New Testament alone, and that any other copies of secular ancient sources amount to very little. But most of these "copies" come from the middle ages, not antiquity. Keep in mind, that there were thousands of variations among the earliest manuscripts, and while most of these changes were insignificant, there were other changes that deviated heavily from the originals.

Contradictions or Something More?

Quite frankly, I don't really care if all of the NT manuscripts were transmitted without error. It wouldn't make any difference to me in the slightest if there wasn't one scribal mistake in any of them. What I care about is whether the New Testament is historically factual, and reliable.

Despite what conservative Christian scholars will tell you, the four gospels are all conflicting accounts. The most amazing thing is that these discrepancies go unnoticed by the majority. The main bulk of believers around the world, are happy to accept that the gospel stories are tried and true accounts of the life of Jesus, and there is no reason to doubt them. At one time, I thought the same thing. But once you know how to look for the errors, the gospels become a whole different ballgame.

For starters, one of the biggest contradictions in the NT are the two very distinct genealogies of Jesus. One is in Luke, the other is in Matthew. These two genealogies do not add up; one begins with Abraham, and the other begins with Adam. These two accounts diverge greatly once you figure out that Matthew's account ends with Joseph and Mary and the Luke's account ends with Joseph and Heli. This has frustrated theologians for centuries, and there are many theories as to why these are different, but the most probable explanation is that they were inventions to cater to a Jewish audience.

Were there only one or two angels at the tomb? Did Jesus cleanse the temple at the beginning of his ministry, or right before his crucifixion? Did Joseph and Mary travel to Egypt when Jesus was born, or did they go directly to Nazareth? Did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead? Did Jesus have Roman soldiers guarding his tomb or did he not? The great theologian Bart Ehrman so often says: "It depends on which gospel you read."And he's right. Here are just a few verses that have plagued scholars with so much frustration:

Matthew 1:1-17 states that there 28 generations between Jesus and David, but Luke 3:38 says there were 43.

Matthew 2:13 says that Joseph and Mary went to Egypt, before returning to Galilee, yet Luke 2:21 says that they went from Bethlehem to Jerusalem then DIRECTLY back to Galilee, and no mention of Egypt.

Romans 2:11 says that Yahweh does not show favoritism, but Romans 9:12 says that he does.

Galatians 2:16 says that a man is not justified by works, but by faith. James 2:24 disagrees - "by works a man is justified."

Paul's conversion in Acts 9:7 states that the witnesses heard a voice. Acts 22:9 say the witnesses did NOT hear a voice.

When Peter denied Jesus for the second time, Matthew 26:71 says a girl addressed Peter, but Luke 22:58 says it was a man.

According to Matthew 27:6, the priests bought the field with money from Jesus's betrayal. Acts 1:16 says that Judas bought the field.

Acts 9:11 says Paul went immediately to Damascus to preach the gospel, but in Gal 1:15 it says he went to Arabia.

Luke 24:13 makes it look like Jesus made appearances after the resurrection, and ascended into heaven on the same day.

Acts 1:3 says Jesus appeared for 40 days after his resurrection.

Quite a massive leap there. What's interesting is, Luke and Acts were written by the same author. Not only does the author of Acts contradict the other gospel writers, he contradicts Acts with his very own gospel.

It's striking how many events in the gospels do not line up. Luke's account is the only time it mentions Jesus talking to a robber, while he was on the cross. The other gospels never mention that Jesus had a conversation with two thieves, and the other times the thieves are mentioned - the robbers both mock him. However, in Luke's gospel, it's the opposite - the thief talks to Jesus, and has a conversion right there while both of them are hanging on crosses! Think about that for a minute. If you are hanging on a cross, the last thing you feel like doing is talking. Your life is slowly being sucked out of you - literally. Deep in the throes of asphyxiation, the guy suddenly decides that he wants to have a little chat with Jesus.

Jesus quotes that famous line, "Today, you will be with me in paradise." You would have an extremely difficult time whispering even one syllable if you were hanging on a cross close to death, let alone carry on a full conversation. If this conversation really happened, then who heard it? There were women near the cross in John's gospel, and in the the other three it says that the women watched from far away. How do we have any idea if any of these things were actually uttered by the thief or Jesus?

One of the most confusing parts of the gospels is the scene of the women at the tomb. All four accounts heavily conflict with each other, and this doesn't sit well with historical criticism. You have different angels and men appearing different places to different people at what is supposed to the same place, at the same time. Yet, Mary Magdalene is the only consistent member of this party of women who went to the tomb. All of the other details are completely unique to each writer, making it impossible to know very little if anything that went on.

In the gospel of Mark - Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome. They arrive after sunrise.The stone in front of the tomb had been rolled away. The women enter the tomb and meet one young man in there, dressed in a white robe. The women keep quiet, despite being told to spread the word to Peter and the rest of the disciples.

In the gospel of Matthew - Two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another Mary. They arrive at about dawn.The stone in front of Jesus’ tomb was still in place and would be rolled away later. An angel arrives during an earthquake and rolls the stone away, and sits on it outside. Matthew is the only gospel to mention guards. The women go tell the disciples

In the gospel of Luke - At least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.” It is early dawn when they arrive. The women enter the tomb, and two men suddenly appear — it’s not clear if they are inside or outside. The women tell “the eleven and to all the rest.”

In the gospel of John - One woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene. She later fetches Peter and another disciple. It is dark when they arrive.The women do not enter the tomb, but there are two angels sitting inside. Mary stays to cry while the two disciples just go home.

Whether or not you want to call these contradictions, they are massive inconsistencies. Christian apologists say that as long as Jesus appeared to people, and that at least someone was at the empty tomb, then that would be a basic summery of the events, and that's all that's needed, despite the conflicting accounts.

If you narrow it down to just a basic summery of Jesus appearing to people, and that a woman named Mary Magdalene was at the tomb, then what are we supposed to think beyond that? If all we can draw from the Easter story is that there was a woman standing at a tomb, then you can’t really rely on any details, because the details are inconsistent! What do we have left? how can we draw any conclusion as to what actually happened? l’ll leave it up to the believer to decide.

The Abysmal Writing of Luke

The contradictions or “inconsistencies” however, may just be the least of the New Testament’s problems. Huge historical blunders have plagued the pages of the gospels and book of Acts, ever since they were first written. Either they contain wild overblown stories of the events themselves, or they simply never happened.

King Herod's so-called "Massacre of the Innocents" where every infant under the age of two was killed has never shown up in any historical records. Many writers living in Jerusalem at that time did not like Herod, and so they scrounged to find any dirt they could on him. The fact that such an event went unnoticed by history, shows that it probably never occurred.

When people read the Christmas story in Luke, they often don't know what they're reading.

The writer of Luke is considered by many Christians and church experts to be an excellent historian and researcher, but he turns out to be quite the opposite. At the beginning of Luke, we have a census taken by Roman emperor Augustus where the entire Roman world gets taxed, but again, a census on this level was never recorded anywhere in history.

It has been decided by many scholars that Luke is making an attempt to fulfill prophecy here, by figuring out a way to get Jesus to Bethlehem when he was probably born elsewhere. A census such as this would have thrown the entire Roman empire into chaos, and most likely would have been recorded if it were true.

The overblown status of Luke as a legendary historian, partly comes from an early 20th century archaeologist named William Mitchell Ramsay.

According to Ramsay, he was a skeptic - convinced that the gospels were primarily myth, until he started digging in different areas and finally concluded that Luke was an accurate historian, and that the gospels were true after all. Ramsay quotes:

"Further study … showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's"

When a skeptic like Ramsay changes his mind, it convinces Christians even more that their beliefs are established fact. As a result, the tradition of Luke being a sincere historian has prolonged itself, because such rhetoric continues to get repeated and over time, and is shaped into fact regardless of whether or not it has any basis in reality.

Ramsay might have started out as somewhat of a skeptic, but even some of the world's greatest skeptical minds can turn out to be proven inaccurate. The writer of Luke and Acts did in fact, get many things historically correct. Yet, there is another side to Luke and nobody likes to talk about all the stuff he got just as equally, and pitifully - wrong.

The book of Acts is loaded with all kinds of propaganda. The stoning of Stephen is most likely fiction, as the writing style suggests it was an exaggerated story to flaunt an agenda. The name "Herod" is used for a king who's name who isn't really Herod - it's Agrippa. These are just a few slices of Luke's tampering with historical facts.

There is a laundry list of unrealistic statements in Acts. These include: A famine that spreads through the entire Roman world, Peter baptising 3,000 people in a single day, suppression of conflicts within the church, story of a converted jailer, the summoning of a Jewish high court by a Roman officer, an angel leading Peter out of prison.

The fact is that Luke accurately described different places on a map - places that still exist to this day. Because of this, he is considered one of the greatest historians. Except a historian doesn’t just get places right, they also have to get certain people and historical events right, and this is where Luke fails miserably.

Luke never identifies himself or has any qualifications to back him up. He never once lists his sources, and ancient historians who were taken seriously at the time, listed their sources - just like today. Luke never explains his methodology, and omits key things in his preface that a real preface would contain.

Even Suetonius, a historian who lived largely in the second century, wasn't that reliable when it came to getting his facts straight, but he still listed his sources. We have no sources for Luke, and this makes the accounts of Luke and Acts extremely suspicious. The book of Acts seems to rely more on myth making devices rather than actual history.

The only historical phrases that the author of Luke seems to adhere to are certain borrowed elements from the Jewish historian - Josephus. The book of Acts looks as though it was influenced by bits and pieces of Homer's Odyssey. There are simply too many parallels to just wave away such as: Nautical imagery, being shipwrecked, a goddess or angel assuring safety, the arrival of a hero on an island of strangers, mistaking a hero as a god, travel narratives, miraculous and amazing events, prison breaks, excited crowds, revelation, persecution, and divine rescues.

Also, there are major inconsistencies between the book of Acts and Paul's writing. It has been said that there is a difference between the "letters" of Paul, and the "legends" of Paul. Acts is a book that was geared more toward legendary, and literary events. In Paul's personal letters, he tells us that he was still unknown in Judea years after converting. Acts tells us the opposite - that Paul was very well known in Judea.

One of them isn't telling the truth. Paul says he went to Arabia after converting - not Damascus. Acts has Paul going to Damascus, and then immediately coming back to Jerusalem with no time spent at all in Arabia. Paul tells us that he and Peter were in disagreement. Acts tells us that he and Peter were in agreement, even right from the start.

How can one come to any complete historical analysis with these kinds of contradictions?

The most amazing thing about Acts is the constant parallels between Peter and Paul. Both men share similarities in Acts. They both escape miraculously escape from prison, invoked a sorcerer, healed by magical means, raised people from the dead, and Peter was sent by god to save Cornilius when he sends for Peter in a vision. Paul was sent by god to save the Maccedonians, when a Macedonian sends for Paul in a vision. These sorts of parallels are too obvious to ignore. In summation, my verdict is indeed harsh - the writer of Luke and Acts seems to be more interested in inventing history rather than writing it.

Jesus’s Trial: Reliable Accounts or Historical Mockery?

Jesus's trial with Pontius Pilate presents further problems. From what we know about the real historical Pilate, he does not match the personality of the Pilate in the gospels. At the trial of Jesus he is constantly indecisive, letting the crowd boss him around and tell him what to do, acting like he doesn't want to kill Jesus. The real Pilate was more like Ramsay Bolton in Game of Thrones- bloodthirsty, sadistic, and unapologetic. He wouldn't have allowed anyone to tell him how to run the show, and he certainly wouldn't have cared if Jesus lived or died. Not only that, there are some other bizare situations regarding Pilate.

The only time Pilate's wife appears is in Matthew 27:19 where she interrupts him and warns him not to crucify Jesus because she had a nightmare about him.

This is not mentioned in the other gospels. Also, Luke 23:12 has Herod Antipas making a cameo appearance questioning Jesus in front of Pilate, and when Jesus doesn't answer him, Herod begins to mock him. Then Luke says after that incident, Pilate and Herod who were bitter enemies, suddenly became friends. Just like that. This sudden spark of friendship between Herod and Pilate makes no sense, and the other gospels mention absolutely nothing about it.

Furthermore, the release of the prisoner Barabas to the crowd and crucifying Jesus instead was completely out of sync with how Jewish trials were run. There has never been any known tradition in Jerusalem or Rome where this kind of "pardon" has happened on the Passover. Many Jewish scholars today are unanimous in their conclusion that the "releasing" of Barabas to the mob was symbolic for the Yom Kippur ritual - where two goats are released into the wilderness, and the other goat gets sacrificed to atone for the sins of Israel. It's quite possible that Barabbas never existed at all.

All the main aspects of the trial of Jesus simply are not historical by any Jewish standard including: plotting to kill Jesus on Passover eve, holding a trial in a private home, mocking and beating a prisoner, releasing a prisoner to the crowd, meeting in secret, the failure of witnesses to agree, and the high priest acting as the interrogater, ect.

Plus there is not any record of the Sanhedrin ever acting as an investigatory agent for the Romans, and the events in the gospels lead you to believe that the high priest and the pharisees were in league with one another, which is also ridiculous. In real life, the Pharisees and the high priest were political enemies. All of these major historical mistakes, make it clear that Jesus's trial either never took place, or it was radically different than what you read in the gospel accounts.

Consider for instance, the famous scene where Pontius Pilate washes his hands. In the book of Matthew, Pilate says to the crowd: “His blood be upon us and our children.” Then he proceeds in a hand-washing ritual that would have been entirely alien to a Roman such as Pilate himself. This particular act of washing one’s hands might have been peculiar enough, but it symbolizes a deep cultural meaning that would have only been relevant to the Jews, not Roman officers.

In ancient Judaism, proclaiming full responsibility for someone's blood was serious business. It meant that you accepted the fact that if death should occur, then you would be held accountable if that person was innocent. You can see this throughout the Old Testament in the situation with Rahab during the Jericho conquest, where the Israelite soldiers say:

"his blood shall be upon his head and we will be guiltless, and whosoever be with thee in the house, his blood shall be on our head, if any hand be upon him" - Joshua 2:19

King David says something similar in 2nd Samual:

"Thy blood be upon thy head, for thy mouth hath testified against thee."

As we can see, this was particularly a Jewish custom. No Roman would have been familiar with it, much less have had any use for it's wider meaning and as a result this particular act cannot be attributed to Pilate in any sense. Any historian would have known that this sort of symbolic ceremony was unfamiliar in the Roman world, and would have been meaningless to any Roman character - especially an officer who had a reputation for executing anyone that crossed him. This is WAY out of character for Pilate, who most likely would not have felt any guilt or had any use to say such words in a public place.

Haim Cohn, a Jewish justice on the supreme court of Israel - wrote his famous book, “The Trial and Death of Jesus” which documents many of these problems. Since he was a Jew, and lived in Israel for much of his adult life, he was extremely knowledgeable of ancient Jewish law, and the way trials were run - even 2000 years ago.

The book could hardly be any more thorough, and Cohn ends up going over every detail of the trial with every ounce of historical evidence he can muster. His conclusion is simply that Jesus's trial is very unlikely to have taken place, or if there was a trial it wasn't the one you read about in the New Testament. The trial of Jesus just has too many historical blunders in it to be taken seriously as history.

The gospel writers don't stop there in their faulty fabrications. Far from it. The famous story of Jesus chasing the money changers out of the temple is a big one. From what we know about the history of the temple - the merchants were not doing anything wrong. They were free to sell, and trade things.

The fact that Jesus got angry and chased them out of the temple would have resulted in him getting arrested on the spot in real life. The Roman guard was always on watch, keeping the order, and they would not have stood for such nonsense. In this case they let it slide, and waited a week before they arrested Jesus, and it is testament once again that gospels are mocking real history.

It's more interesting to note, that in the gospel of John, Jesus does this at the beginning of his ministry and manages to dodge getting arrested for three years. Also, Jesus riding through the city on a donkey getting hailed as king, is very unlikely if the whole city of Jerusalem suddenly turned against him just a few days later.

In Acts, we get what appears to be another historically misconstrued event - the trials of Peter, Paul, and Steven. Not too long after Jesus ascended into heaven, Peter heals a cripple. He is arrested for this act, and the whole city of Jerusalem is completely floored by it. In court, the Roman authorities seem to be somewhat ignorant of who Jesus was, and not really that concerned with the issue of who the apostles were connected to. They are more concerned that the entire city of Jerusalem is in an uproar over Peter’s miraculous healing.

That's what is so startling here - why is it considered so revolutionary that Peter healed a cripple? Didn't Jesus already do that, many times over? Why isn't everyone still in amazement that Jesus rose from the dead? If a condemned criminal had come back to life, and was hanging around Jerusalem for 40 days before he ascended into outer space, you can bet the Romans would have been on a manhunt for Jesus and his disciples.

If Jesus came back to life, then everyone in Judea would have been out looking for him. Why is Peter's healing of a cripple suddenly a big news item, and why aren't the court officials more concerned with where Jesus ran off to? Something isn't quite fitting the picture.

The gospel of John deviates greatly from the other three gospels. Many have even wondered why it was included as one of the gospels in the first place. The book was written somewhere around 95 AD or even well after. There is no way that whoever wrote John was writing from eyewitness sources, as it was composed too late for any eyewitnesses to have been alive.

The famous story of Jesus and the prostitute, and the pharisees not "casting the first stone" as it were, was not even part of John's original gospel. Someone living much later added this story to John's narrative. No one today knows how or why it was added, but the earliest it seems to have appeared is somewhere around 400 or 500 AD.John is also the only gospel where Jesus turns water into wine at the wedding in Cana, the only gospel where Jesus gets pierced with a spear by a Roman guard to assure his death, and the only gospel where Jesus meets a Samaritan woman at the well.

Plus, there is another story in John that is completely separate from Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is the story of Jesus raising Lazaerous from the dead. Lazerous is thought to have been the mysterious "disciple" that Jesus loved, which is nowhere mentioned in the other three accounts of Jesus's life. The only time a "Lazerous" is mentioned is in a parable that's in Luke.

In Luke's account, Lazerous is a beggar who is taken up to heaven while the rich man goes to hell. According to Luke, Lazerous is nothing more than a fictional character. Except in John's gospel, Lazerous becomes real, and Jesus raises him from the dead. Why don't the other gospels mention this? It's because the other three gospel writers never knew about a real Lazerous.

The other famous character that is unique only of the book of John, is Nicodemus. When I was a kid, I would hear sermons in church about the humble and wise Nicodemus who sought after Jesus, and revered him as a great teacher. He has one of the most memorable conversations with Jesus - asking Jesus how one can be literally born-again. He makes three different appearances in John’s gospel - once meeting Jesus at night, meeting with members of the Sanhedrin, and finally after the crucifixion preparing Jesus’s body for burial. Yet, Matthew, Mark, and Luke never mention Nicodemus.

This is strange, considering what a prominent figure he is in John. He is after all, cast as a Pharisee, and a member of the Sanhedrin.

What is so striking is Nicodemus's participation of the embalming of Jesus's body, right along side of Joseph of Arimathea. It looks like two members of the Sanhedrin embalming Jesus in the same scene, would have been mentioned in at least one other gospel.

There are no historical sources for Nicodemus, and scholars have strained to find evidence for such a person. Some light has been cast on a few different possibilities, such as Nicodemus ben Gurion - a man mentioned in the Jewish Talmud about 40 years later. Nicodemus ben Gurion was said to be a man of great wealth and had certain powers.

It's possible that the character of Nicodemus was based on this man, but we don't even know if ben Gurion was real. It seems that in this case, you have fiction borrowing from other fiction. Despite any attempt to get to any accurate information about Nicodemus, it's best to conclude that Nicodemus is a non-historical character - written in as part of John' s gospel to add depth to the story. We must admit that John's gospel is mostly the stuff of legend.

Strange Additions and Altered Meanings

Whatsmore, we have something really interesting going in Matthew. In his birth narrative of Jesus, he uses the word "virgin" to mean an actual virgin - a woman who has never been with a man. The Greek word for this distinctive term is "parthenos." The word parthenos means literally for a woman to have no prior sexual relations.

This is usually where the story ends for most churches. But the prophecy that Matthew is borrowing from in Isaiah, is a passage where the word for virgin has a different meaning - it's word in Hebrew called "almah" which simply means "young woman." The general consensus among scholars is that Matthew made a translation mistake, and that the prophecy of a messiah in the old testament, contradicts the type of "virgin" that is being talked about in the New Testament. If this is correct, and it seems to hold up pretty well - then the gospel has a whole new conundrum on it's hands - one that involves a virgin who was never impregnated through divine means.

We can’t forget about poor old John the Baptist, either. This character in the New Testament provides himself as more of a backdrop for everything that’s going on until you wake up and realize what John the Baptist is really up to. He is basically a separate religious sect all his own, one that is more distant than mainstream Christianity. The following that John the Baptist had, eventually tied to a Gnostic group called the “Mandeans” and they have included him as a major figure in the Mandean cult, that still exists to this day.

The ending of Mark, was an embarrassing moment for me. I was shocked to find out that Mark originally had no ending, and it wasn't until a century or so later that some scribe added on the ending that we read in our bible's today. The last twelve verses of Mark are indeed a little twisted, and out of character for the Jesus of Mark. This Jesus acts more like the Jesus in John, where he utters all kinds of strange abnormalities.

In Mark's strange ending we get instructions from Jesus that if you are a follower of him, you can lay hands on people and heal them, plus you will be able to drink poison and it will not harm you. You will also be able to handle snakes, and they won't harm you either.......at least if you're a Christian. No Christian I know has done these things. It's almost like Jesus is playing the role of the "kids, don't try this at home" type of character.

For certain theologians, the ending of Mark is no problem at all. Yet for some strange reason, it was for me. There was something in my mind I just couldn't get past. If this was supposed to be a divine, authoritative book from god - then why would he allow a complete stranger to sabotage the text by writing things in it that Jesus never said?

Some will argue that these verses were originally in the margins of the early manuscripts, and a scribe just assumed that it should be there - so it got written in. There were many things in the margins of copied pages that never were copied in the text. Why the exception for Mark? It doesn't make sense and in summery, we would have to admit that the last twelve verses of Mark appear to be forged. Whoever the scribe was, should have known better.

How could we forget about Jesus predicting his second coming? He said it himself in Matthew 24:34 "Truly I tell you, This generation shall not pass away, until all of these things are seen." It's a mind-blowing discovery, when you first think about it, but unless you are a hardcore conservative, evangelical scholar, then you are probably going to admit that Jesus meant to return in the lifetime of his apostles.

Every time the the second coming is alluded to, it's always stamped with the attitude of urgency, like the end is very near. It was clear that the writers of the New Testament definitely thought that Jesus was going to return in their lifetime. It has been the same for every generation since then - scads of Christians since the time of Jesus believe that their generation is the one that will usher in the apocalypse. We need to finally let go of end times theology, and admit that there is probably no second coming. It ain't gonna happen, folks. Even world-famous Christian theologian NT Wright, agrees with this position.

Chasing a Historical Ghost

All of these matters make the gospels of the New Testament difficult to trust as history, but it is history itself, that is really damaging to church tradition. Despite Christian claims of Jesus’s miracles and his reputation being firmly cemented in antiquity, the fact is that the life of Jesus and his resurrection wasn’t documented by ONE secular writer in Jerusalem at the time of his ministry or even long after.

If Jesus really did these amazing things, then everything he did comes crashing down to the silent, historical, thud of no one caring. The indifferent silence cannot be explained away by apologists, or biblical historians - no matter how hard they try. This embarrassing fact has constantly been dodged by the faithful for centuries. Even so, this isn't a problem for most Christians, because most Christians don't seem to be aware that the problem even exists.

The first person to mention Jesus outside the bible is Josephus - a Jewish scholar, in 95 AD. He actually mentions Jesus twice, but most scholars now think this other paragraph which mentions Jesus is a forgery, because it's totally out of character with Josephus's writing style. This discovery hasn't been good for Christianity.

Christians will often call this as the “Argument from Silence.” They simply shrug it away, often citing that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or that the argument from silence is not a good one. Well, that depends doesn’t it? If Jesus was only a backstreet preacher who had a small following, then no - the argument from silence would not be good. History could have easily passed over such a person. Yet, Jesus is depicted as the son of god, who did miracles, stirred up political tension, caused riots, healed the blind people, raised people from the dead, and finally was resurrected himself.

Is the argument from silence really a bad one, if Jesus is supposed to be the most extraordinary human to ever live? Islam claims that Muhammad split the moon in half, and flew up to heaven on a winged horse. Those are pretty extraordinary events. Don't you think the lack of evidence for these things, might cause Christians to dismiss it? It sure doesn't seem to be a problem for devout Muslims. For them, lack of evidence is no big deal at all. Muslims would call your lack of evidence, an argument from silence.

I was told by certain apologists that the reason for the silence is because certain historians were only allowed to write what the government told them to. I bought this explanation for many years until I dug deeper into the subject, and found out even though there were secular writers who only wrote about government interests, there were others who wrote independently of the government and documented anything and everything that came out of Jerusalem, Rome, Egypt, and Greece.

You can say that there were things that some of these writers did not record that took place, and that's fine. However, if Jesus caused such a hullabaloo, as the gospels say he did, then it would have been near impossible for most writers to ignore, even government ones.

Justus of Tiberias was a Jewish historian that lived right up the road from Nazareth in the mid-first century. Very little of his work, if any survives, but other ancient writers mention him. He was also personal secretary to King Agrippa II. For someone of this stature not to mention anything about Jesus, is very strange indeed.

Nicolaus of Damscas was a tutor to Cleopatra and Marc Antony, and he knew King Herod personally. If King Herod massacred all infants when Jesus was born, then Nicolaus would have very likely recorded it, and even if he kept it secret, he would have certainly known about the wise men who came to Herod's court to tell Herod about this new messiah. Some of his works are still in tact, and if the birth of Jesus was really supremely important, then it looks like he would have made time to mention it in his writings.

In the midst of all of this, the one person that would have been the most likely to mention Jesus was Philo of Alexandria, who was a writer, commentator, and philosopher. Unlike many writers of the 1st century, much of his work still survives - about thirty books worth. He wrote extensively about life in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus, including any new religion that came along. He spent a lot of time in Jerusalem, and had family ties that were very strong in Judea.

He would have been the perfect historical eye-witness to Jesus. He had every opportunity to be present in Jerusalem - right there in the center of the action. He would have known about Jesus's miracles and his resurrection, or at least some stories that were circulating. Despite Philo's in-depth writings about Jewish life and events, we get absolutely nothing from him about Jesus. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

Make no mistake, according to the gospel writers, Jesus was famous. He had huge crowds numbering in the thousands - following him wherever he went. During his ministry, he caused quite the stir. He turned water into wine, walked on water, did miracles, raised the dead, had controversial teachings, was crucified, rose from the dead himself, caused supernatural darkness when he was on the cross, ripped the temple curtain in half, caused Jerusalem to hail him as king and then turn against him, and caused the dead bodies of ancient people to rise out of their graves and walk around the city.

According to scripture, Jesus's fame spread and far and wide throughout Syria. He rubbed shoulders with important people including synagogue officials, and royal officials. Only no one seemed to notice, or care enough to document it. Why wouldn't the son of god not see to it, that he had solid historical evidence for himself? If you are a Christian, then at the very least, you have to admit - the silence is EXTREMELY bizarre.

The writer Seneca from Rome, published a huge volume on Religion in the first century not too long after Jesus died. This was called “On Superstition” and was a collection of writings lambasting just about every single religious sect at that time, Jewish or otherwise. Still, Christianity is not mentioned ANYWHERE. How could this be, if Christianity suddenly flourished throughout the Roman empire?

It goes to show that Christian converts may have been far fewer than we realize in the early stages. Of course there were many historians that documented Christianity and Jesus much later including Tacitus, Pliny, and Eusibeius, but this was long after Christianity was established. As far as the first century is concerned - we have next to nothing. The only thing we have are the four gospel writers and Paul's letters, but no sources outside of the bible.

If you are a believer, you are faced with two choices: To keep on telling yourself that there is a mysterious reason for the historical silence, or........is it possible that the Jesus of the gospels wasn't the superhero that he was purported to be?

It completely blows my mind that most Christians go about their daily lives, completely unaware that these problems are lurking right beneath the surface of their long-cherished tradition.

The Lateness of the Gospels

Christian scholars will often cite other ancient famous people in history who's lives were documented way after they existed, such as, Socrates and Julias Ceaser. So how could they be any different than Jesus in that regard? The difference is, that these people also had evidence they existed during there own lifetime in some form including: coins that bare their image, personal diaries, a brief mention from at least one historian during their era, or barrels of wine with their name engraved on them - such as in Caligula's case.

The biggest example that Christian apologists love to use is the biography of Alexander the Great - written almost 500 years after his death. It was comprised of several books - all penned by an ancient historian named Arrian. It was largely considered one of the finest ancient biographies ever written, until recently. Further study suggests that Arrian may have made some mistakes in his sources and in his writing about Alexander, but far from being completely unreliable.

Spokesmen for Christianity will relentlessly beat this argument into the ground; that if people trust the biography of Alexander the Great, written 500 years after he existed, then people wouldn't have any problem trusting the gospels that were written a few decades after Jesus.

Yet the difference between the gospels and Alexander’s biography, is that a conqueror like Alexander never was reported doing miracles or claimed to bea god. Not only that.........there were historians that we know for a fact wrote about Alexander in the time that he lived, and accompanied the great warrior on many of his campaigns. These include Callisthenes of Olynthus, Anaximenes od Lampsacus, Aristobulus of Cassandreia, Eumenes of Cardia, and Nearchus. All of these men wrote about, and knew Alexander during their lifetime.

There is your difference between the biography of Alexander the Great and the gospels. We don't get anything in the gospel accounts that were written down in the time of Jesus. They were from a whole different era, late in the first century.

Yes, there were other famous figures in history that were not documented until long after they lived. But for the most part, we can still find evidence for them in the time in which they existed. Jesus is supposed to be the most famous person in history, and we still to this day, cannot find one historical source for him from the early first century, other than the bible. Only the gospel writers, and Paul's letters can account for any sort of Jesus existing, and that's only the COPIES we have. We don't even have the originals, and that's about as good as it gets.

If Jesus's miracles and resurrection are to be given proper merit, then we need historical corroboration OUTSIDE the bible from that era. This shouldn't be a problem, if Jesus was really who he claimed he was. The same criteria needs to be met for any other religion, or else it can't be considered historical. Christianity has always wanted a free pass in the peer-review department. It's something that has to be earned, in order to be taken seriously, and the bible has yet to earn it.

This is why the gospels and Acts are faith documents, not historical accounts. Sure, you had corroboration from different writers, but they were all first century Christians who were corroborating SCRIPTURE , not history. The only letters that we know Paul wrote are Romans, Corinthians, Galations, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. The rest of the books - Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, 1 and 2 Peter and Titus are all forgeries. 1 and 2 Peter were written in a high form of Greek, and have been dated in the 2nd century.

The disciple Peter, was a fisherman who spoke Aramaic and not Greek, and there is no way that Peter could have lived long enough to write it in the late first century, or early second.

The different types of Gospels floating around in this period were more than just the four Gospels we know. Like the Old Testament, there were many books that didn't make the cut. Some of these include the Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, and Gospel of Phillip. There was also the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which was about the childhood of Jesus - composed in the second century. The point is, many of these later gospels were taken seriously by the church - for the first 300 years.

Some of these gospels were even endorsed by certain church fathers. Origin of Alexandria, and Irenaus, included the Shepard of Hermas as part of scripture. You may not see these books in your bible today, but at one point in history they were passed around, and read by the church. This leads into my discovery that the gospels are primarily myth.

As you read the four different accounts of Jesus, you can see the progression from Mark the first gospel, all the way to John. Mark's Jesus is the most human. It portray's Jesus as very much a man, a great teacher, and he refers to himself as "the son of man" and does not want to go through with being crucified. Matthew's gospel elaborates a little more, and portrays Jesus as a very "Jewish" messiah. Luke goes a little further and has Jesus's reputation as a messiah built up even more -by adding the legendary account of Jesus as a kid running off to the temple into the story.

By the time you get to John, Jesus is superhuman - telling everyone that he is god at every opportunity, raising the dead, and not having any problem with dying on a cross, knowing that's what he came to do. Christians like to tell people that Jesus was the only human to proclaim himself as god, but it is only in the gospel of John where this is emphasized, which is the least reliable example. All throughout the four gospels, people do in fact refer to Jesus as "The Son of God" but where does Jesus say it about himself? That's right, nowhere beside John!

The divine aspect of Jesus gets ramped up with each gospel, until finally in John, it quotes “I and the father and one.” He never says anything like that in the other three gospels. When you stop and consider where Jesus got his divinity from, it’s easy to look at all four gospel writers and at least be able to see the progression.

In Mark, the first gospel - Jesus is a human who only gets his divine power after he is baptised in the Jordan river by John the baptist. Then in Matthew and Luke, we get the invention of birth narratives where Jesus is actually BORN divine. And finally in John, not only was Jesus born divine - he was always divine! Even in the eternity past, John chapter 1 makes it distinctively clear:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

This is also where the idea of the trinity comes into play. In the New Testament, there are actually four different books with the name John attached to them, or even five if you count Revelation. The gospel of John, and the epistles of John which contain 1st John, 2nd John, and 3rd John. In 1st John 5:7-8 there is a phrase which describes where the doctrine of the trinity had further evolved:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one."

This is famously known as "The Johannine Comma" and this verse is the one that most likely spurred more fuel for the trinity . Even if it did, the question is, was it always in the bible? The answer is probably, no. This verse was not found in the earliest Latin manuscripts and didn't find it's way into most bibles until the 15th century.

The early church writers such as Tertullian, Jerome, and Clement didn’t seem to even be aware of the Comma’s existence. This is further proof that what gets in the biblical cannon is decided upon by a religious hierarchy, not the common people. It is the common layman who is controlled, by the theological underpinnings of such a hierarchy.

In fact John's Jesus is so radically different than the other gospels, it is really the missing link between the synoptics and the later Gospel of Peter. The Gospel of Peter obviously did not get included, but it is thought to have been written not too long after the gospel of John, and includes even more elaborate stories such as a talking cross, and a Jesus that ascends hundreds of feet to heaven when he walks out of the tomb.

Other than a few other elaborate stark inventions, the rest of Peter is pretty much in alignment with the events from the original gospels, give or take a few details - such as the party of men instead of women who discovered the empty tomb.

My question is - if Peter's gospel is too elaborate to be included in the New Testament, then why did the gospel of John get included? If you can call the later gospels myths, then why would it be any more of a stretch to call John a myth? Better still, why can't the three original gospels be myth?

If you think that a story about a talking cross and Jesus rising hundreds of feet in the air is too crazy to be believed, then I can say that the saints coming out of their graves wondering around Jerusalem is too crazy to be believed. I can say that a guy who turned water into wine, or filling pigs with demons is too elaborate to be included. How is Jesus rising above the clouds after exiting his tomb any more strange than a bodily ascension into the clouds?

Over time, it's easy to see the way they progressed and the way a very human Jesus turns into a extremely God-like Jesus, and from there, a superman Jesus. The fact that John is not part of the three synoptic gospels, is very telling, in terms of the bias, power and control of the church. If everything that was written after John is considered legend, because it was a departure from the originals, then John should be considered legend.

Many apologists like to make the case that the gospels couldn't have been made up in any part, because the early disciples would have still been around to "fact check" anything that went into the gospel writings. Only, this is far from accurate. We know just from reading Paul that some of the apostles were already dying off in the mid-first century when he says. "most who are still living though some have fallen asleep."

By the time the gospels were written a couple of decades later - what are the odds that most of them still would have been around to fact check anything? The average life span then was only about half of what it is now. Plus we don't even know where the gospels were actually written. Some scholars think they were penned not too far from Judea, while other NT experts say they were written as far away as Rome, or Alexandria. If this is true, how then did anything inside the gospels get fact checked?

There are even examples of Christian history that were NOT fact checked at all, and yet it went into writing.

Eye-Witness Accounts? Says Who?

Irenaeus of Lyons claimed that Jesus was crucified at the age of 49 - during the time of emperor Claudius. He claimed to have learned this information from people who were early Christians in the Roman province of Asia. These early Christians from Asia in turn,claimed to have learned this information from John son of Zebedee and other apostles. Now it seems to me, that someone isn't telling the truth.

If Jesus was age 33 when he died, and not 49, then the early apostles would have known and would have been able to debunk such a claim.

If the early Christians in Asia got their information wrong, then someone could have fact checked it with the original apostles. If Irenaeus is lying, then he could have been corrected by the early Christians. It's easy to see that even in the time of early eyewitness testimonies that were still circulating, information could change, be twisted, and exaggerated. Scholars today conclude that Irenaeus was guilty of historical fraud. I rest my case.

It must be stressed that the information coming from eye-witnesses about Jesus could have been altered over time, and made their way into the gospels, and accepted as fact by the church. If it can happen to Irenaeus, then you would have to admit it's plausible for the gospels.

It's also obvious that the gospel writers used pagan influences from ancient myths and injected it heavily into their stories. The resurrection was taken from mythical figures such as Romulous, Inanna, Zalmoxis, Baal, and Tammuz. Jesus's resurrection was indeed a little different, but the earlier influences provided the right ingredients. Turning water into wine for example, comes from Dionesys. Walking on water is easily influenced by Posidon and Orion. Having a betrayer like Judas, is a literary device in myth-making.

The gospels are often talked about by theologians that put them in the category of "Greco-Roman biogaphy" as though that title somehow gives the New Testament more reliability. But is Greco-Roman biography always historical? The answer is an obvious no of course, but that being said - it doesn't always mean that they were complete fiction either.

This presents a problem that we don't get in modern biography. A biography in the modern sense can pretty much be fact-checked, and understood in the way we see evidence in this day and age. Not so for ancient biographies. Most of them were not written for the sake of historical accuracy, but for the sake of spreading an idea about a person. It's the idea that counted in the ancient world - not exact events.

This is why it's good to pay attention to the possible insertions of mythical influences when it comes to Jesus, and there are tons of them. I'm not saying that the gospel writers deliberately borrowed from every myth out there in order to write their stories. All I'm getting at is that there are certain elements that were probably influenced by myth, to create more of a backdrop, or even develop the character of Jesus further.

For example, Buddha was revered to walk on water hundreds of years before the Gospels. It was also believed that Buddha had the power to walk through walls, as is imitated by Jesus in the book of John. Buddha also healed the sick, and had disciples. The goddess Inanna was said to have gone into the underworld for three days and three nights before she came back up to the surface.

Even though these ancient gods were not resurrected in the same way as Jesus, the whole idea of coming back to life after death was around long before Christianity, and long before Judaism. Jesus was just the latest and improved-upon development in the ancient world of resurrection myths. No, the parallels are not the same but that's how stories work. One embellishes on another's idea. It would have been miraculous in itself if every myth ever made up by man had the exact same parallels. The gospel writers simply worked with the templates that came before, and put their own twist on it.

During the period when the gospels were written, there were many different mystery faiths and religions that were running rampant. These included Mithra cults, Isis cults, and different Gnostic faiths. Apologists love to point out that these mystery faiths came way after Jesus, but they never talk about the ones that came before - particularly that of Isis and Orpheus mystery traditions.

The most widely criticized of the ancient mystery cults from the first century, where the Gnostic religions invaded theological territory. We don't know the true the origins of Gnosticism, or how far it goes back, but it's apparent that it was around as early as the mid to late first century. This was around the time of the gospels, and some scholars whether they are right or wrong - have suggested that John was written late enough to be influenced by early Gnosticism.

Earlier Messiahs and Other Influences

The teachings of Jesus about forgiveness, loving your neighbor, and the golden rule may seem revolutionary at first glance, but the fact is many of these same teachings can be seen in religions long before it including, Hinduism, Buddism, and Taoism. The Golden Rule was around long before Jesus, and has been practiced by many ancient cultures from around the world.

An ancient stele called the stele of Piye, displays a story of an Ancient Kushite King who conquers the cities of Hermopolis and Memphis in Egypt. The stele reveals that he forgave his enemies, and sought to avoid bloodshed - quite unique traits for a king. If the idea of forgiveness was around before Jesus, then you can bet that love and peace were around before Jesus as well.

There were many messiah figures at the same time as Jesus, or long before and at least two of them have potential for influencing the gospel writers. One is the story of Jesus Ben Ananius written by Josephus somewhere around the late 60's in the first century. Jesus Ben Ananius was a farmer who prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem a few years before the Jewish War.

He was then turned over to the Romans by the Jewish leaders, who then tortured him. The procurator named Ablinus released released him. This story was written somewhere around the exact time that Mark would have been written, and this might be the source for Jesus's famous prediction that the temple would be destroyed.

Simon of Periah is another candidate messiah of sorts, who happened to exist in BC. Josephus mentions him briefly:

"There was also Simon, who had been a slave of king Herod, but in other respects a comely person, of a tall and robust body; he was one that was much superior to others of his order, and had had great things committed to his care. This man was elevated at the disorderly state of things, and was so bold as to put a diadem on his head, while a certain number of the people stood by him, and by them he was declared to be a king, and he thought himself more worthy of that dignity than any one else."

This whole idea of a diadem, and being some sort of messianic figure could have found it's way into the writings of Mark or the other gospel accounts. Maybe it had nothing to do with it at all, but I guess we'll never know. I consider at least a possibility, and an interesting one.

With so many messiahs coming and going, all claiming to be the savior of Israel - then why did Jesus get so big and not the others? My conclusion is that with myths, the historical Jesus may have been one person - but the divine Jesus was a cornucopia of several identities. In other words, the Jesus in the gospels was a compiled plurality of more than one legendary messiah - or even several messiahs. The mythical Jesus was simply an embodiment of an idea or a development - an idea that was comprised of several influences.

Christians love to point out that Jesus hated religious hypocrisy when he had his run-in from time to time with the Pharisees. The Pharisees are presented in the gospels as some of the most elite, stuck-up, and zealous religious practitioners of their day. It seems that Jesus was always at odds with the Pharisees - but there is way more going on when you take a deeper look into the whole situation.

The Pharisees were basically divided into two different factions - the Hillelites and the Shammites. It was actually the Shammite Pharisees that Jesus was more against because much like the political parties of today, the Hillelite Pharisees were way more liberal and more about helping the poor, where as the Shammites were more about the rich and putting on a religious front. The arguments that took place between these two camps were sometimes recorded and written down.

Many Christians will be surprised to know that a lot of the criticisms Jesus made about the Shammites, echoes almost exactly what the Hillelites said in response to them. Jesus then, was more or less being cast as a Hillelite Pharisee in the New Testament. Again, we find that many of Jesus's teachings were not original, and his conversations were taken from other sources.

Jesus said, "Ye seek to kill me" (John 8:37). The Jewish Talmud calls the Zealots murderers also (Mishnah Sotah 47A). Josephus calls the Zealots robbers and murderers (Wars 2:13:2-3; 7:8:269-273). Matthew 15 has the Pharisees complaining to Jesus that his disciples do not wash their hands before eating. Luke 11:37 relates that a Pharisee invited Jesus for a meal, and was surprised that Jesus didn't wash his hands first. Bet Shammai taught that the hands must be washed before filling the cup of wine, whereas Bet Hillel ruled that the washing should take place later, before partaking of the bread. Should it be any surprise then, that the gospels have a political thread running through them?

The borrowings from such sources to complete the character of Jesus in the New Testament may have been nuanced, and in some cases over-hyped. After all, we don't know for certain that the gospel authors intended for Jesus to deliberately have the same qualities as pagan gods and goddesses. This can be argued either way. But there is one source that we can say with almost absolute certainly the gospel writers copied directly from, and it's right under people' noses - the Old Testament. There are too many parallels from the OT to just simply ignore.

Consider the story of Moses. Moses is born into a situation where the Pharoh orders a mass killing of infants under the age of 2, so he is smuggled into a basket. In Jesus's time, Herod orders a mass killing of Hebrew infants under the age of 2, and he is smuggled out of Bethlehem to Egypt according to Luke.

Moses came out of Egypt. Jesus came out of Egypt.

Moses was a Hebrew Levite. Jesus was a Hebrew Levite.

Moses received the 10 commandments from God on Mount Sinai. Jesus reinterpreted the 10 commandments from God in his Sermon on the Mount.

Moses went through the wilderness for 40 years. Jesus went through the wilderness for 40 days.

There were 12 tribes of Israel. Jesus had 12 disciples.

In summery, Jesus is basically being cast in the gospel accounts as the new Moses. But the parallels with the Old Testament don't stop there. In the book of 1st Kings the new prophet Elisha is baptized along with the other prophet Elijah, in by crossing the Jordan. In the NT, Jesus is baptized in the Jordan by John the baptist.

Ezekiel and Peter in Acts both share a story about the heavens opening up, and a voice commands them to eat unclean food. Both have a vision of seeing animals birds, and reptiles in the sky. In Peter's vision, a voice says, "Peter, kill and eat!" In Ezekiel’s vision god tells him to "eat a scroll." Not literally of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did in fact mean to eat a literal scroll. It is the bible after all.

In Judges 13, an angel appears to Samson's father Manoa and tells him, "you will have a son" just like in the New Testament where an angel tells Mary the exact same thing. Abraham almost goes through with sacrificing his son on a mountain. In the NT, god actually sacrifices his son on a hill. There literally dozens more to work with, but you get the idea. Acts 10:40 makes it clear that only a few select people saw the risen Jesus:

"But God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen."

Why didn't any of Jesus's enemies see him resurrected? Why not the people who were at his trial, Pontius Pilate or Herod? I have not heard one good Christian argument for this. Better yet, why not just show yourself to everyone in Israel? Or everyone in the world? But.......that would just be too much proof that the bible is true, and we couldn't possibly have that. No way.

Jesus held far more favoritism towards his own people than most Christians would like to believe. It's quite apparent that since Jesus was Jewish, he didn't seem to want to minister to anyone outside of that realm. He even told his own disciples not to go to any town that wasn't Jewish including the verse in Matthew 10:5 where he quotes:

“Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

He strictly makes it clear that he doesn't want his disciples going anywhere near the Samaritans, but this seems completely contradictory from the scene in John's gospel where in John 4:4 - Jesus talks with a Samaritan woman at the well.

"The woman said to him, 'I know that Messiah is coming. When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.' Jesus said to her, 'I am he, the one who is speaking to you."

Jesus gets even more strident when talking about people in the Jewish towns who won't listen to his apostles in Matthew 10:14:

"And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town."

Why such harsh judgement for people who just weren't interested? Doesn't seem like that much of a crime to me. For a first century Jew who claimed to be god (at least in the book of John) it's awfully funny for a guy who excludes the Gentiles and makes his message strictly for the Jews.

In spite of this, the “apostle” Paul had different ideas.

Paul: Apostle or Opportunist?

According to his seven authentic letters, Paul converted to Christianity within the first few years of it's rise. A former persecutor of Christians, he had his famous overnight conversion on the road to Damascus where he saw Jesus in a blinding vision, evidently along with some fellow travelers - depending on how one interprets the story. But was Paul a real apostle? The requirement for someone to be an apostle in the first century was that you had to have known Jesus in the time that he lived. You had to be a part of the "in-group" of apostles that included Peter, James, and John.

Paul did not meet either of these requirements and since he didn't, he had to stake his claim another way. He had to work harder than everyone else in order to get the word out. When he went on his journeys, he claimed he was an apostle because of his hardships. Because he claimed to have worked harder than the others, in his mind he was more than viable for apostleship. In short, Paul was an imposture who crashed a party he was never invited to -hijacking early Christianity. If Jesus was playing the role of the new Moses, then it must be at least entertained that Paul was acting as a second Jesus.

It is crystal clear what Paul thinks of the other apostles in verses like 2nd Corinthians 11:13:

"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, distinguishing themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. It is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness."

Paul certainly did not know that there were going to be any future gospels. If you went back in time, and started talking to him about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then he wouldn’t have the slightest clue as to what you were talking about. Not only that, but Paul would condemn you for believing in any other gospel besides his own as he makes clear in Galatians 1:6:

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel.....But even if we, or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one that I preached, let him be damned!"

While taking note on Paul's legendary temperament it's interesting to observe how much more superior he thought he was to the other apostles:

"Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one - I am talking like a madman - with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death." - 2nd Corinthians 11:22

"I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing." - 2nd Corinthians 12:11

"Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our lord? Even if I am not an apostle to the others, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship to the lord." - 1 Corinthians 9:2

Why I wonder, does Paul need to continue to have to make a ferocious defense of his apostleship? It is very telling that something is afoot here. Were the other apostles starting to question him? Was he under suspicion by the Jerusalem authorities?

Paul says to have had a vision of Jesus, something that anyone could have claimed at that time. He also had a different agenda; spreading the message to the Gentiles. It's clear that right from the get-go, Paul wants to do things his own way. Christianity in it's embryonic stages was a strict Jewish sect, something that was still part of the traditional religion. Paul was the first missionary to make Christianity into it's own faith, and to make a complete break from Judaism.

He did this by marketing the new faith like no one had ever seen. And to make sure that his ideas had sway, and to build his vision for what Christianity would eventually become - Paul had to have an intimidating way of overseeing things. Before Paul had his vision, he was exerting his authority over Christians by persecuting them.

After Paul converted to Christianity - he still exerted his authority over Christians, only in a different way. He was an authoritarian, arrogant, and egocentric in just about every sense possible. Anyone who didn't conform to his ideas, was thrown out of the church, and his threats became intense.

"I have confidence in the lord that you will take no other view than mine, and that the one troubling you will bear his condemnation, whoever he is!" - Galations 5:10

In other words, Paul is saying that if you don't agree with him, you're basically condemned. Paul was making a list and checking it twice. You would either be banished from the church, scolded, or shunned, and if you tried to challenge his authority in any way, you would be dealt with harshly by getting an unpleasant visit. Any church who got audited by Paul found themselves in hot water. Paul had temper tantrums and his emotional rants often resulted in inflammatory outbursts if you had the slightest deviation from his theology. Don't like it? That's it, too bad, you're out.

“Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them” - Romans 16:17

"If anyone considers himself an apostle or a spiritual one, then let him acknowledge that what I write to you is a command of the lord. If anyone disregards this, then he is disregarded." - 1st Corinthians 14:37

“Purge the evil person from among you.” - 1st Corinthians 5:13

"I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did then when I was there on my second visit, that if I come again I will not spare them - since you want proof that Christ is speaking through me." - 2nd Corinthians 13:2

" For even if I boast of our authority, I will not be put to shame." - 2nd Corinthians 10:8

"I write this while I am away from you, in order that when I come I my not have to be severe in my use of authority that the lord has given me for building up and not tearing down." - 2nd Corinthians 13:10

You heard the man. If he has to come back there a second time, then you've bought yourself a pack of explosives. To be fair, Paul does have moment of humbleness when he describes his mission in 1st Corinthians:

"For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."

He admits that he does not deserved to be called an apostle, however his reason is because he persecuted the church of god, not because of his lack of qualifications. Except in the next line, he starts to get a little cocky again when he says, "I worked harder than all of them." Any humbleness or mild mannerisms that Paul might have had, was fleeting to say in the least.

The whole idea of Paul acting as a one-man magisterium cannot be underestimated, but there are other sentiments about Paul's career that are more telling when it comes to ideas about the historical Jesus. For instance, Paul never mentions things about Jesus's life that are recorded in the gospels - not just tiny details, but very important aspects of Jesus's ministry.

He NEVER once mentions a virgin birth, divine miracles, Mary or Joseph, Nazereth, Herod or Ceasar, shepherds or wisemen, or anything about a star over Bethlehem.

In addition to Paul's silence on these issues we also get nothing about John the Baptist, the three year ministry of Jesus that included the sermon on the mount, healings, exorcisms, throwing the money changers out of the temple, or anything about Jesus being arrested in the garden.

To have several details about Jesus's life absent from Paul's writings would have been understandable, as you can't expect him to include everything. However, there is a pattern here that cannot be ignored if we're to be honest. There is simply too much being left out to say that an argument from silence fails.

Instead we get Paul going in a completely different direction with Jesus, and that's a Jesus who really doesn't play a huge role in this world. He mentions the crucifixion and the resurrection but those are really the only things that are consistent throughout Paul's writings. Other than those two main details, we get a smattering of very odd teachings about Paul's Jesus that even contradict the teachings of Jesus himself.

Jesus taught that the father was greater than him. Paul taught that Jesus is equal to the father.

Jesus taught that the "Lord God" was one lord. Paul taught that god existed as three persons. (the trinity)

Jesus taught that by himself he could do nothing. Paul taught that Jesus is all-powerful.

Jesus taught that he didn't come to abolish the law. Paul taught that Jesus abolished the law with all of it's commandments and regulations.

There are more, but those are a few of the main contradictory teachings of Paul's brand of Christianity. His other claims about Jesus appear to be mysterious and dubious - casting a huge shadow over the more earthly Jesus of the gospels. These include:

Jesus as the great high priest who has passed through the heavens - Hebrews 9:15, 13:20, 4:14

Jesus disarming angels - Colossians 2:15, Ephesians 3:10

Jesus descending into the lower parts of the earth and preaching to imprisoned spirits - Ephesians 4:8

Jesus dwells in the fullness of the godhead - Colosians 2:9

Paul also goes as far as to say that in Phillip 2:7 Jesus "made of himself no reputation." And in Romans 10:14 we get a very curious passage that reads:

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?"

It sounds like Paul is saying is that Jesus never had a big reputation, but this absolutely contradicts the gospels! In the gospels Jesus is completely the opposite, with everyone hearing about his miracles far and wide. It's true that Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. Aside from the one-time vision he claims to have had from Jesus, where else is he getting all of this extra information? For Paul, the answer is simple - by way of revelation.

In 1st Corinthians, Paul condemns divorce, with mo mention of the exception that Jesus made - which according to Jesus, divorce was permissible if there was unfaithfulness involved. Paul makes no exception here, and in addition says that there are no options for the wife if she divorces her husband other than to come back to him:

"To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."

The only permission Paul gives to Christians about divorce is that if you are married to an unbeliever and they leave you, then "let it be so," but evidently it's not allowed for Christians. Paul claims he gets this information none other than divine authority that he received from the lord.

It's ironic how he never says he gets this information from Jesus, and yet Jesus was the one that appeared to him. Indeed, Paul never makes any attempt to to say that he learned his gospel from the original apostles or anyone else. With the exception of the 1st Corinthians creed, everything seems to be revealed to him supernaturally as he writes in Romans 15:18:

"I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me."

In 2nd Corinthians:

"I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord."

Well, there you have it. Paul simply had a different theology, mission, and attitude than Jesus himself. Whatever prompted Paul to do what he did, it definitely didn't come from the Jesus that lives inside the gospels. It came from the Jesus that lived inside of Paul's head. Other than his seven authentic letters and the historically pitiful book of Acts, we really don't know that much about Paul. There is no information outside the bible about him, unless you want to go with questionable material that exits in the writings of early church fathers and mysterious letters.

I also have to ask, along with any skeptic - why did all of the prophecy, miracles, healings, and speaking in tongues stop with the apostles? This has always seemed suspicious to me. Why cut it off with the first century? Why doesn't god or the "holy Spirit" work through anyone who believes in him? Why are the apostles so special just because they got to hang out with Jesus? This could have been resolved by giving any Christian the power to do what the apostles did, and it would have cleared a lot of these Cessationist arguments up. Why should it be so confusing?

The Tensions of the Early Church

It's very interesting to ponder why any god would invent two different religions for the same holy book, only to be pitted against each other - causing bigotry, tribalism, anger, and accusations of heresy. Think about how long it took Judaism to develop- over a thousand years. If you don't believe the bible you can't be clear on what the origins Judaism actually were, but we know for sure that it did not evolve the same way Christianity did.

How could a god expect his own people to suddenly adopt a new belief system over the old one that had already been in place for over a thousand years? Why try to tamper with something and then change it up in the middle of history? An all-powerful god would not have to have people swap religions so they could believe in his son.

If Jesus is really part of the eternal trinity, then what would have been wrong with having god's son as part of traditional Judaism, instead of having people like Paul coming along and changing things? Why did god think that Christianity was a good idea, if it was going to cause friction among Jews - his chosen people? Like I've said before- the only way for all of this to make sense, is if the whole thing was invented by man. Only man could invent this level of confusion.

While we're on the subject of confusion, church history does us no favors in the department of clarity. The Council of Nicea that convened in 325 AD, came together specifically to clear up an extremely problematic issue - to come to an agreement on how divine Jesus was. It was in fact, about as dumb as it sounds. A priest named Arius in Alexandria started causing some tension, when he began to spread the belief that Jesus was not as divine as god, was not eternal, and was created by god.

Therefore, according to Arius - Jesus was second to god. But evidently, this kind of theology caused surrounding churches to feel threatened. The controversy got so heated that they finally had the council meet, and Arius was defeated by a landslide. The ending resulted in what is known today as the Niceen Creed which reads:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible."

Constantine presided over the council, and did so just because he was more interested in uniformity. His goal was for the church to unite and become stronger under one banner of belief, like his beloved empire. I don't think for one minute, that Constantine would have cared if the decision was flipped in the other direction. If the Arian view would have won out, then everyone would have gone home just as happy.

Truth didn't matter in these situations - only agreement mattered. What the church decides is what it decides, because it's the church.

Once the ball of hierarchy gets rolling, it's hard to stop it. As the church's power became inflated, so did their controversies. Another big source of tension in the 700's AD, for the church involved the "Iconocalst Controversy" which is where there was heated debate over whether one should include symbols and images in their church. I kid you not. This all stemmed from the Ten Commandments where it says, "Thou shalt not make graven imgaes." This debate went on for nearly a hundred years.

Many early church fathers held certain beliefs that by today's Christian standards, would be considered heretical. These early bishops that are often held up by the church as great examples of apostolic faith, but little do most Christians know that the earliest writings by the founders of the Christian church were often plagued with plagiarism, forgery, deceit, myths, heresy and lies. When you really look back on the beginnings of church history, you will start to find out there really is no such thing as "Orthodox."

Since there was so much confusion and disagreement on what to believe in earlier times, "traditional faith" is actually something that came much later. When a Christian tells you that they believe as the "traditional church fathers" believed, then you should ask them - which particular one?

St. Ignatius of Antioch - was one of the first fathers, and most of what we know about him comes from forged letters in his name.

St. Justin Martyr - believed that Christ was worshiped in the "second rank", and the Holy Spirit in the "third rank". This view is now considered heretical by most churches.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons - held the view that Jesus died as a ransom paid to Satan.

St. Clement of Alexandria - held Gnostic views, denying that Christ had experienced the physical passions of an ordinary man and had no human desire.

Tertullian - adopted Montanist views, which came to be considered heretical, and held that the orthodox line was the heretical one. He accused bishops of Rome of the Sabellian heresy, the doctrine that Father, Son, and Spirit represent different states (or modes or aspects) of a single god at different times. He was also extremely bigoted towards women calling a woman "the gateway of the devil."

Origen of Alexandria - held that all beings will eventually be saved, even Satan himself. Does that sound like something you grew up with in church?

Eusebius of Caesarea - said that Jesus shared the glory of God, but only in the sense that the saints shared the same glory.

The book of Revelation has been one of the most important books in church theology today. Many people wrap their lives around it, waiting for a second coming. I for one, think that Revelation is the most dangerous book of the bible, because it causes people to believe in terrible ideas and ways of thinking - even to the point of infiltrating governments with the vile teachings that are found in the last book.

It was written at a time during Christian persecution to give the church hope - but instead it has done nothing but given a lot of people anxiety and fear over the end of the world. The world would be a better place if Revelation would never have been canonized in the New Testament. Most Christians today, would tell me that I'm just being judgmental of their holy book.

As far as we can tell, a lot of early Christians would take my side. The truth of the matter is, Revelation almost didn't make the cut - that's how unpopular it originally was. No one knows about the author, but scholars are pretty sure it wasn't John the apostle. The Eastern Christian church still rejects revelation as canonical, and it's acceptance was a bitter struggle all the way up until the 15th century. The Apocalypse of Peter was actually far more popular at the time, but because hell wasn't eternal in Peter's Apocalypse, it didn't sit well for the hierarchy that believed in eternal damnation.

The doctrine of Calvinism, created by John Calvin - was a different brand of theology. Calvin was a protestant who had another fellow Christian executed, simply by disagreeing with him over the trinity. Micheal Servetus was a scientist who had his own ideas that challenged Calvin's, but Calvin didn't take kindly to what he considered blasphemy of his views. What did Calvin do? He had Micheal Servetus burnt at the stake. As Calvin quotes:

"I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed on him; but I desired that the severity of the punishment be mitigated."

Calvin tried to be nice by saying that he would rather that Servatus not die, but in the end just got too confident with his doctrinal axe that he couldn't resist. It's just another classic case of Christian butthurt. John Calvin just couldn't live with the fact that there was one other person out there who disagreed with him. Even Paul wasn't this extreme. To this day, I am still dumbfounded that there are Christians who call themselves Calvinists - naming themselves after a murderer, and so it goes.

The John Calvin ordeal plays largely into what many churches experience today in the way of conflicting theologies, and distrust among one's neighbors as to what correct way to view Christianity. Many Christians can't even agree on what spiritual experiences are authentic. The Baptists and non-denominations disagree with Charismatics and Pentecostles. If you have one church that teaches speaking in tongues isn't real, then you can find another one that will embrace it.

If one faith healer is considered real by one Christian, then another Christian will charge them as a fake, false healer. Some churches embrace meditation, while others condemn it as a tool of Satan. There are churches who baptise their congregants by dunking them only once, and then others think that it's blasphemy if you don't dunk them three times. You can even get criticized at some churches for not praying a certain way, while others may not even focus on prayer. It's a neverending, paranoid cycle of "us and them" that keeps on getting recycled.

Church tradition has long established dubious and false claims about the origins of their sacred scriptures. For example, it has always been assumed by most Christians that the four gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all written by men with those same names. It has long been stated that Mark was a travelling companion of Peter and interviewed him, Luke was a companion of Paul, Matthew was a tax collector who knew Jesus, and that John was an actual disciple of Jesus.

The Anonymous Gospels

The reality is - from what most scholars are able to tell, nobody knows who actually wrote the gospels. They are completely anonymous. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are only pen names that were added later, in the second century manuscripts. They do not appear in any earlier copies or fragments that we have. These assumptions are only the byproduct of church tradition - a position of power and influence in Christian culture to tell you what to believe. It is an attempt to fill in the gaps of knowledge, where nobody has answers.

The Oxford Annotaded Bible is another widely trusted, and respected source among scholars. In it's pages you will find this footnote:

“Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith. Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.”

- Oxford Annotaded Bible (p. 1744)

World renown Christian theologian, NT Wright states:

“I don’t know who the Gospel writers were and nor does anyone else.”

Dan Wallace, a theologian from Dallas theological seminary says:

"The Gospels were, in fact, anonymous to begin with. I think that’s a consensus of virtually all Biblical scholars."

Once and for all, we must admit that the gospels are in fact - anonymous.

This is where the biggest difference between church history and church tradition meet. What's the difference? Church history relies on facts. Church tradition pretends to know the facts.

It’s a matter of historical vs rhetorical. All too often, it is with much frustration that I report most average church goers, pastors, and elders think that the two schools of thought are one and the same, but it’s not accurate. Church history tells us what happened, or what was the most likely to have happened. Gospel tradition only relies on assumptions, stories, legends, and second hand sources.

If church history doesn’t have evidence for something, so be it. If Church tradition doesn’t have evidence for something, then it will stitch anything together to invent whatever evidence it can muster.

The fact is that even a lot of scholars get caught up in church tradition, learning what they've been taught in seminary, instead of questioning it. There are assertions that have been made about the bible and it's origins that have been around for so long - even some of the most respected theologians will still repeat them, regardless of how shady or unhistorical these claims might be. This is how religion has thrived throughout the ages. The masses have come to trust and assume the experts know things that in reality - they really don't know.

One of the biggest blunders that bible believers and apologists make, is to assume that the gospels are all eyewitness accounts - written by people who either knew Jesus, or they interviewed people who did. The truth is that the gospels have very little chance, if any at being eyewitness accounts. For one, if Jesus had real disciples then we have no idea how long they lived, and we especially don't know how old they were when they first met Jesus.

Jesus's disciples could have been in their late teens when they first started or in their late 30's. Even if most of them were the same age as Jesus, and had written the gospels they would have had to live into their late 70's, 80's and even 90's. The odds of people living that long back then was very rare.

Considering that the gospels were penned in an entirely different language than what the disciples spoke, and the likelihood of most of them being dead by the late first century - it leaves very little wiggle room to assert that these are the words of actual eyewitnesses. Where does that leave us?

It leaves us with second and third hand sources. It is assumed that the author of Mark knew Peter, but how do we really know? I don't buy the explanations that scholars often cite for why they think Peter knew Mark and some of them are that:

1. The writing style is consistent with Mark’s background.

2. The outline of the gospel is consistent with Peter’s outline.

3. Inclusions of the gospel are consistent with Peter’s influence.

Of course that raises more questions. How do we know what Mark's background is? What do they mean by Peter's OUTLINE? This isn't clear. And if Mark's gospel has inclusions that are consistent with Peter's influence, then where are the other sources for Peter's influence? The book of Acts? We know it's not a reliable source for history. The other gospels? They copied from Mark. Now we are back at square one. How do we know if the author of Mark's gospel used Peter as a source, when the only other source that we have for Peter are Acts and the other gospels which all copied from Mark?

This is where things really start to get circular. We see these same type of arguments for Luke being a traveling companion of Paul in the book of Acts, but once again, the book of Acts is mostly considered legends written about Peter and Paul - much of which contradicts Paul's writings. Scholars are divided on these issues, and many of them do not think the book of Acts is mostly historical.

We know the gospel of John is certainly NOT written by any eyewitnesses, and Matthew is definitely NOT written by Matthew the tax collector. We also know that 1st and 2nd Peter were not actually written by Peter - according to most experts. Peter, a mere fisherman would most likely not have been able to read and write, especially in the high form of Greek that 1st and 2nd Peter are written in.

Again, we are running out of fuel here. Where is the evidence? The gospels are all written in third person, are all completely anonymous, and all rely on second and third hand information. They don't list any sources other than the so-called eye witnesses that are inside the stories, which could have easily been written or made up by anyone. There is no good indication of where the gospel writers are getting their sources other than poorly-assumed theories about Peter and Paul, which have never been proven.

This is why church tradition provides a comfortable backdrop for believers. It needs to be there in order for Christianity to survive. For those of us who know better, church history is the real tool we should be using instead of relying on tradition. It's time to face the fact that the argument for eye-witness testimony for the gospels, never gets off the ground. There should only be one question that skeptics even need to ask - where did the gospel writers get their information, and how do we know that information is reliable? It's as simple as that. I do not know of one argument for the "eye-witnesses" of the gospels that doesn't become circular.

The reason for this, is because we have no other sources from the early first century besides the bible. Theologians love to claim how the gospels are four different sources, but are they? Matthew copies Mark almost word for word much of the time, and Luke borrows extensively from both Matthew and Mark. And John borrows from all three, and then revises the whole story of Jesus's ministry. These are clearly not four independent sources, but three sources borrowing from one original source - Mark's gospel.

Every gospel that was written after Mark, is simply a distant cousin of that particular book. Matthew, Luke, and john are simply redactions - revising what came before and adding to the story.

Just to add to the tension, another interesting tidbit is the Jerusalem vs Galilee problem. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus specifically tells his disciples that he will meet them in Galilee after he is resurrected, but in Luke and Acts, it says that the disciples are instructed to stay in Jerusalem and not leave. Which is it? They can't be in two places at once.

Apologists have often tried to explain this conundrum away by saying that Jesus met his disciples at both places at different times but this is simply a rash assumption - there is no direct evidence for this in the actual gospel accounts. If Jesus instructed them not to leave Jerusalem in Luke's account and start their ministry from there, then there can be no room to say it was both. It's possible that Jesus met them at a later date in Galilee for some separate reason, but when you specifically instruct disciples to stay in one area then it can't be reconciled with another place where Jesus told them to go for the same reason. This has always been problematic for the gospels.

Christian apologists like to mention that the oral stories about Jesus came only from men who knew Jesus and were passing around historical information and fact checking everything they said, so by the time it was written down, it was accurate. They claim that there were churches set up and established so you could go to them, and talk to anyone who had a connection with the original apostles. This whole idea of passing down "factual information" comes from one main source - a guy named Papius.

The Overblown Hype of Papius

Papius of Hierapolis was an early writer of Christianity and bishop that supposedly lived between 60 and 160 AD in Asia minor. He wrote a book entitled "Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord" which evidently supports evidence that some of the original apostles were still alive in his time. Certain excerpts from the book state that Papius allegedly knew John the Elder, and Polycarp or at least knew people who were still alive who claimed to know John and Polycarp. For many Christian scholars, the testimony of Papius is the missing link between the early followers of Jesus, and later church founders.

Unfortunately, none of Papius’s work has survived. The only thing we can know about him is through quotes by the early church fathers who supposedly read his book, or pieces of it. Only a few early church writers ever mentioned Papius. One was Ignatius of Antioch 35-107 AD, and the other was Eusebius of Caesarea 260-339 AD.

Both of these bishops lived in different centuries and never knew each other and were far from agreement on the authenticity of Papius's work. Scholars to this day are in dispute over the whole Papius ordeal, because the translations are so confusing, and with so little to work with- many are calling into question whether Papius's claims can be thoroughly trusted.

For one, Papius's writings are at best - a third hand account. He never claimed to know the authors of the gospels, only that he knew "elders" such as John, but it isn't clear whether the John he mentions is John the apostle. Plus, Eusibius quotes Papius as saying the gospel of Matthew was "logia" which would be a genre that was more about sayings than biography. There were so many different gospels beginning to circulate at the time of Papius, that it's impossible to know which gospel he's talking about. The way that Papius described the death of Judas was unrealistic:

"And because of the stench the area is deserted and uninhabitable even now; in fact, to this day no one can pass that place unless they hold their nose, so great was the discharge from his body and so far did it spread over the ground."

It must be noted that a good amount of ancient Christian literature was preserved for a reason - people wanted to preserve it because they thought it at least had some merit. That's why some of Paul's letters which are actual forgeries still got included in the New Testament. Someone thought highly enough of them to preserve those writings.

The fact that Papius's book no longer survives, is telling. If he was really a great source that knew the apostles or even people who knew the original disciples, then it looks to me like Christians in the ancient world would have been clamoring for his work. All of these factors pretty much tell the tale about Papius - he is NOT a reliable source.

There is a similar assumption that the early church father Polycarp knew also knew John the apostle. But Polycarp was born in 69 AD, a time where it was very unlikely that the apostle John would have still been alive, and not only that we have no reference to Polycarp being a disciple under John from Polycarp himself.

The only place you can find any information regarding this phenomenon, is in a letter written by Irrenaus and supposedly Tertullian. Irrenaus claimed that he as a young man heard Polycarp speak, and claimed that Polycarp knew John. However, it’s never clear in the letter by Irrenaus whether or not he meant John the “apostle” Church tradition has jumped on this, and acted like this is a fact when we really just don’t know.

That leads to the arguments for the resurrection itself.............

Christian apologists continue to make arguments for the resurrection, because they think that once you put all of the evidence together, then the case is irrefutable: Jesus rose from the dead - end of story. Can it really be that simple? Are these claims about an empty tomb all they're cracked up to be? There are dozens of arguments for the resurrection, but here are ten of the top ones often used - and they are not as reliable as the Christian experts say they are:

1. An Empty Tomb:

In order for this argument to work, you already have to assume that the tomb was empty. Paul's writings were around long before the gospels, and yet Paul never mentions a tomb.To most Christians, this isn't a big deal - it means it's simply implied. I for one, do not believe that there ever was an empty tomb. Jesus may have been buried in one, and even buried in a fancy one, but I do not see any reason why the empty tomb could have just been written in as part of the narrative.

Many scholars would disagree with me, even some secular sources. The consensus is that there is good reason to believe that the tomb was empty - and there are a couple of arguments that Christians most commonly like to use.

The first one is that the language used to describe the empty tomb in the gospels, goes back to the traditions of the early first century. Most theologians describe certain language used in what they would call a "pre-Markan" passion narrative. Using terminology like this is confusing, because it's basically just another theory like the Q source - another attempt to draw an imaginary source out of thin air.

Scholars like William Lane Craig will assert that the tomb story lacks any fancy theological details or apologetic development. Since Craig sees the story being laid out without bias or additional apologetics, he assumes that the story is legit. Wrapping a body in linen, in a tomb was a tradition that had not been changed at the time the gospel was written. To many scholars, the use of simplistic language implies truthfulness to the narrative. The author of Mark seems to be the one that reflects this the most, because his gospel is the most simple, so this is the one scholars like to look at for examples.

Still, if Mark's tomb story is to be believed on the basis that there is little room for embellishment, then one has to wonder what made the other gospel writers after Mark do just that? In Matthew we get guards, which is considered out of place by many scholars. The other gospels do not mention guards at all. We also have to consider what type of tomb the writer of Mark is describing. The tombs of the early first century have been noted by certain scholars to have square sliding doors, instead of round ones like the one described in the gospels.

Tombs that had stones that rolled on a track, were a later invention closer to the time period of the gospels in the late first century. If there were any tombs like this in the early part of the first century, then the writer would have known about them as well. It wouldn't have mattered one way or the other how much fancy language he did or didn't use. Just because Mark's gospel used simple descriptions of a tomb do not mean that the story itself couldn't have been invented.

Authors who write historical fiction are aware of these methods. If you want to write a historical novel that takes place in 19th century France for example, then you had better do your research, to know how to get everything to feel exactly as it was. You would research everything from how the shoes felt back then, to what kind of soap people used.

If you want to make your story sound authentic, then you will use certain words, and language that is connected to that period of history. There would be nothing out of the ordinary about Mark putting such techniques into his story if he wanted to.

The second reason why the empty tomb is so widely accepted as accurate, is because scholars claim that if the empty tomb was a made up story, then people in early Jerusalem could have fact checked it, and debunked it before it became a widespread belief. I’m not jumping on this. Why? Because all you have to do is read the four gospels to know that there are all kinds of things that could have been fact checked - things that we now know are FALSE.

We know that Herod's mass killing of infants never happened, and we also know that Luke's impossible census never took place either. And yet those things made their way into the gospel narratives, and were never fact checked. People don't even fact check them today, because most of it is naturally accepted as truth, even among the more academic Christians.

Could the disciples have gotten away with believing in a resurrection that never happened? I say it's more than plausible. Because imagery, belief, and tradition were very slippery things in the minds of ancient people. How do we really know how many people would have heard about a resurrection belief? Even if the authorities overheard that people were believing in a resurrected Messiah, couldn't it be possible that they wouldn't have bought the story - therefore they wouldn't have had any reason to fact check it?

If I started to hear rumors of certain people believing that someone's great grandfather had come back from the grave, it wouldn't even get me curious. It would be easy enough to dismiss such people as delusional. That's why I don't buy the theory that the authorities could have definitely debunked it. Sure, it's possible that they could have............but would they even bother? There were only a few disciples in the first place, so who's to say how the belief got started. Such a small group in Jerusalem could have believed in a bodily resurrection, but they could have gone unnoticed by the majority.

There are all of these theories, and different signposts leading different directions and you could pick any one of them and be right. If anything, scholarship has done the public a disservice in getting to the truth on these matters.

2.The Martyred Deaths of the Apostles:

This one is HUGE for apologists. This argument has been dragged around more times than I care to look at my face. It's considered one of the strongest arguments for the resurrection, but once you start to unravel it, it takes a massive nosedive. The gist of this popular case is a twisted and windy road to get to all the facts, but the underlying premise is a simple one:

Why would all of the apostles be willing to go through and suffer persecution if what they believed was a lie? Indeed, why would anyone die for a made up story?

The answer is of course, is that they didn't think they were lying. If one is that certain that something is true, and that belief cannot be shaken no matter how false that belief might be, then to that person - it's not a lie if they really believe. You see this over and over again for any religion. Faith is a harsh, stubborn seed. It doesn't go quietly, and as we all know - every single religion on the planet is a lie, except for the one you happen to believe in. This was most definitely the case with the apostles.

Apologists like to come back with the assertion that the apostles didn't die for what they believed, but for what they SAW. If they in fact, saw the risen Jesus then they would not have had any other motivation other than to tell the truth, and I concur. I would have to admit, that there would be no reason to deny what you actually saw if you actually saw it, unless you lied to escape the possibility of being forced to "eat crow" (having to admit you were wrong) but that's very unlikely here.

The reason why the whole "they died for what they saw" argument doesn't work is because we have absolutely NO record of any apostle ever talking about what they saw right before they were executed. We have no historical account or any reliable source of information for the exchange of words, or what was said in the last few minutes of their life. How can you possibly tell me that you know what words they uttered? It isn't possible. Where do pastors and apologists get this kind argument? Who knows for sure that the apostles died for "what they saw" and not what they believed?

I'll make it easy for you - NOBODY does know. It is simply an argument that has been recycled so many times, that it's repetition has become mainstream and naturally accepted as truth. There is not one historical piece of evidence that the apostles died for what they saw. This is nothing more than a strawman that continues to circulate simply because it sounds convincing, because that is the job of the apologist - to convince you, not to give you facts.

Even if such an event was recorded, can it not be possible that they died not for what they believed or what they saw, but for a vision? All you have to do is to look at the conversion of Paul, to understand this. His vision of Jesus may have not been real, but it was real to Paul. That's the whole point here. Visions were common in ancient times, and even in the world today people are convinced beyond doubt that they saw their deceased love ones, or have spurious experiences that inform them of a false encounter.

All it would have taken is for one person to have a vision of a resurrected messiah and believe that what they saw was real. Then they could have spread it around and convinced others that it was real, until the next thing you know - you have a new cult of followers who are certain about their vision, and there is no doubt in their mind that they experienced a resurrection.

Those things aside, did the apostles at least die for their faith? Do we have historical accounts of the apostles deaths, and them suffering for their beliefs? Are these people really martyrs? The answer is - yes, and NO. What do we mean by that? Well kids, fasten your seat belts, because here is where the ride really starts to get bumpy.

The fact is, that for most of the apostles, if not all - get conflicting and contradictory accounts about how they died. The history of the deaths of the apostles has become one massive, confusing maze of stories and unreliable information that it's web has become quite frankly - impossible to untangle.

We can start with the death of Paul. Christians say that the proof of how Paul died is in a letter from the late first century, from a church leader named Clement. But the letter has proven to be unreliable because it's writer is anonymous, and it never explicitly states where Paul dies, so it it assumed by many early Christians that Paul died in Rome, but there is no ultimate evidence for this.

Apocryphal books such as the Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter suggest that Paul survived Rome, and went further west. This contradicts Clement's account. There are further accounts of Paul in other apocryphal writings that have him dying in Rome, plus legends started to accrue of Paul being decapitated and buried outside the walls of Rome. Nobody really knows how Paul died, or where he died.

Peter was said to have been crucified upside down, because he felt unfit to die in the same way as Jesus. Nevertheless, there is no exact evidence for this outside of apocryphal literature, and even though most scholars will agree that Peter probably died in Rome, there is no proof to conclude anything about how he was martyred if he ever was.

Any evidence about the apostles after that I’m afraid - is where things start to get nebulous. Judas Iscariot was not a martyr because he actively committed suicide - if he even existed at all. John was not a martyr either, because it was said that he died of old age. In Acts, it says James son Zebedee was killed by Herod, but we don’t have any information about his death or if it was willing. The death of Matthew is contradictory - some accounts say he died naturally while others say he was stabbed to death in Ethiopia. Which is it?

Matthias goes to Syria by death of burning, while others claim that his death is unknown. James, son of Alphaeus is said by Josephus to be clubbed to death and thrown from the temple mount by one source and in other sources claimed that he was crucified in Egypt. To add to the confusion, no one seems to know for certain whether this James is supposed to be the brother of Jesus or not. Bartholomew also has conflicting accounts of his death.

In the Acts of Andrew, it describes Andrew's death as a martyr, but the church historian Eusebius dismissed it as heretical. The Acts of Phillip reported Phillip being hung upside down on hooks and before dying, Phillip cursed his enemies. Even the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia reports that the Phillip story is complete made up nonsense - resorting to putting it in the category of legendary fables. Thomas - if he existed - is said to have gone all the way to India to start a church there, but there is practically no evidence that he ever did, and very little is known about the life of Thomas in the first place. Simon the Zealot has conflicting accounts on how he died - but some say it was of natural causes.

If this isn't enough to make you question the so-called evidence for the apostles being martyred for their faith, then I suggest asking yourself why there are so many conflicting accounts. In addition to that, ask yourself why most of these martyrdom stories have to be extracted from apocryphal books that most Christians do not take seriously. For me, the verdict is simple. There is no hard evidence or proof that most of the apostles died for their faith, and if they did - then there is no written record of what they actually said.

3. Paul's sudden conversion

The overnight conversion of Paul, is used quite frequently to show evidence that Jesus actually did appear to him. Christians have often argued for what other reason, could have a persecutor of Christians made a sudden turn-around?

A few simple questions need to be asked here: For one, scholars date Paul’s conversion no later than three to seven years after Jesus. That’s pretty early. How many Christians did he actually persecute? How fast did Christianity grow in it’s first few years? At that point, Christianity was still a small Jewish sect, and not very wide-spread. It makes you wonder how many Christians Paul actually persecuted. That aside, the more important factor is what made Paul convert? What did he gain by going through all of the trials that he did, other than to spread the truth? I do think Paul was serious about his conversion, and that he actually believed in Jesus being divine.

However, as we look back through history, we can see examples of people who held onto to their religion, for no other reason than sheer passion for what they believed, and they certainly didn't gain any riches or glory for it. Buddhism has had a long history of persecution, even far into recent times. Dharmaraksita was an early Buddhist missionary, sent out by Emperor Ashoka to take on the active role of spreading Buddhism. What did such a person gain from this? Any wealth? Probably not. Fame? Probably not.

Yevgeny Pushenko was a Russian wealthy business man who became a monk. He owned a successful factory in Vladivostok that had over 50 workers at one point. When he decided to become a monk because he felt he needed to get more serious about his faith, he gave up his factory, money, home and even walked on foot to take a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

On his journey he fought bad weather and had to fight off suspicious authority figures. It took him three years and 9,320 miles, but he remains a monk to this day in a monastery in Greece. Now what would make a man do such a thing when he had everything to lose and nothing to gain? You tell me. I cannot get inside the man's head.

In Paul's case, he probably really believed in Jesus and that the resurrection was real. He might have started to feel guilty about persecuting Christians, been curious about their faith, had an attack of conscience, started getting bored with Judaism, or struggled with depression and felt like he needed a change in his life. Any of these could have been what lit the fire in Paul, but looking at the epistles, it's clear to see what Paul's main inspiration was to go through all that he did.

He was attracted to the idea of authority. He saw his opportunity and seized it. He wanted his brand of Christianity to be the one that won out, and he got what he wanted - although he never lived to see it.

He knew that he had just the right credentials as an educated person who was literate and knew several languages. Paul couldn't resist being in charge, and handling the ropes.

Don’t forget that much of Paul's suffering and hardship was brought on by his own teachings that were in contrast to Jesus and the original apostles. If Paul went out of his way to suffer for what he believed was the truth, then much of it was his own truth.

He was after all the first apostle to bring the Christian message to the Gentiles, when Jesus warned his disciples to do no such thing. On his final missionary journey to Jerusalem, he gets attacked by an angry mob who accuse Paul of defiling the temple by bringing Gentiles into it. He was finally arrested when he surrendered to a group of Roman centurions who put him in chains.

Theologian Peter Enns once observed, "From what we can tell about Paul's personality, persecuting Christians was most likely his dream job."

I agree. Whether Paul was throwing Christians in jail, or throwing them out of churches - it’s clear that even if he didn’t enjoy getting shipwrecked, beat up and imprisoned - he most definitely enjoyed being the leader of a new movement, and challenging anyone who disagreed with him. This might be what attracted him to being a missionary after he converted - realizing that it needed an aggressive leader, and knowing he just the guy to do it.

Despite these odds, was Paul's Damascus road experience described in Acts, an original story? The problem has always been that Paul doesn't mention the details of his conversion in his letters. He does not mention the story of his journey toward Damascus with the other travelers. If there were other travelers present with Paul, then who were they?

Why didn't they also become convinced that Jesus was real? The book of Acts, is the only place that mentions this story of him being blinded, and Acts was written way later than Paul's own writings.

What's surprising is that Paul's conversion story on Damascas road appears to be borrowed from an earlier myth in Macabees 2 -about 400 years before Christianity. A man named Heliodorus takes a trip to Jerusalem to take money from the temple, but is blinded by three different spirits, has a conversion, then becomes a missionary.

The Heliodorus story isn't an exact parallel to Paul's story in Acts, but there are some pretty stark resemblances such as: Traveling with companions, a journey to carry out a corrupt act, following orders from a high authority, and having spirits soften and change his heart toward the church. Either the writer of Acts used this tale to influence the story of Paul, or he didn't, but I'm guessing that it definitely had something to do with it.

4. The Corinthian Creed

Paul's 1st Corinthians 15 creed, in which he describes the way he received the creed from the other apostles is probably the most sound argument for the resurrection. The reason I say this, is because practically ALL scholars in the world agree unanimously on this one thing, even the most skeptical ones. Paul recites a formula in this verse that goes all the way back to first few years after Jesus. It reads as follows:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve."

This has been agreed upon by almost everyone in the theological world, because the language, the style, and theology trace back to that exact time period when Paul was a new Christian.

The question still remains however, where did Paul receive this creed and who did he receive it from? It does not say. Most Christian theologians will assert that he was in Jerusalem, and it would have been unlikely that he would have been anywhere else, although other scholars say he was in Damascus when he received it.

It doesn't really matter where he got it, because once you start to read further, it presents some things that are questionable:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures"

According to the scriptures............what scripture is Paul referring to here? His own? This was long before the gospels were circulating, and unless he's talking about something in the Old Testament, this is very unlikely. What exactly, are these supposed "scriptures?" And then of course he goes on to quote that 500 people saw Jesus at once, which is an extremely bold and flimsy assertion, considering that it is nowhere mentioned at all in any other part of the New Testament.

The fact is, we have no idea if Paul converted one year, three years, or seven years after Jesus. It could have been any of those. We don't have any idea what happened in the embryonic stages after Jesus' death before Paul. We don't know where the creed came from , or who started it. There could have been a whirlwind of ideas that were circulating at the time, and then somehow came together in the formation of a creed.

Does having a creed this close to the crucifixion event make the resurrection true? I say no, for two reasons: For one, there are only a few people who it says Jesus appeared to. Why wouldn't Jesus have appeared to more people such as the guards mentioned in Matthew, or Pilate as I have questioned earlier?

The James that is mentioned is not identified as the brother of the lord, or any other form of apostle - so we don't know for sure which James he is referring to. At the very least, this whole thing reeks of being some type of boys club or in-group. There were only a chosen few that were selected by god to see the resurrected Jesus, as it says in Acts.

You also have to think about other creeds that were developed in early Christianity. Take the Nicene Creed for example, that I already talked about in above paragraphs. That was a creed formulated in a debate about whether or not Jesus should be equal to god, or less equal. The outcome was that it was eventually decided that Jesus was both god and man.

This was decided in favor of man's theological bias, not because there was any evidence for it. Does that particular creed make Christianity any more reliable? No - just as a creed about a resurrection does not make Christianity any more reliable.

Furthermore, Paul makes no distinction between the other apostles post-resurrection sightings and his own vision. He states clearly:

"Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also."

Only Paul doesn't go out of his way to make it clear that he had a blinding vision, not a bodily visitation. It sounds just as if Jesus appeared to him the same way as the others.

Apologist Lee Strobel gets all excited when talking to audiences about the Corinthian Creed stating, "ladies and gentleman, this is historic gold!" Not really. It's not even historic silver. It's more like historic concrete. Good enough to be accepted by all scholars, but far from being good enough to be accepted as proof for a resurrection.

5. Not enough time for the development of a myth?

The defenders of Christianity will be quick to point out that a few decades between the time of Jesus and the actual gospels, was not enough time for a myth to develop. They assume that if the gospels were a legend, then it would have taken much longer - at least a couple of hundred years. I say - that depends. It depends on the time and place, culture, people, circumstances, and the environment where the story started. Sometimes myths take centuries to get off the ground, and others only take a matter of months.

However, there are several examples of smaller religions, or cults that evolved in a very short amount of time - a matter of about 20 years or less. These religions were made up from scratch, without too much outside influence, and they are called “Cargo Cults.”

Cargo cults developed almost always in the South Pacific. There were islands in Melanesia where these back water religions first formed. At least two among them are the John Frum cult, the Tom Navy cult on the same island of Tanna. There were at least half a dozen others on other islands such as Papua New Guiani.

These cults were formed based on a misunderstanding of western civilization, and how western products were made. These people were superstitious enough that they invented characters that had certain names, and believed if they just waited long enough that these god type of characters would bring them supplies, and western goods.

They constructed runways, in hoping planes would land there, and they also staged marches and drills in military style insignia painted on their bodies, in hopes of attracting cargo carrying western goodies. However, the main focus wasn't hoping for cargo - it was building a stronger community and support for these indigenous people, which is why it lasted as long as it did.

The most famous of these cargo cults is by far the cult of John Frum. It sprang up sometime in the 1940's but some say it was around before that. Nobody knows for certain where the character of John Frum originated, or even if he existed. But the people of the island believed he was white, and was going to come back for them bringing them a wealth of western cargo. The people of Tanna built fake bamboo control towers along with fake headphones made out of wood, and they also built fake planes sitting there on the runway which were designed to lure down John Frum's plane.

People had such faith in John Frum's triumphant pilgrimage to their island, that they began to believe that he prophesied about getting rid of the white man's currency. This led to people spending all of their money on the island, and it started wrecking the economy. People quit working and did serious damage to the island's financial status - all in hopes of the arrival of John Frum. The island administrators tried to arrest the ringleaders of the cult, but it still persisted.

The time it took for these legends about John Frum to form, was very short compared to most religions. In the case of the cargo cults, most of them popped up around the same time period taking only as little as 30 to 40 years from scratch to an all-out legend that entranced Melanesia.

The funny thing about this phenomenon is the fact that these kind of cults were developing all around the same time, and most of these small islands did not have any contact with one another. Just the whole idea of being ignorant to how western goods were traded and manufactured, caused a cultural uptick in superstition in the minds of it's people. If we can learn anything from these cults, it's that human psychology is often plagued with a longing for mystery and unfounded belief.

Isn't it interesting then, that 2000 years ago many messiah figures, and mystery religions all popped up in the same region in the space of 50 to a hundred years, and even long after. And unlike the South Pacific, these mystery faiths with different messiahs were not on separate islands, but were all connected on the same continent where these religions could borrow, and copy from each other. Christianity just so happened to be the big chief winner of all the different messianic faiths, and so to this day it continues.

What really gets me, is the fact that despite these cults being around for only a short amount of time, nobody can explain their exact origins. As you see in Christianity, the beginnings of such belief systems are shrouded in a mist, and no one can be exactly sure how they got off the ground. If we can't pinpoint just what exactly happened to make these island cults pop up the way they did in the short amount of time that they did as little as a century ago, then there is no way we can get to the exact origin of what made Christianity take off 2000 years prior.

Lastly, we have to admit that the gospels are not complete myth. They take root in real places, and at least some of it's people have been known to be historical. Jesus could have really existed, have had real disciples, been crucified, participated in a last supper, had a trial, had parents named Mary and Joseph, been at odds with the Shammite Pharisees, and he could have even claimed to heal people. He could have even been crucified between two thieves, have been buried by Joseph of Arimathea, and he could have had women coming to his tomb after his death.

All of the events in the gospels could have been real, with the exception of the miracles and the resurrection. Those are the only two things that would have had to have been added on, which would have taken no time at all. I must conclude then, that a couple of generations are all you need for a legend to develop, and if the gospels are at least partly historical, then it wouldn't have been a problem to add in the supernatural events over a short span of time.

6.Woman at the Tomb

The testimony of women about the resurrection of Jesus has long been kicked around by evangelicals as evidence that the gospel accounts were taken seriously from the beginning. This is the argument which has been dubbed the "criterion of embarrassment" by scholars. It grapples with the concept of how women were treated in a Jewish culture, and apologists claim that if the resurrection story were myth, then the gospel writers would not have made up stories about women's testimony being trusted by men in an ancient middle eastern era.

Most women in this time period were never trusted to testify in court, and in most situations, a woman's word was always inferior to a man's word. Why would the gospels, which were penned by men, purposely put women into a fictional story to testify about an empty tomb? Women were credited after all, for being the first ones to tell the other disciples about Jesus being risen.

As good as this argument sounds, it's actually one of the worst possible arguments to use.

First, let's look at all four gospel accounts. The reality is, there is very little testifying of women going on here, if any at all. In Matthew, we read that the women went to the tomb, and after an angel tells them that he has risen, they start walking away from the tomb and suddenly Jesus appears to them. He says, "go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee and they will see me." After that it says that the disciples went to Galilee, and met Jesus - which supposedly means that they trusted the women about Jesus being there. So far, so good.

What do we get in the gospel of Mark? In Mark's notoriously abrupt ending, we have nothing more than a man in a white robe telling the women that Jesus has risen, and to go ahead into Galilee. But right after that it says, "they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." And that's where the book of Mark originally ended. The women said nothing to anyone at all. That is, until a century or so later, the ending of Mark was finally added - and what do we get? It says right there in Mark 16:11:

"When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it." Hmmm. Sounds like someone doesn't trust the testimony of women.

And the gospel of Luke is even more direct when telling about the women's words being trustworthy. In Luke 24:10 it reads:

"It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense."

Their words seemed like nonsense..........There you have it. Strike two.

The gospel of John is more ambiguous. In John, we find Mary running to Simon Peter and telling him that the tomb was empty and that "they have taken the lord out of the tomb."

Peter starts running towards the tomb, walks in, and sees the strips of linen that was supposedly Jesus's burial clothes lying there. There were two disciples there, and it says that the other disciple at least believed Mary about the body being taken away. It says nothing about whether Peter believed her or not. After that, it says the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying.

Suddenly, Jesus appears to her and tells her to "go to my brothers and tell them that I am returning to my father, your father." Then it ends with Mary telling the other disciples that, "I have seen the lord!" But there is nothing further reported about whether or not the disciples believed her, or how they reacted. Very strange indeed.

In Matthew we have at least a positive nod, that the disciples believed the women to meet Jesus in Galilee. In Mark we get not just one- but two negatives - one describing that the women said nothing at all to anyone, and then the final ending describing that the women were not believed. In Luke we get almost a slap in the face, and are told straight out that the women's words are nonsense. John is just dubiously suspicious; there isn't a whole lot in John to work with. At the very least, it looks like Matthew is the only gospel where the women's testimony is taken at face value.

If you're an evangelical, you still might think that I'm missing the entire point. If the women were the first to get the honor of being at the tomb, and that meant being informed with the task of telling everyone else, you could say in one sense the gospel writers were allowing them to testify about Jesus's body missing. If you think the authors of the gospels were embarrassed to put women into the story finding the tomb empty because that makes it true, go right ahead.

It doesn't mean that the women in the stories were trusted by the disciples for their testimony, especially when three out of the four gospels confirm that they didn't, or were at least downplayed. Apologists like to say that women were not allowed to testify in court during this period, but of course this story has nothing to do with a court. The historian Josephus mentions in some of his writings, that there were rare cases where a woman's testimony could be trusted. This is a scenario that's not all cut and dry.

Lastly, it should be noted that writing fictional stories about women in a position of power wasn't a big deal for Jews. This "Criteria of Embarrassment" argument makes the claim that the men writing a fictional tale of women being trusted, would have been embarrassing for their culture. Still, we know this is false, because some of the most empowering tales about women are in the Old Testament. In the book of Esther, we get a story of a queen that has a secret Jewish identity, who ends up making an important viceroy begging her for his life.

Esther is known by almost all scholars to be mostly fiction. Why would any Jewish writer, pen a story about a women who can have that kind of power over a man, if it wasn't true? Except as far as we know, Esther has little or no historical value.

A book that was not included in the Old Testament, was the book of Judith. In this tale, a beautiful woman named Judith single handedly saves Israel's armies from their foreign conquerors. She goes to the general's tent one night - Holofernes. She gains his trust, and then decapitates him. Taking his head and showing it to Israel's rival armies they flee in fear, and Israel is saved.

Again, we see no problem with a Jewish author writing a fictional story about an independent woman who has power over an entire army, and could testify to their fate. This is a story that packs way more fuel for the power of women, than anything the gospels have to offer. Almost every bible scholar in the world has no problem condemning Judith as a work of fiction.

Let's not forget about Rahab. In the book of Joshua, she hid the spies for Israel and lied to the king about it. The king of Jericho ended up believing her, and she suggested that he should send his men after them. This is a classic example of irony in a fictional story. Once again, many scholars agree that the book of Joshua is primarily literary, and not based on real events.

Finally, we get the Gospel of Mary, a second century gospel that depicts Mary Magdalene as one of Jesus's disciples. In this gospel she is considered Jesus's favorite above all of the rest and in the story- Peter gets offended by this. It is clear, that Peter has issues with Mary being a woman as it reads:

"Did he then speak secretly with a woman, in preference to us, and not openly? Are we to turn back and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?"

In the end, Mary wins out, and Peter is offended that a women is selected by Jesus to interpret his teachings. This gospel is definitely fictional and is far removed from the time of Jesus, yet it was still written in ancient times, by people who normally wouldn't have trusted women. It is clear beyond doubt that the "Criteria of Embarrassment" fails on an epic level when trying to make the case for the women at the tomb. In Jewish fiction, there was no problem making women look good, or testifying about something. In the end, it's a wonder why this faulty argument is even used.

7. Joseph of Arimathea

The mysterious Joseph of Arimathea is one of the most enigmatic characters in the gospels. All four accounts mention him, but at the same time, his tenure in the New Testament is very brief - and is almost reduced to a cameo type of appearance. The reason why Christians think he is so important to the gospels, is because he was a rich Sanhedrin that provided the tomb for Jesus's burial. He was also depicted as a follower of Jesus, but did he actually exist?

The fact is, the world's bible scholars are divided on the issue. No stark conclusion has ever been reached on whether or not Joseph of Arimathea existed. There are heated debates from both sides.

One of the main protests from some scholars is that the town "Arimathea" has never been shown to exist on any map, and there has never been any archaeological evidence that confirms there ever was a place called Arimathea. However, Christian scholars have countered this argument by saying that the town Ramathaim-Zophim was later called "Ramathaian" or "Aramathaim" in different sources. The evidence can be argued either way, but still - these sources are very scant and do not tell us very much about such a person, or if they actually lived.

Let's not forget, Joseph of Arimathea was never once mentioned by Paul. It looks like a person with such great importance to the gospel narratives, would at least be given a brief mention by the most famous missionary who ever lived. However, Paul's letters give no credit to Joseph when he talks about Jesus being buried. Maybe Paul never was told about him. Or maybe Paul knew about him , and just forgot to mention him. Or maybe Joseph of Arimathea was in fact - invented.

The reason why I think this is plausible is because for one, the word "Arimathea" has been translated as "best disciple town." Matheia means "disciple town" in Greek and "Ari"- is a common prefix for superiority. Christians will try to refute this by saying that Jews had a tendency when naming things, to use puns. In other words, the Jews would sometimes change the wording or prefix of a word for purposes of humor as they did to king Nebuchadnezzar - the word "nezzar" means "mule" in Hebrew. There is nothing humorous that I can see in changing the name of Arimathea, when it means exactly what it's meant for - describing a rich man who was supposedly a secret disciple of Jesus.

There is however, a huge contradiction in all of this. In Mark’s gospel we read where all the members of the Sanhedrin high court voted to condemn Jesus to death:

“Then the high priest tore his clothes and said…. ‘What is your decision?’ All of them condemned him as deserving death” (Mark 14:62).

How could Joseph condemn Jesus if he was his disciple? Matthew tries to explain this away by saying that Joseph was a rich man and not a member of the Sanhedrin. This makes no sense - as all members of the Sanhedrin were pretty much rich! John's gospel claims Joseph was a "secret" disciple, because he feared the Jews. Still, this doesn't make much sense either, since Jesus's disciples probably feared the Jews as well, but they sure as heck didn't keep it a secret.

Finally in Mark's gospel, he contradicts himself by saying there were actually two councils. According to scholar John Dominic Crossan:

“Joseph is described not as a member of the synedrion-council but as a member of the boule-council, as if there were two councils in charge of Jerusalem, a civil council and a religious council, with Joseph a member of the former body (bouleutes) but not in the later one at all (synedrion). There was, of course, no such distinction in historical life; there was only one council by whatever name.”

In summation, it is safe to say that Joseph of Arimathea was a character that we have no historical evidence for. He is very likely to be invented for the sake of explaining a story about an empty tomb, and that ladies and gentleman - is all they wrote!

8. Isaiah 53 prophecy

I have already gone through the Isaiah 53 argument in my earlier section on the Old Testament. But since Christians keep hammering home the Isaiah passages, as though they have some sort of monopoly on the resurrection, I felt like my critique needed a second installment.

Isaiah 53 is considered one of the most powerful passages in the entire bible, because it looks like it's predicting Jesus as a messiah - hundreds of years before it happened. As I have already explained before, the idea of the resurrection and ascension are completely absent, it's written in past tense, and the surrounding context suggests that it is not about Jesus, but instead about something different entirely.

Christian missionaries and organizations have debated this with Jews for the past millennium to the place where it is simply pointless. There are good reasons to accept the fact, that this is NOT a prophecy about Jesus. The few that I've just mentioned should suffice for just about any skeptic, but I need to go over some strict details as to why the Jews are probably in the right.

First of all, it needs to be established that if it's possible for Isaiah 53 to be talking about a messiah, it must be asked - what kind of messiah is it? Let's look at the verses in strict detail. I'm going to start with the one's that I think definitely could describe Jesus:

"Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering" - verse 4

"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities" - verse 5

"We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all" - verse 6

"Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin" - verse 10

"For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." - verse 12

These are the strongest verses for the Jesus in the gospels, I'll have to admit. Unfortunately, there are other verses in Isaiah 53 that actually contradict Jesus:

"He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death." - verse 9

We know that the gospels indicate very strongly that Jesus was buried alone, not with any wicked people, or rich people. Of course Christians will tell you that the "rich" is referring to Joseph of Arimathea but this at best, is ambiguous. It's also worthy of mention that later interpolations of this verse read as "he was buried in a rich man's grave" which was obviously changed in order to make it fit a more specific description of Joseph of Arimathea. The original wording did NOT read that way.

"Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong" - verse 12

This is making it look like Jesus was inferior to someone. Jesus was supposed to be the greatest, the highest of all kings, and above all else wasn’t he? Dividing “spoils” is definitely an Old Testament practice that was often used in war, after the Israelite armies conquered their enemies. If Jesus was supposed to be god, then how could he have received a “portion of the great?”

"He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain." - verse 3

How could it be that he was a man familiar with pain, when the gospels make it clear that Jesus didn’t want to suffer? The famous scene in the garden of Gethsemane describe this perfectly, when he prays to the father to ‘let this cup pass from me.’ It’s clear that Jesus did not want to go through with it. He was definitely despised and rejected by the Jews, but not mankind as a whole.

"He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth." - verse 7

This is directly contradicted in the book of John where Jesus speaks when Pilot asks him if he is king of the Jews- and Jesus replies, "Is that your own idea, or did others talk to you about me?" Not only that, Jesus talks even more to Pilate about the fact that his kingdom is not of this world, but "another place." In the other gospels, Jesus was silent and he does not speak.

It's clear that these verses are begging for a different kind of messiah than Jesus. Basically the whole idea of Isaiah 53 prophesying Jesus comes from Acts 8:26 where the apostle Phillip is ministering to a eunich. The eunich is sitting in a chariot and is reading Isaiah, and claims he is having trouble with the interpretation. Phillip helps him by explaining that it's about Jesus, and then baptizes him.

Ever since then, the Christians have taken that interpretation and have ran with it. Another well-worn out argument that Christians love to salt their pulpits with is the bold claim that a Jewish commentator named Rashi - was the first to identify the prophecy about Israel misleading. Rashi lived somewhere between 1040 and 1105 AD. Since this Jewish scholar said this about Isaiah, then Christians have jumped on that bandwagon, claiming that because a Jew said it must be false, then it must be false. What many Christians don’t know is that one of the early church fathers, Origen - conceded that Isaiah 53 in his time meant exactly what most Jews say it means. This was eight centuries before Rashi. Origen quotes:

“bore reference to the whole Jewish people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations.”

This is where the debate started. But most Christians need to know that when Origen addressed this issue, there was little debate about the subject between Christians and Jews. It wasn't seen as a big deal. As time marched on through the centuries, then the church started to get more aggressive in their approach to Isaiah 53, but that was at a much later date.

That is why conservative Christians need to stop accusing the Jews of being in denial, and start doing some research. The Old Testament is after all, a Jewish book. Chances are, the Jews know more about it than you do. Isaiah 53 might be a about some sort of messiah figure, but is it about Jesus? If it turns out it's not, then that's a pretty big nail in a small coffin.

9. 500 People saw Jesus at once

This is one of the more fanciful (not to mention flawed) arguments often used in favor of the resurrected Jesus. Paul states in 1st Corinthians:

"After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep."

This is the only time that such an event is even mentioned in the entire New Testament. It is not mentioned anywhere else, not even in the gospels. Most theologians would agree that most passages (with a few exceptions) that are only mentioned once, should be suspicion, but the main question here is again, where did Paul get his information from? How do we know if it's reliable?

Who were these 500 people who saw Jesus all at once? Seems like a pretty incredible claim. And if most of them were still alive at the time of Paul, it seems that people would be clamoring to talk to these lucky individuals. Who were they, and why don't we hear more about this?

I'm not saying Paul is lying, but he's definitely writing down things that he had heard from other believers, not events that were proven to have taken place.

I would have to conclude that this particular event never happened, or if it did it was some sort of mass group hallucination that occurred. Many experts that have studied this, claim that there is no way this could have been a hallucination of any kind. As Lee Strobel loves to point out - “500 people having the same hallucination would have to be a bigger miracle than the resurrection!”

Lee Strobel needs to read up more on mass hallucinations, and discover for himself that they are indeed a real phenomenon. We can read about past events of many people in a certain area who saw the sun spinning in the sky, or multiple people witnessing UFO's at once. There shouldn't be any reason why this can't be the case for a guy people claimed to have risen from the dead 2000 years ago - in a time period more or less known for these kind of beliefs.

Considering how many crazy claims that are in the New Testament - should it be any surprise at all that such a thing is mentioned?

Or maybe, just maybe..... we don't even need to resort to the hallucination theory. Could it be that Paul is mistaken, and that no such event ever happened?

10. The sudden spread of Christianity

We don't know how "sudden" the spread of Christianity was. It's as simple as that. Church tradition has tried to paint an unrealistic picture of early Christianity, and as a result it has led to much confusion over how fast Christianity spread across the Roman empire. Considering the fact that no known historian in the 1st century ever mentioned anything about Jesus or Christianity, until Josephus over half a century later, is rather alarming if you're paying attention.

Lucious Seneca - a well known writer from Rome during the first century, never mentions Christians or their faith but makes every attempt to criticize every other religion during that time. What then, would have made one of Rome's most notorious writers pass on an opportunity to talk about one of the most controversial faiths known to man? What would have made a writer such as Philo of Alexandria ignore this sudden uptick in a new Jewish religion? Or could it be that instead of these writers ignoring Christianity, it is more likely that they just didn't know about it at all? It's curious to ponder.

In the book Acts, we get certain figures for the very first flourishings of the new faith. We are told that there were about 120 believers after the death of Jesus, but almost overnight that number goes up remarkably to about 5,000. We are not told how the writer of Acts comes up with these mysterious figures, or where they are pulling their information from.

By the year 100 AD, it was estimated that the population of 1st century Palestine was somewhere around 2.5 million. It is difficult to get more precise figures from this era in history about the early spread of Christianity, other than maybe a few households per town. Even if Christians managed to get fewer than 70 cities across the whole Empire, it would have made for only a few thousand followers at that time. This isn't a lot, considering how much bigger the population was in contrast to new Christian converts.

Evidently according to some scholars, Pliny the Younger mentioned in a letter to the Emperor Trajan in the year 112 AD, that some Christians came into his court and he was trying to seek out advice about what to do to them. These letters are the very first attempt of the Romans knowing anything about Christianity - and don't forget, this is early second century.

The only thing that Pliny's letter indicates about Christianity is that there was a sect of people, or a cult that worshiped a god named "Christ." Nothing about Jesus, really. For an educated Roman governor not to have any knowledge about Christianity beforehand, is extremely bizarre, and what's even more telling is that he has to go out of his way to get advice or any information regarding Christians.

Trajan's reply does not mention any sort of past experience with Christians, including no trial precedents, no decrees against them, or any indication at all that they should be executed for not worshiping the Roman pagan gods. It seems likely then, that the Roman empire knew very little about Christians during this time, and it is even more likely that Pliny would not have had to ask the emperor for advice on what to do with Christians who came into his court, had any prior records existed for trials such as Peter, or Paul.

The British historian, Keith Hopkins wrote a peer reviewed paper on the origins of early Christian populations, and concluded that no one can make any definite claims about the matter during the first two centuries. Hopkins says that all we have during the earliest period of Christendom is mere speculation of how well it flourished, and anyone who makes any decisive assertions, isn't being accurate - they are only making opinionated claims without any historical, verified facts.

Hopkins's research on the subject is also well attested by another historian - Robin Lane Fox, who agrees that despite a rich history of the Roman empire, there is scarce evidence of anything regarding Christianity before the year 250 AD. Christians might be surprised to learn that the work of these two historians are actually supported by the early Church Father - Origin, who admitted that during his time, Christians only made up a tiny fraction of the population.

Christianity didn't start to morph into the revolutionary religion that changed the face of western society, until about the fourth century, under Constantine. I'm not suggesting that Christianity remained a backwater little sect for 400 years, and then it suddenly exploded onto the face of the earth. It was obviously growing the whole time, underground. I'm only pointing out that it wasn't exploding in the first century, as much as people thought it was - and we don't know the exact details of the numbers.

Rethinking the Plot

There is not one argument here, that hasn't been recycled and repeated hundreds of times by Christian apologists all over the world. I have just given a response to all of the best arguments that Christianity has on offer. I have shown that what appears to be church history is only church tradition, relying on stories and false assumptions. I have shown the weak links in these commonly used arguments. If this is the best evidence that Christianity can muster, than it is a sad day indeed.

If you had early church fathers with conflicting views on doctrine, and forged letters with fake connections to the real apostles, then imagine what kind of stories you had before the gospels were written down. Imagine what innate distortions were there at the beginning. We know that the early church fathers wrote letters, and that some of those letters were forgeries. At least we know who these early Christians were, and their background.

We don't know anything about who wrote the gospels. If it can be shown that church tradition isn't reliable, than how can the gospels themselves be reliable? They simply cannot be.

What these arguments actually show, is that there is indeed overwhelming evidence that 1st century people talked about a resurrection and believed in it, but that I'm afraid, is where it ends. It is not evidence for an actual resurrection. To me, good evidence that people rise from the dead, would have to really go the distance if I were to take it seriously.

For example, if my deceased grandmother walked through the front door right now, then that would be indisputable proof that resurrection is actually a real thing, and if I saw my grandmother ascend into heaven, that would REALLY make me a believer. If everyone had the chance to see at least one of their dead relatives come back and accomplish these things, it would make resurrection irrefutable. People talking about witnessing a resurrection, and actually seeing one for yourself are two different scenarios.

Even if we could find a single secular source during the time that Jesus lived, that mentioned all the events in the Gospels, then it would be evidence to at least take the gospels more seriously.

World famous scholar and theologian NT Write argues fervently for the literal resurrection in his 700 page volume, “The Resurrection of the Son of God.” It is probably the finest book on the resurrection ever composed. In it, Wright contests about every atheist attack against the gospels known to man. I’ll admit, he puts up a clever fight. It’s not an easy read, and if you’re a skeptic you will be introduced to a plethora of ideas that you probably haven’t thought of.

Wright's main argument that he likes to keep bludgeoning people with, is his research on what the word "resurrection" meant to people in the first century. He argues that the word could only mean a literal, bodily appearance. He admits that it could have meant more than one thing in earlier times, but when the gospels were written, it was an all-out, in your face bodily experience. He makes it clear that the way the writers penned the wording of the gospels were unique, and upon careful study, he concludes that there is no way around it - resurrection meant resurrection!

It is a little confusing to ponder that Jesus had a complete, resurrected physical body if he could suddenly make appearances in rooms with locked doors, and take trips through the atmosphere when he ascended. How could a physical body survive a trip into outer space? The gospel of John stated that Jesus ate his last meal of broiled fish, right before he went back into heaven. I’m assuming then, that after the resurrection - he didn’t really need food, or to digest it? Has that broiled fish been in his stomach for the past 2000 years up in heaven?

One of the biggest arguments concerning Paul, is the language he used to describe the resurrection. Some scholars say that he used the Greek word "egerio" meaning more of a spiritual resurrection, but more conservative scholars will say that Paul used the other Greek term "anastasis" a lot more which describes a physical bodily resurrection.

I don’t really care which word means what. If Paul really believed in a physical resurrection, then who cares? That doesn’t prove anything. Conservative theologians love to point out that this shows that the physical resurrection of Jesus was not a late myth, or development. It goes to show that this belief was around in the early stages.

I can accept this, but it doesn't matter to me if the resurrection was an early development, or a late myth. I don't care if people started to believe in a resurrection five years after Jesus died, or if it was five hours. The fact remains, people can believe whatever they wish to be true, and it certainly isn't any different in this case. I don't care how the resurrection got started, it can't be proven. It needs to be, if there is a god who wants the entire world to accept it.

The resurrection may have not have been a late evolving myth, but we know that many other things in the gospels WERE myth, and borrowed from other myths. It’s just that the belief in Jesus rising from the dead, came first - before all of the other developments. It doesn’t matter to me what came first - to me, it lacks the historical credentials that are needed to take is seriously, and that’s where I leave it.

Let's say for the moment that NT Wright is correct. Perhaps the gospel authors really meant "bodily" resurrection instead of "spiritual". Maybe that's what they believed. But I don't think that anyone on earth, can honestly make hasty judgments regarding what was going through the minds of people living 2000 years ago. People were prone to hallucinations. There is even such a thing as a group hallucination. Or they could have believed in a vision that someone had, such as Paul.

If Paul never met Jesus, and only talked to him through a blinding vision that he had, then ANYONE could have made that claim. In ancient times, having visions and hallucinations were a common thing. Wright has a bit of an issue to solve there. Why didn't Jesus stick around for a couple of years so he could have talked to Paul in person? If Paul had a vision, then any man or woman could have made up such a story, as most people did. It's also worthy of note, that when Jesus made these bodily post-resurrection appearances, he was unrecognizable to some of his followers. (Luke 24:13)

Then another thought struck me. The main problem with Wright's argument isn't that "resurrection" couldn't have meant a literal, bodily appearance. It very well could have. The more important question is, what made Christianity spread?

In three of the gospels, Jesus only stuck around for about 40 days after his resurrection, before he ascended into heaven. There were only a handful of people he appeared to, and it was mostly people who believed in him, apart from one or two doubters. The big question is - once Jesus left the planet, how were his followers able to convince anyone else that they saw him? Let that sink in for a minute.

Think about all of the Christians who have lived - from then, up until now. If Jesus really rose from the dead, then that means almost any Christian who's ever walked, has never seen Jesus. What made them believe? Why were only a privileged few from the first century, lucky enough to see him, but the rest of us just have to have "faith?"

History has produced eye witnesses for almost every kind of phenomena from Fatima, aliens, UFO sightings, ghosts, and the Virgin Mary appearing to various people in different parts of the world. Many Christians I know would never accept these eye witness stories as believable, yet they accept eye witness accounts that circulated about a risen messiah 2000 years ago.

Conspiracy Parallels

Are there any other events in history that have kept people debating about their origins? Is there any other phenomenon that has taken place, or that we can point to that has drove people to irrational belief, despite evidence against it? Lucky for us, it turns out that there is. I will discuss what I consider to be three of the biggest scams of all time: Fatima, The Roswell Incident, and Joseph Smith’s fake golden plates - that spawned Mormonism.

Fatima was a worldwide conspiracy event that took place in the early part of the 20th century. Mostly known to the Catholic church, this big news item at the time was also known as “The Miracle of the Sun.” Many people don’t know the details behind the full story, and when you really start digging into it, it is almost uncanny how much the details start to look similar to the gospels.

In the spring of 1916, three shepherd children were attending sheep near their home, in the village of Fatima, Portugal. Nine year-old Lúcia dos Santos and her two cousins Francisco and Jacinta, claimed that they were visited by an angel who identified himself as an "Angel of Peace" and "Guardian of Portugal." According to the children, the angel taught them prayers, how to make sacrifices, and spend time worshiping god.

The next year, the children reported apparitions of the Virgin Mary, whom they described as the "the Lady more brilliant than the sun." The children reported a prophecy that prayer would end the Great War, and that the Lady would reveal her identity and perform a miracle " so all may believe." The media got involved, and the news started reporting the prophecies. In addition to that, pilgrims started showing up and visiting the area. The children's stories were highly controversial, and drew skeptics to the forefront from both religious and secular authorities.

Jacinta eventually told her family about seeing a brightly lit woman, but Lucia tild the other two that the three of them should keep the experience private. Jacinta's mother was skeptical of her daughter, and told the neighbors that it was joke but the news quickly spread of the children's vision. Lucia and her two cousins continued to experience these visitations including visions of hell, instructions of praying to the Rosary, and strange predictions about miracles. As more hysteria built up surrounding the children, it drew people far and wide to witness some of the miracles for themselves.

Some people even said they could see an apparition in a cloud above the trees. The situation was completely out of control for the local law enforcement. The provincial administrator did not take kindly to the children's stories, and thought that they were causing political disruption to the country. He kidnapped them, and threaten to jail them - even going as far as to threaten them with death. Lucia's mother hoped it would scare her into admitting she was telling lies, but the children stuck to their story.

On October 13th, after a report that a huge miracle would take place 75 to a hundred thousand people gathered at Cova di Iria to witness what was called "The Miracle of the Sun." There are conflicting reports, but many people reported to have seen the sun zig-zagging across the sky, while others said they only saw an array of colors. Others saw nothing at all. Even secular and non-religious sources reported seeing things: "The silver sun … was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds."

A young lawyer named Jose Garret said he was convinced: "The sun, whirling wildly, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge and fiery weight.”

It was also reported that there was no damage to the people's eyes after starring at the sun so long, and that there was a shower of rain beforehand. After people's clothes were soaked, they immediately became dry. Not one scientist was able to observe these bizarre events.

Lucia’s mother knew that her daughter was delusional and even quoted that her daughter was “nothing but a fake.....leading half the world astray.” Yet, people people chose to ignore the one person who knew Lucia best.

Evidently, Lucia claimed that she predicted that her two cousins would die long before she did. It came true. Francisco and Jacinta Marto died in the international flu pandemic that began in 1918 and swept the world. Francisco Marto died at home on 4 April 1919, at the age of ten. Jacinta died at the age of nine in hospital on 20 February 1920. To be fair, this is only a claim made by Lucia after the events happened, but the Miracle of the Sun was predicted beforehand.

If you are a Christian, chances are you don't know of one other Christian living today who actually believes these events happened. If you're a die hard Catholic, chances are that you might know people who believe it, but you probably know other Catholics who also reject it. The reports of Virgin Mary sightings continue to get trumpeted all over the globe to this day. The paralleled events in the gospels to Fatima are striking, so much so - it’s almost spooky.

Jesus' own family didn't believe he was god, and thought he was crazy. Lucia's own mother thought she was crazy.

The apostles faced hardships, and threats of death because they believed in the truth. The children faced threats of death because they believed in the truth.

Jesus predicted the temple would be destroyed. Lucia predicted both of her cousins would die.

Jesus caused a stir among the local authorities. The children caused a stir among local authorities.

500 people were reported to have see Jesus at the same time. Thousands of people were reported to see the sun moving in the sky.

When you put the pieces together, there are parallels to the gospels that are almost freaky. How does this happen? Luck? Coincidence? Religious fanaticism? Probably a combination of all three.

Another famous phenomenon as we know it, is the Roswell Incident. This is where in the year 1947, an aircraft crashed outside of Roswell, New Mexico. The scene was investigated by several officers, and local authorities. The website findingdulcinia.com gives pretty accurate representation of the story:

William Brazel, a local rancher originally found the debris laying in a field near his home, and thought little about it at first. Then a few days later, he went back and collected some of the scraps of metal that were lying in the field. On July 7, he told local Sheriff George Wilcox, who alerted the Roswell Army Air Field and Maj. Jesse A. Marcel. The RAAF announced that they had come into the possession of a flying saucer, and it made national news headlines.However, at the same time - the Army Air Force base in Fort Worth, Texas, which had been sent the debris for analysis, announced that the debris was nothing more than the wreckage of a weather balloon.

Brazel, in his interview with the Daily Chronicle, said that he had previously seen crashed weather balloons, but in this case, “I am sure what I found was not any weather observation balloon.” The Air Force’s explanation put an end to the “flying saucer” speculation for the next 30 years. Fast forward a few decades later. In 1978, nuclear physicist and UFO researcher Stanton Friedman spoke to Maj. Marcel, who told him about his experiences handling the Roswell debris. Marcel said that he did not believe the wreckage came from Earth.

The interview sparked interest in the long-forgotten Roswell incident and set off a wave of public suspicion about the existence of extraterrestrial life forms. Many UFO believers began combing government documents and old newspaper accounts for evidence. Between 1978 and his death in 1986, Marcel gave many interviews, including a famous 1980 interview with the National Enquirer, often giving contradictory details about the Roswell incident. His credibility was damaged in 1995, when the discovery of his military records revealed that he had greatly exaggerated his accomplishments.

UFO researchers developed many theories based on Marcel’s statements; many of those statements have been altered or exaggerated to support the existence of UFOs. A popular theory states that Gen. Roger Ramey, who oversaw the examination of the Roswell debris at Fort Worth, hid the actual debris and instead displayed an old weather balloon to the media. The theory is based on Marcel’s statement that Ramey had only displayed some of the Roswell debris.

Though neither Marcel nor any of the Roswell witnesses mentioned alien bodies, some UFO believers developed stories of alien bodies being discovered and autopsied at Roswell. In 1989, mortician Glenn Dennis revealed that he had received questions from the Roswell base about child-sized coffins and the embalming of bodies that had been exposed in the desert. Furthermore, he said he spoke with an Army nurse who had seen small, alien-like bodies. Dennis’ claims provide the foundation for most alien body theories, though even dedicated UFO believers find his credibility to be strained.

This is a perfect example of how one guy's credulity sets off a chain of fake sightings, reports, which lead to more theories, which lead to made-up eye witness testimonies, which spirals into a smattering of UFO sightings and fanatics to this very day. In one article I read, it took one guy 16 years to unravel the complications of the Roswell incident, but after he investigated the evidence and laid everything out on the table - he concluded it was one of the biggest hoaxes in human history. Some things simply have the right combination of real events, which can be exaggerated by enough crazy people, that it turns into a worldwide sensation. This can happen with religion.

Mormonism started out the same way. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion claimed that an angel gave him golden plates upon which contained secret messages that only he could decipher. According to Mormon history, 8 different people actually saw the plates. Except, the plates were never found, and have never been proven to exist. That means that his 8 avid followers, probably never saw the magic golden plates.

How did they end up believing in them? They were somehow, led to believe the plates existed. They were either hypnotized, brainwashed, or threatened into believing. I have no clue how Joseph Smith pulled it off, but the belief in the golden plates started with those 8 people. If Joseph Smith proved anything, he proved that you don't need golden plates to make people believe they are real. You don't need a physical product, if you can market an imaginary one.

Why should it be any different for a resurrection?

If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead simply because someone else said he did, then your beliefs are not anymore unique than any other religion. It's just that simple, but that is what has to happen, if one becomes a Christian. Whether the gospel stories led you to believe, or whether you grew up with it, it doesn't matter. The point is that you never saw Jesus like those few did, in the first century. Someone had to convince you.

If that’s the way it is, then you don’t need a resurrection to actually take place. All that’s needed is a belief in a resurrection. Every single religion in the world spread because someone was able to convince someone else that something they believed, was true.

The resurrection of Jesus wasn't any different. You simply needed one person to have a vision of a bodily resurrection, or a hallucination. That one person could have told others, and convinced them, and then those people led others to believe, and so on. I don't see why this simple concept, is so hard to accept.

So........let's do a little test here. Let's look at some of the best arguments for Christianity and Mormonism side by side, and see if we can find any similarities, shall we?

Christian argument: "The resurrection was not a late legend, because the disciples were teaching the resurrection from the very beginning of Christianity."

Mormon argument: "Joseph Smith taught from the beginning that he was translating from the plates"

Christian argument: "The post-resurrection appearances could not have been hallucinations, because some of it was in groups"

Mormon argument: "Smith's three witnesses, Harris, Cowdery, and Whitmer, at the same time, saw the angel Moroni and the golden plates"

Christian argument: "Jesus' disciples were willing to suffer and die for their preaching."

Mormon argument: "Joseph Smith and his followers were willing to suffer and die for their preaching"

Christian argument: "There is no way that only men could have written bible stories that powerful"

Mormon argument: "Joseph smith was an uneducated farm boy, so he could not have written the book of Mormon unless had divine help"

Christian argument: “Christianity never would have spread if the resurrection never happened.”

Mormon argument: “Mormonism never would have spread if the golden plates never existed.”

Muslim argument: “Islam never would have spread, if the prophet Muhammad had not received revelations from the archangel Gabriel.”

Christian argument: “The bible was written so elegantly, and it’s so powerful that there is no way it’s not the word of god.”

Muslim argument: “The Quran was written so beautifully, that the only way to have it written by one prophet, is if it came from god.”

This is why it doesn't matter if Christianity is true or not - because it would have yielded the same results either way. If you have a guy who was bodily resurrected, only to show himself to a few followers before he disappeared up into heaven, then someone had to tell the first person who never saw Jesus.

Someone had to be the very first BELIEVER. How did they convince others that Jesus was resurrected if everyone else after the fact never saw him or knew him?

The answer is simple - by offering people an argument that sounds convincing. This is how all religions start, whether they're true or false. If you had a guy who simply died on a cross and was never resurrected, then people could have made up such a belief in their minds, and then went out to evangelize their cause.

Either way, the resurrection ends up being dependent on on a mere belief, regardless if it's true. Someone, has to do the convincing. Someone, has to do the dirty work of ministry in order to spread the message. At the very least, Christianity has only preserved enough fuel to survive on flimsy evidence that 1st century people came up with during the time in which they lived. They passed down information, and that information has only kept a few details intact.

What Christianity Lacks

The one element that could have made Christianity absolutely irrefutable, is if Jesus appeared to everyone in the past 2000 years. He could have easily made appearances and spoke to every individual himself, sometime during people’s lifetimes. If that had happened, then we wouldn’t need to rely on the bible or any other second hand testimony about him. Everyone would know, without having to have faith that he existed. Christianity could have easily been a fact, instead of a mere belief. It would have made all other religions look ridiculous by comparison.

Christians often like to point out that it wouldn't do any good for Jesus to show himself to everyone, because after all, there were people who evidently witnessed his post-resurrection appearances, and still didn't believe. Of course you had Thomas who doubted, and then when he saw the evidence that he demanded, he believed. That pretty much refutes that claim. Thomas got the evidence that he was happy with. Why don't we?

Plus, if Jesus doesn't show himself to everyone just because there would be doubters then it must be asked why he even bothered to show himself at all - even to a few people. What would be the use in taking the risk just for the ones who would believe? Isn't the whole idea to save as many as possible? If so, would it not be worth the risk to show yourself to everyone on earth until the end of time?

You might still have people who wouldn't believe, but so what? The more you show yourself to people the more believers you will have. If the whole purpose is to save the world, then it looks like you would want as many on board as possible - not just a handful of people living in the first century who happened to be lucky enough to live in that time. The rest of us just have to live with the fragile hope that it's all true.

There are facts in this universe that almost every single one of us knows to be true without a doubt, and one of them is a round earth. Almost all of us accept this, because it's been proven. There are a few mavericks, such as the flat earth society, but they are laughed at by most of us, and are not taken seriously. The bible could have been easily been the same way.

God could have made the evidence for the bible so airtight, that to deny any of it would have been laughable. If there is a god who provided unshakable proof for a round earth, then you would think that his holy word would be even more so.

In summation, even though I believe in a historical Jesus, I don't believe in a resurrected messiah. Part of the reason for Christianity's success, is because it came along at the exact right time. It was a period in history when many pagans, and non-believers were starting to ask questions about their mortality. They were worried about the bad things they had done. They had questions such as, "what happens when I die?"

The Christians swooped down and took advantage of those questions. "We have the answer," they said. How did Christianity get to be the world's biggest faith system? It was simply the right place, right time, and the right culture.

It's not that the bible is special. The bible just has more lights, more bells, and more whistles. Christianity has all the right goodies, and the bible simply has more "stuff." The Beatles have been the world's biggest musical act for half a century now. Why did they get to be the biggest? Right place, right time. That's the way the world works. In the end, there will always be a # 1. Someone has to be.

If Christianity didn’t exist, then Islam would be the world’s biggest religion. How did Islam get to be so successful? Same stuff - right culture, and time period. In order for a religion to get off the ground, it doesn’t have to be true. It just has to be convincing, for the right people.

Final Point: Why I’m Not Buying It

Here is the main point: Christianity makes outrageous claims.

Outrageous claims should have outrageous evidence. If Christians think that is nothing but bumper sticker nonsense, then it's high time you started taking a step backward to look at what you actually believe in. Christians get so entrenched in their faith, that they often underestimate the magnitude of the claims that their bible makes, and often forget how it looks to outsiders. Do you know what you're actually believing in? Are you aware of the oddities, and the probability of such events?

If you claim that you are the son of God, and you want the whole world to take you seriously - especially 2000 years in the future, then by golly you had better have the best evidence the world has ever seen. You could at least for starters, have credible historical sources for your miracles, besides a few people who simply believed in it.

You had better get every historian and public writer from Rome, Egypt and Jerusalem to document your birth, and childhood. Don’t leave your childhood out of the story. Everytime you do a miracle it needs it needs to be written down as it happens. Go to every single corner of the globe and heal people, and have it documented! Every king, queen, scribe, sage, and scholar should be able to mention you in their records.

When you rise from the dead, make sure it's the most airtight case in history. Come on, your the son of god! Have thousands of people from all over the globe come to Jerusalem write it down as it's happening. Make sure that there are no contradictions. Make sure that everyone has their facts straight.

When you ascend into heaven, have thousands of people there WITNESSING it. Have it written down. Could people still say it was fiction after all of that historical evidence? Sure, but it would be a LOT harder. They would look kind of silly.

We skeptics exist for a reason. If the bible is going to make demands of humans, then it’s only fair that we demand a lot from the bible in return. We need to demand more evidence from the gospels, because they demand that your eternal destiny depends on it. This isn’t Alexander the Great, it’s Jesus - the son of god. Why isn’t he the most outrageously documented person of all time? We need evidence from multiple sources - while he was alive, and long after he was gone.

What do we get in return? We get almost a century of silence from any other source besides the bible. We get documents written generations later, and a very scant amount of dubious claims of so-called eyewitness evidence. We get church fathers who were deceitful in their writings. We get a mountain of contradictions. We have a parade of historical inaccuracies.

If this is the best that god can do, then pardon me while I recover from being underwhelmed.

For the bible to treat it's audience in such a whimsical way, is unfair to believers and unbelievers alike. Christians shouldn't have to be constantly pelted with questions, and skeptics shouldn't have to bury themselves underneath an endless mountain of information to try and get answers. The bible should have the answers for people living in all time periods. Yet we're still stuck in the same pattern of arguments year after year. If you're one of those people who think that 'you just can't make this stuff up' then you need to think again.

In his book "Mere Christianity", CS Lewis has this to say about Jesus:

"But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intent to."

I now ask CS Lewis:

If he did not intend to leave that open to us, then why would he allow so much evidence against himself?

CHAPTER 4

THE PROBLEM WITH ORIGINAL SIN AND HELL.......

"Go into the fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." - Matthew 25:41

You can argue historical evidence back and fourth, all day, everyday. It will not make a bit of difference to a Christian or an atheist. Both parties see things differently, and very rarely does one budge from their position. To me, the contradictions and historical issues with the bible are only surface problems. The thing that finally made me walk away, was realizing that the main message of the bible is immoral.

This has everything to do with the idea of original sin, and the doctrine of hell that stems from it. It has been taught for hundreds of years in hundreds of different ways, and the dilemma continues to persist: It just doesn't align itself with what we know to be moral.

A god who cursed you with sin the day you were born, creates a cure to save you from the very thing he cursed you with, and if that wasn't enough - creates a hell, to punish you if you don't ask to be saved from something he forced on you in the first place. He is saving you from something that you can't help, in order for you to avoid the one thing that you're supposed to deserve - eternal punishment. God wants to sell you fire insurance, for a fire he started himself.

Makes awesome perfect sense.

The logical side of my brain always told me that this was wrong, but the other side tried to intellectualize it away. This was excruciatingly difficult for me to admit at first. It was always something that I felt was problematic, but tried ever so hard to make it work. I tried to ignore it, shape and mold it differently, convince myself that it wasn't that bad, and told myself that god somehow knew better than we did - even if it didn't make sense.

I tried to hold on until the struggle became literally impossible, until I was staring into the face of an edge-of-the-knife decision. I finally had to admit that my brain was sending me signals I had been ignoring. After ten years of desperately clinging to this mind-game, I finally came clean with the only possible explanation:

The doctrine of hell, was invented to control people.

A Dangerous Idea

It may have worked in ancient times, but in the 21st century, it’s become an enemy of reason. The whole idea of god allowing you to be born with a defect so he could cure you, is quite honestly stupid, arrogant, intellectually backwards, narcissistic, controlling, not to mention fear-mongering. The whole idea of being saved from an eternal hell, should be scorned, mocked, and ridiculed at the highest level. It has caused more psychological damage than I care to think about, and has poisoned more modern societies than just about any other kind of teaching.

A brilliant quote from Christofer Hitchens comes to mind: "We are made to be sick, and commanded to be well."

It's not going to do Christians any good to go into a spiel about how god didn't want sin. Because if he knows the future, he could change it if he is all powerful, and choose to know a different future - one without sin. What was the forbidden tree in the garden created for, if it was forbidden? Why make it approachable? God could have put an angel in charge of guarding the tree, instead of guarding Eden after the fact. Why didn't he? Why even create the tree, if he was going to allow Satan to temp Adam and Eve?

Christians come back at this with the argument that god was creating freewill - giving humans a choice to disobey or follow him. Of course, he could have have used his omnipotence to create different types of freewill, and a world of choices that wouldn't have to include any depravity, or evil.

The answer that is forced on us skeptics, is that the biblical god obviously wanted all of this to happen. He obviously wanted people to sin. Otherwise, he could have gotten rid of Lucifer when he fell, not created the tree at all, created another future, chose just to forgive sin without butchering his son on a cross, or reward or punish based on ones deeds instead of using eternal extremes. Or god could have just chosen not to go through with creating the universe, and continued to sit there in the dark for the rest of eternity, minding his own business.

Any god in their right mind would have chosen other alternatives if he didn't want people to sin, but what is sin according to Yahweh? It's getting knowledge that you're not supposed to have. Adam and Eve obviously didn't do anything wrong for being tempted to want to know the difference between good and evil, but because they came just a tad closer to god's knowledge, god didn't like that, so he banished them. The punishment?

Well, you guessed it. You and I are cursed with sin and temptation, and have to pay because of what two people did. Not because they murdered anyone. Not because they started any wars, embezzled money, or corrupted governments. It was all because they were curious about knowledge. Let that float around in your head for a minute. God is punishing the rest of us for their sin.........only the sin isn't anything that anyone would consider a sin by today's standards. Christians call it bad, only because they have no choice but to accept it, despite it's logical fallacies.

That's why the idea of Adam and Eve having a sinless nature is a contradiction of the worst kind. How can anyone be created sinless, if the creator knew ahead of time that they were going to sin? Bit of a fallacy there.

For any god to make people pay for what their ancient ancestors did, is the equivalent of the state arresting someone because their great grandfather was a thief. This kind of act is unthinkable, even by the most ignorant, and despicable people who run our government.

I have never heard of anyone being jailed for something that their great, great uncle did, or distant relative did - at least in most countries. It is something repulsive, even to the most disingenuous person. Yet, the god who is worshiped by millions every Sunday, did just that - according to the bible. Life is a huge play, Yahweh is the genius playwright, and you are supposed to blindly accept whatever rules he makes. If the rules seem unfair, or unjust - then too bad, you’re supposed to worship him anyway.

Original sin is nothing more than a cultural hijacking of the intellect, and it's high time we dispensed of it.

In conclusion, god wanted there to be sin. There is no way out of this one, sorry Christians! If he had foreknowledge of sin before anyone else knew what it was - why should it follow that Adam and Eve be the ancestors of it? What would be wrong to have some of god's knowledge about what could be, but never had to be?

That's why it makes no sense that there had to be any sin in the first place. If there are constant possibilities going on in God's mind about certain scenarios that will never take place, then what's to stop god from choosing a different path, if he's all powerful? If god's mind reads like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book, then he could choose whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted.

He chose Lucifer to fall and become Satan, instead of getting rid of him. He wants to drag out the storyline so he can have a grand finale at the end, where he has a final judgement, and send people to an eternal punishment, all because he didn't want to deviate from his chosen storyline.

Once again, and I repeat........any god in their right mind would simply never have chosen to create fallen angels, sin, or hell if he truly didn't want those things. Don't try to tell me that god had to force himself to go through with creating this universe, because there was just no other way. If it's really true that god has no control over his choices, then it must really suck to be god.

If Satan was a separate rival deity, that created hell, and the ONLY way to keep people from going there was for god to sacrifice his son, then I would I would jump on board in a heart beat. I would actually have more sympathy for god if this were the case, because he would be doing his best to save everyone from his enemy Satan. Unfortunately, this is far from the biblical perspective.

From reading the text, Satan and hell are clearly god’s creations - and it makes the case time and again for an all-powerful god, who could get rid of the devil anytime he pleased. It is incredibly striking, that the biblical god wanted these things to exist - otherwise, why create them? He is not saving you from a Satan that created a hell. He is saving you from a hell he created himself. This changes up the whole game, entirely.

When evangelicals try to defend hell, their arguments become circular. Let's take a look at some of them. If you are a Christian, thinking that I haven't really thought this subject through enough, then allow me to take several arguments in defense of hell from a Christian website called EvidenceUnseen.com so I can challenge them, one by one.

Argument # 1: "Is hell a place of fire and brimstone?"

Their response:

"It’s impossible for hell to be both a place of darkness and a place filled with flames at the same time. Clearly, these images are meant to be taken symbolically. Second, hell is a place of both God’s active wrath and his passive wrath. the Bible also teaches that hell is a place of God’s active wrath, where people will be judged for their works –deed for deed (Heb. 10:30; Rom. 12:19). The Bible uses symbolism like lashings, fire, and brimstone to describe it (Lk. 12:48; Rev. 21:8).So, which is it? Clearly, it’s both.

Hell is a place where we receive active judgment, and we will be sent away from the presence of god - forever. In the same way, just because we aren’t reading these symbols literally, we should still read them seriously. As the author of Hebrews writes, ‘It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living god.’ (Heb. 10:31). There is no doubt about it. Hell is not a place that anyone would ever want to go.

My response:

If it's impossible for hell to have darkness and flames simultaneously, then it would also be impossible for Jesus to be both man and god at the same time. How powerful is your god? If he can do anything, then surely he's capable of producing flames and darkness. The flames wouldn't have to be visible. You could feel them, but you wouldn't have to see them.

Even if there was a light version of hell, where it was reduced to this place of air-conditioned darkness, where you're constantly supposed to be aware of your sinful nature for eternity, it still wouldn't make any sense, or be any less troubling. If all that hell is, is simply an eternal sleep which you are constantly aware of - then that is still a cruel punishment to forced into against one's will. It would be a far-fetched errand to condemn people to such an existence, who just weren't convinced that god was real.

If your god uses this "passive wrath", then it would be different for everyone, since everyone's deeds are different. If god judges deed for deed- then that means that eventually the punishment for deeds would run out, since your life was finite. Then what? Does he just start over again? Or does the active wrath take over?

Argument # 2: “Why is hell eternal if we only sin for a few years?”

Their response:

“First, the duration of a crime shouldn’t equal the duration of punishment. If it only takes 60 seconds to strangle someone to death, the punishment for that crime should not be 60 seconds long! A man might commit murder in the heat of the moment, but this could land him in prison for 50 years.”

“Second, we shouldn’t look primarily at the violation; instead, we should look at the Person whom we’re violating. Sinning against man is sinning against God himself. Some people say that they have never sinned against God, but the Bible teaches that God is going to veto this argument, when we stand before him (Mt. 25:31-46).Fourth, as humans, we don’t understand the punishment for sin, because we don’t understand the severity of sin.”

“The same is true with God and man. We are stuck here on Earth, saturated in the filth of sin. We’re lip deep in the muck and mire of sin; we’ve never known anything different. In fact, we’re used to it! Once in a while, something will really gross us out (maybe a rape or murder or something), but usually, we laugh or even joke at most of the sin around us. Is it any wonder why we don’t understand the punishment for sin? Isn’t it obvious? We don’t understand the severity of sin."

My response:

Of course the worse the crime, the worse the punishment! If you rape or kill someone, then you should be put away for life - simply because you took away someone else's life. When you have proven yourself to be a danger to society, then you should be put away. Even being in prison for the rest of one's life is still finite - not eternal. Don't forget, you don't go to an eternal hell for the things you did. You go to hell for what you DIDN'T do - not accepting god's book of ancient scribblings.

I didn't sign up for this universe, and I didn't ask to be here.

How is it my fault that I don't understand the SEVERITY of my sin? How could anyone possibly know, or even be aware of such a thing? Wouldn't it at least be doable for god to explain just how bad we are in the bible, so we could understand it? If your god is making these kind of bold accusations, then he could at least provide some insight on the human level.

Except, we don't get any of that. We just are told to shut up, and take it on faith, and that there just isn't any way possible to know how bad we really are. If god is all powerful, this means that he could reveal the secret of this corruptness, and shed some light on this mystery if he wanted to. Only he won't, so guess what? Not being able to comprehend the SEVERITY of my sinful nature, ain't my problem.

Argument # 3: “Does God have the right to send people to hell?”

Their response:

“First, God has the right to judge. The Bible teaches that the God of the Bible will be fair in judging all people. God has never sinned, and he cannot be in the presence of sin (Hab. 1:13); therefore, he has to judge the sin around him. Currently, we trust sinful judges to distribute justice, but at the end of time, the sinless Judge will deal out justice fairly.”

“Second, according to the Bible, people send themselves to hell. As we look at the passages on hell in the New Testament, we see that people have turned from God their entire lives (Rom. 3:10-11), and they do not want to be in God’s presence (2 Thess. 1:8-9) In a great and terrible act of fairness, God will give people what they want - separation from himself.”

“What could be fairer than that? As C.S. Lewis writes, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done’, and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’”[2] God will not force his love on someone. The people in hell might not ever choose to leave, because of their lack of humility. Apart from God, they grumble for eternity, blaming others and blaming God."

My response:

Ah yes, the "you did it to yourself" argument. Every time I hear this, it makes me want to punch someone. It simply screams of faulty reasoning. For one, as an agnostic, I simply do not believe in either heaven or hell. I am not trying to turn my back or "separate" myself from god. I simply don't believe the biblical god exists! It really is that easy.

Furthermore, even if hell exists, I am not interested in going there. How can you tell me that I sent myself somewhere that I didn't want to go? How does one end up in a place that he never desired or subscribed to? If I get whisked off to eternal punishment when I die, then that means someone did it against my will - by force. NOT because I wanted it. If I'm not interested in going to such a place, then who is really doing the "sending?" Who do you think is really pulling the strings? GULP.

Getting to choose between heaven or hell, is not a real choice - it's an ultimatum. It's really no different than a mugger putting a gun to your head, and demanding you either give him your wallet or your life. If he ends up taking your hard-earned money, then he can say to you that it was a loving act to let you walk away with your life. He can tell you he gave you mercy. If god were really giving someone a choice, then he would make nothingness an option. You can choose between heaven or nothing. Nothing isn't punishment, it's simply no reward.

I re-examined Christianity and could no longer make sense of it, so I had to get out. Christians use this fallacious argument all the time: That by no longer being able to believe - you somehow, mysteriously, deep down - still made a choice to go to hell! Even of you don't believe in it, it's your non-belief that automatically sends you there. Can you really think of anything more absurd?

It's like saying that because you don't believe in poison, you made the choice to drink it.

Yet, Christians still try to act as if this were somehow your fault. They try and spin it to make it look like you were the one who chose hell, by simply not believing in it. This is a heist of human logic, at the most ridiculous level.

If god really wanted to give unbelievers what they wanted, which is "separation from himself" then he would just make them vanish, or let us die, and that's it. No afterlife, no nothing. If he isn't going to force his "love" on us, then he shouldn't be forcing anything else on us either. Other than plain old death, we shouldn't be going anywhere. Though according to the bible, that's not what happens. Is it?

Argument # 4: “Why doesn’t God give us a second chance after we die?”

Their response:

“First, it is clear that God will not give people a second chance. The author of Hebrews writes, ‘Each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment.’ (Heb 9:27). Second, some argue that people in hell possibly wouldn’t take the second chance, even if it was offered. Their bitterness with God will only magnify.”

“Third, those who are punished often feel regret for getting caught, but not for what they did. Fourth, if God gave a second chance after death, this would encourage people to come to him out of fear, rather than out of love. Fifth, the time spent on earth - apart from God - is long enough to see our need for him. From the biblical viewpoint, this life is the time that we spend separated from God (Is. 59:1-2). Looking out at the brokenness of our world (or the bankruptcy of our lives) should be enough to show us our need to come to him. Second chances are unnecessary.”

My response:

This whole argument is based on an assumption - the assumption that I'm angry at god, so when I die I will continue to be angry, bitter, and shake my fist at him. For one, I'm not even angry at most Christians, let alone the god they believe in, because once again - I don't believe Yahweh exists!

You can't be angry at something you don't believe in, otherwise I would talk to god, and tell him off. I'm angry at a culture who thinks that the bible is logical, moral, and makes everyone else feel like they have to believe it.

Whoever wrote these arguments does not understand that we are lacking a certain amount of information that's so desperately needed. All I want is a good explanation, and the bible does not cut it. We are simply told that we need redemption because we are born sinners. That's it. Beyond that, nothing is explained. Are you going to tell me that once people go to hell, god will refuse to speak to them?

Is he just going to bolt the door shut, and not talk, when all we wanted were some answers? That would drive anyone mad. That would surely drive a person to anger. The question, should really be more about what causes the anger towards god. The fact that he sent you to hell? Or not telling you why? If the police arrest you, and take you away without giving you an explanation, wouldn’t you be a little enraged?

Telling me that I'm a sinner because of Adam, does not explain things, and don't try to tell me that it does. I would GLADLY take a second chance if god offered it to me. If he could convince me that he was a good guy, and this business of hell was a complete misunderstanding, then I would accept him. How do you know that I wouldn't? Does your god talk these issues out with people after death?

Doesn't look that way.

According to the bible, you immediately go to one place or the other when you die. No explanation or second chance to understand. I think that's really crappy of any god who calls himself loving. It's asinine, and you, dear Christian, would think the exact same about any other god that you don't believe in. If you are angry at Muslim culture and the atrocities it's committed, then I could say that "you're just angry at Allah."

You say that if god gave people a second chance after death then it, "would encourage people to come to him out of fear, rather than out of love." I'm gonna have to laugh at this one. Ummm......isn't that kind of the way it is NOW? The doctrine of hell has put more fear into people than almost any other superstition in history.

That's why you have had so many alter calls, and sudden conversions to Christ - simply out of fear. It's also why there are so many Christians struggling with their beliefs- because they are afraid to leave.

They want to keep that fire insurance - just in case. How is that any different than coming to god after death?

Lastly, spending time here on earth and seeing all the suffering and madness, doesn’t draw me to a personal god, like it does others. You don’t need a god to get you through this life. You simply need good humans, friends, family and a lot of wisdom.

Argument # 5: “Why would anyone ever believe in hell?”

Their response:

“We don’t get to decide if hell exists. Either it does, or it doesn’t. Often, the normal human reaction to bad news is denial, but denial doesn’t change reality. If there is a hell, we should believe that it is there - whether we like it or not. Second, Jesus believed and taught that there was a hell. The most loving, caring, and compassionate man who ever walked the face of the Earth taught about hell more than anyone else in the Bible.”

“In fact, he spoke about hell in the most terrifying and vivid language imaginable. He was probably trying to show us how horrible it would be to ever go there. Fourth, moral accountability makes life meaningful. Without moral accountability at the end of our lives, big big decisions become trivial along with little decisions.”

“Questions like, “Should I choose Good or Evil?” are virtually synonymous with “Should I eat the green Jell-O or the red Jell-O?”

“If there is no final accountability, then the human species has no ultimate purpose toward which we are heading. The final moral accountability of God makes sense of our need for purpose. Fifth, those plagued by moral atrocities have no problem believing in hell. Without judgment, acts of cruelty make our world absurd."

My response:

It doesn't matter whether hell exists or not. What matters is, that there is no evidence for it. Absolutely none.

When your bible makes a claim without any evidence, then I have the right to dismiss it. I don't have any evidence for hell, any more than I do for planets with yellow aliens. I'm not denying hell, because for me to deny something, it would have to be proven. No, I simply do not believe because there is no proof. Fair enough?

You say Jesus taught about hell, as a loving, compassionate, human being. Well, this is exactly what makes Jesus so problematic. No moral teacher in their right mind, would believe in such a doctrine, and take it literally. The historical Jesus could have very well been using it as a metaphorical device. The mythical Jesus probably really meant it. And that's the Jesus that I don't follow, because he was deified, mythified, and reworked into the context of an ancient story.

Of course, everyone needs moral accountability. That's why we have laws, courts, and jails. The law isn't always fair. The god of the bible is far worse, in terms of fairness.

Argument # 6: “How could we ever be happy in heaven, if we know that we have loved ones in hell?”

Their response:

"God is the greatest conceivable Good; therefore, keeping our families, but losing him, would be an unspeakable loss. Imagine if the child forfeited heaven for the love of his pet. The Bible teaches that God will wipe away every tear from our eyes.”

“While this objection is currently difficult to understand, the Bible promises that this will make sense in eternity. Perhaps, on the other side of eternity, we will agree with God’s decision to judge people for their sin."

My response:

Okay, time out here. First of all, if a kid clings to his dog more than heaven, then great! There is no evidence for heaven. Near death experiences don't count - sorry. Sometimes a dog is the only friend that people have. Any god that was invented by humans, have never proven themselves to be a friend to anyone, but a dog can always be there for you.

Now to tackle the other issue at hand. Let’s say that when you get to heaven you will know about hell, and become aware of who went there. That means that if your parents weren’t believers, and died - then you would know they were confined to eternal punishment. If god somehow makes your mind like his, to where you don’t have a problem with your parents suffering for an eternity, then that means god has brainwashed you into thinking like him. If this is the case, you will not have a mind of your own, and will forever be subservient to god’s way of thinking.

If god wipes your memory of your sinful parents, then you won't have any mind of your own whatsoever. It's not the real you. This "new body" which you will inhabit, will become a full-time slave to a celestial dictator, and you won't even be aware of it.

Either you will know of the people you loved who went to hell, and will somehow be okay with it, or you will just be brainwashed of all earthly memories.

Absolutely horrifying.

Argument # 7: “Why does hell bother our conscience so much?”

Their response:

“Will God judge these people? Yes. Will he enjoy judgment? No. In Isaiah chapter 28, we see that God is going to send judgment. But, what is interesting is that God calls this judgment ‘his strange work’ and ‘his alien task.” (Is. 28:21). In other words, this work isn’t natural to God. In the New Testament, we see the same thing. Peter writes, ‘The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” (2 Pet 3:9).

“Here is the will of God! He doesn’t want anyone to be separated from himself (see also 1 Tim 2:3-4). Do you see why hell bothers our conscience so much? Do you see why it is only natural that we would feel so disturbed at the thought of someone going to hell? Do you see why hell is so troubling to think about? It bothers us, because it bothers God.”

My response:

If god doesn't enjoy it, then he should stop doing it! Either the biblical god is all-powerful or he isn't. If this "strange work" isn't natural to god, and if it's his "alien task" then why would he have created a universe that needed judgement? Go and create another universe! It's almost like painting a picture of a bipolar deity who cuts himself, or has some kind of mental disorder to where he just can't seem to get rid of the hell he invented. If he doesn't want anyone to be separated from him, then just let people who don't believe, go back to the grave - period! Why would you create such a place if it makes you so miserable?

If god really can’t get himself out of the bind that he created for himself, then I must conclude he is not all-powerful. If hell bothers us, because it bothers god- then god must think of hell in the same way I do - culturally backwards, sadistic, horrifying, childish, and stupid.

That's why hell bothers me. It's a sickening joke. Are you telling me that god agrees with me? Because if he does, then he would get rid of it. If he doesn't, then he either is not powerful enough to put an end to it, or he really thinks it's fair.

If hell bothers god, as much as it does us, then he would destroy it. Still, the bible says that he isn't going to do that. I must conclude with common sense, that if god isn't going to get rid of it, then he must think more highly of it than I do. In the end, if every tear can be wiped away in spite of it, then he must not be bothered by it.

Your god is either a sadist, or a being who isn't powerful enough to destroy the very thing that he created, which bothers him.

No Escape From a Circular Argument

I don't know who wrote these agonizing arguments, but I truly feel sorry for them. They pile on strawman after strawman, so much so that it's nearly suffocating. It's like the author of this webpage took their insight from a children's bible story book, or a watchtower tract. Seriously, could the logic get any worse? Even a 10 year old could refute these horrible arguments.

According to EvidenceUnseen. com, my atheist friends will be punished eternally for the crime of unbelief, despite the fact that they are some of the most caring people you will ever meet. It seems that a certain piece to the puzzle is slightly out of whack. Don’t you think?

I wish that every evangelical could be a non-believer just for a single day, so these people could see how idiotic, twisted, cheap, disgusting and insensitive their arguments really are. These pathetic instant answers do NOT help skeptics, they only create more. It's obvious that once again, we have the converted preaching to the converted, but you can't get them to notice. It's all about pandering to the sheep.

In summery, the circular Christian argument for defending hell goes something like this:

Why do I deserve hell? Because we all deserve God's judgement.

Why do we deserve God's judgement? Because we've sinned against him.

How did we sin against him? You were born into sin.

How is that my fault? It isn't - you inherited it.

How did I inherit it? From Adam and Eve.

Why should we be blamed for what they did? You aren't being blamed - you just need to be cleansed.

Why do I need to be cleansed? Because you we're born a sinner.

How did I get to be sinner? You inherited it.

There are different versions of this argument, but we can see that it never gets off the ground, and there has never been a consistent case that I've seen in my life, where Christians can support it without stumbling into huge moral problems. These egregious, pious statements are nothing more than an endless trail of "that's just way it is, because that's just the way it is." Christians have unsuccessfully never been able to connect these awful accusations with what's true about anything that we know to be moral. That's why the argument for hell fails, is circular, and never resolves.

Christian theologian Daniel Wallace, thinks he has tackled some of these degrading issues. In his debate with Dan Barker, he criticized Dan’s reason for rejecting god as Dan Barker quotes from one of his books:

“Speaking for myself, if the biblical heaven and hell exist, I would choose hell. Having to spend eternity pretending to worship tyranny would be more hellish than baking in eternal flames.There is no way a bully will earn my worship.”

Wallace has this to say about certain types of atheists who resist becoming Christians because of the hell doctrine:

"It is important to realize that there are also many unbelievers like Dan who no matter what evidence is presented to them, in fact even if Jesus actually did rise from the dead and appear to them, they admit they would still not believe and would choose hell over worshiping god in heaven (see Luke 16:31). These kinds of statements do break my heart and I still pray for Dan and hope and believe he will come back to his Savior and Lord before the end."

Daniel Wallace is actually admitting here, at least in part, that his dictatorial god demands worship and if you don't concede then you're only left with one choice - which of course isn't really a choice.

The Faulty Logic of CS Lewis

Daniel Wallace is also an admirer of CS Lewis on the subject of eternal punishment. He thinks that CS Lewis has the right answer. Let's take a look at what Lewis says about hell, from his book "The problem of Pain."

“In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: ‘What are you asking God to do?’ To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To Forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does”

Let's unpack this argument that Lewis has spun. CS Lewis is actually presenting a risky sentiment here, and it's no surprise because he's trying to defend the indefensible. What I am asking god to do? This is very commonplace language among Christian philosophers. Already, they want to get their audiences thinking that the atheist is the one who is the whiner, and god is this all-perfect being who can do no wrong, no matter what he decides.

Am I wishing for god to wipe out my past sins, and baby-sit me to the point where he "smooths over" every difficulty? Absolutely NO. Here is where things start to crumble for the Christian argument - why should I care one iota if a god died for my sins or not? I never asked him to do so, and I never asked to be born a sinner. I'm HERE because my parents put me here. I didn't decide to part of this planet; the decision was made for me by someone else. That is true for every human that has ever lived. No one ever decided to be born a certain way.

Therefore, it should not follow that humans should even need forgiveness for something they were born with. Any god who was loving would judge people based on their character, not what they believed. Even Christians say that they would never judge a Muslim by their beliefs, or a Hindu by their beliefs. At the end of the day, it always comes back to a person's character. That is what we judge people by most of the time; how they act and how they treat others. Most rational people know it's wrong to judge someone based on their beliefs.

It seems as though CS Lewis is defending a god, who does that very thing - a god that judges you based on whether or not you believed in his son, because you needed forgiveness for being born with a deformity that you never asked for.

"He has done so on Calvary"......... Has he really? You and I both know that Christians still continue to "sin" after they become saved. I hear it all the time from Christians that they"sin daily." So what is Christ actually saving you from? Having bad thoughts? We all have those. Cheating on a spouse? Already been done by people who are saved.

Is Jesus saving you from lying or stealing?

Lying has already been accomplished by born-again Christians. If Christians have to pray in order to ask god to forgive them for something that he already knew they were going to do in advance, then what was the POINT of dying on a cross?

What is the point of dying for people's sin if they continue to sin after they get saved?

Lastly, CS Lewis quotes - "Leave them alone? Alas, I'm afraid that's what he does." At this point, I begin to facepalm. As I have already explained, the god of the bible does NOT leave you alone! You CANNOT leave people alone when who you consign them to a place where they will suffer eternally against their will - a place where they were never interested in going, nor had any desire to visit. If god really left people completely alone after they died, then death would be it. No hell, no heaven - simply nothingness. THAT is the definition of being left alone. Not some existence where you're forced to be isolated forever in torment.

When a kid tells his parents that he wants to be left alone, they usually don't respond by locking their kid in the basement. A sensible set of parents will simply back off and not talk to their child for a few hours. They let their child go off by themselves to their room, or somewhere quiet - not a forced punishment to teach you a lesson about being alone. That's simply insane, and would be considered such by any sane human being.

That's why it doesn’t make any sense for a god to engineer his creation in such a crafty way, where you need to be forgiven for something he allowed to happen without your control. CS Lewis was a product of his time, so it's easy to see why his arguments might have worked for his generation, but we now know that most of his arguments for Christianity, especially hell - are flawed. His sentiments are easy enough to knock down for any skeptic. I truly feel sorry for Daniel Wallace if he thinks these are good arguments.

It makes me wonder if Wallace keeps pounding the pulpit with erronious statements in order to sidestep the real concern. The real concern is - why do I need to be forgiven for what two people did in a garden, for which I had nothing to do with?

What am I asking god to do?

For starters, how about that he use the same logic that he gave us - judging people by their character. If people need to be punished for their deeds, then everyone would get a different punishment because everyone’s deeds are different. If you’re god, then don’t use a different system of morals that are alien to humans, if you want people to believe you’re fair and just. A god who would invent a system to be that confusing is either not all-powerful, or a lazy prick.

If you're an all-powerful being, you would be able to figure out that a rapist deserves a far more severe punishment than some guy who just told a couple of lies to his family. Or what about the person who's biggest crime during their life was yelling at their grandmother? Or what about the individual who's biggest mistake was cheating on his wife one time, and then after that he never did it again?

Every human being has their own unique list of mistakes, and would be willing to bet that most people's mistakes are not deserving of any kind of torment, let alone anything eternal. Most people don't really deserve anything beyond a couple days of detention, IF that. Surely an all omnipotent being would be able to work out what punishments were suitable for every human.

Demented Theologians

The Hitlers and the Stalin’s could get a few million years of torment, made to feel the pain of every person that they tortured, and then after they went through that - they could be redeemed. If they still rejected god after that, then god could just vaporize them out of existence. There is no point in giving someone an endless punishment, if you want to teach them a lesson. You can't learn from your mistakes, if the lesson is never ending.

But don't tell that to St. Augustine. Augustine, who was one of the most famous Christian theologians of all time, was also one of the most distraught, torn, distorted, and confused human beings to ever live. His volume of work in itself is something to behold, and he is considered one of the most prolific writers of his age. Along with that, he pushed the doctrine of hell that's so famous today. In his book "City of God" he constructs the telltale view of eternal torment thusly:

“by a miracle of their most omnipotent Creator, the damned can burn without being consumed, and suffer without dying.”

He is of course referring to a special kind of body, where people will burn eternally but will never die from the pain. This kind of picture painted by Augustine, set the stage for the fiery images of hell that the church would produce for the next 1500 years. The doctrine was around before his book, but he completely unlocked it and let it loose - opening Pandoras's Box as it were.

In addition to that, Augustine had a hatred towards any kind of sexual pleasure, even inside of marriage. His paranoid distrust for anything lustful went even way beyond the bible, and many claim that his ideas on sex have influenced the purity culture we see today. All because of a man who felt so guilty about his sin, that he went to bitter extremes to try and mend his torn mind.

If religion defies common sense, then St. Augustine was religion on steroids. Before Augustine, there was no one right or wrong take on the consensus of hell. Even early church theologians like Irenaeus of Lyons, and Origen Adamantius had views of hell that were not eternal, and didn't involve torture.

We also get the same dark, decrepit version of hell from Thomas Aquainus - a famous philosopher, monk, and icon of the Catholic church.

“The magnitude of the punishment matches the magnitude of the sin. Now a sin that is against God is infinite; the higher the person against whom it is committed, the graver the sin—it is more criminal to strike a head of state than a private citizen—and God is of infinite greatness. Therefore an infinite punishment is deserved for a sin committed against Him.”

Thomas Aqainus evidently, also believed that blaspheming god was just as bad, if not worse than murder, as he writes:

"It follows that, as the blasphemer intends to do harm to God's honor, absolutely speaking, he sins grievously than the murderer."

Suffice to say, if people like these are you heroes, then you've got issues. They have done more damage to society with their ideas than actual good, and those ideas have carried over into today's world with chaotic results. If people like Daniel Wallace think that there are a large portion of unbelievers who's main objection to the bible is hell, then he would be correct.

Wallace is right in his assessment that the real problem isn't the unreliable history of the bible for a lot of atheists, but what's really eating away at them is dealing with a god who invented eternal damnation. That's the main problem for many of us, and all unbelievers should feel absolutely NO SHAME in admitting this.

I agree with Dan Barker completely. If the biblical god was proven to be real, then it wouldn't make me a Christian because there would be no way I could worship some cosmic bully who has a superiority complex. No atheist on the planet should ever feel bad about addressing this. The more we attack it, and challenge it, the more we can expose people to the flaws and the poison behind the doctrine of original sin and the damnation that comes with it.

For some, hell is not the main problem. Depending on the person, it could be a myriad of scenarios. Basically, there is no bad reason to leave Christianity, if it's something that was made up by humans. For me, it's a combination of things, but I would have no trouble admitting to Daniel Wallace that I couldn't bring myself to believe in a god who punished good people for not making up their mind in this life.

When something doesn’t make sense to your brain, then you cannot just wish it to be true. I’m about to give another example of how a literal view of hell can warp someone’s mind beyond ever finding any hope of reason. Pastor John Piper of Minnesota quotes quite fervently about indoctrinating your kids with teachings on the subject:

"The fear of hell is a golden opportunity for treating God as big and glorious and utterly real. It is hard for human beings who are sinful to feel the reality of God, but if God is the one who created hell, and whose majesty makes hell just and understandable, then this is a golden moment. The reason hell is so terrible is because God is so great that despising him is so evil that it deserves this terrible punishment. In other words, the horror of hell is a signpost concerning the infinite worth and preciousness and beauty and goodness and justness of God. If he were small, if God were small, hell would be lukewarm. Because he’s great, scorning God is a horrible thing. This is a golden moment for how to teach a child about how real and how great God is."

A golden opportunity........to instill fear into your child. He continues to quote:

"The great and frightening tragedy of growing up feeling no fear of hell is that in a life like that, children will not be able to see sin as serious. It just won’t ever get to the point where sin is ugly and outrageous, because they haven’t schooled themselves on the penalty for sin, namely hell — that they will not see it as a great and horrible offense against God. Fearing hell is a golden opportunity for bringing our children into the light concerning the horrible darkness of sin."

There you have it, folks. This is coming from a sick and twisted man. Anyone who teaches parents that it's okay to brainwash their kids with such doctrines, is condoning child abuse. John Piper is an excellent example of how not to be a human. On the internet, there is a video of him describing how he would react if he found out that his kid was gay, and it was five minutes of some of the most abhorrent muck I've ever had to wade through.

His voice becomes almost a quivering, and demented version of a frightened child, as he says he can't even imagine the agony he would feel if one of his kids committed such a blasphemous act against god. The tone in his video was so full of sorrow and pain, that he made you feel the creepiness of his voice through the fibers of your body.

Piper's opinion on Old Testament genocide is nothing short of absolutely bone chilling:

"It's right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases. God gives life and he takes life. Everybody who dies, dies because God wills that they die.God is taking life every day. He will take 50,000 lives today. Life is in God's hand. God decides when your last heartbeat will be, and whether it ends through cancer or a bullet wound. God governs. So God is God! He rules and governs everything. And everything he does is just and right and good. God owes us nothing."

Piper doesn't even bother to intellectually defend his position on this one - he just goes straight for the jugular. You heard him correctly - god has the right to do anything he pleases because he's god. Even if god came down to earth and raped someone's mother, John Piper would be praising god for it. If there is one thing that I can be glad of, it's that Piper's words will not last.

His beliefs should be shamed, squashed, stomped out and poured onto the dungheap of history for infiltrating people's minds with such vile, and sickening drivel. His generation might still cling to his brand intellectual suicide , but he won't be lucky enough to keep younger audiences. The younger generation knows better, and for that I can be thankful.

Piper's most famous book is called "Don't Waste Your Life." How ironic and awkward, that he sets the prime example of how to do - just that. Piper is wasting his entire existence on a fleeting theology, that is embarrassing and outdated.

Unfortunately, there are still a great number of Christians who believe as Piper does, and they take the damnation doctrine extremely seriously. And despite how many people believe it - they still struggle with it. Even CS Lewis himself didn't like dealing with hell, and he went as far as to say that he would dispose of the doctrine if it were possible to do so.

Yet he couldn't, because he felt too strongly that if he rejected hell then he would be disobeying the bible, and that's really what it boils down to.

The famous preacher RC Sproul, has said from the pulpit that he has had moments where he actually fears going to hell, even as a Christian. One illustration he gave in a sermon was when he looked at himself in a mirror one day and the thought hit him: "Am I really worthy? Have I been guilty in my thoughts against god?" RC Sproul has even gone as far to as to push the point that if he winds up in hell, and god gives him no explanation - then he would still have no choice to think it was for a good reason.

This is is a mental illness that has to be learned, in order for people to say such things. It's obvious that many Christians don't want to believe in eternal damnation, yet they feel trapped - trying to make the most of it even if it means being miserable as a result. It's mind control in it's most advanced form, teaching you to be at constant war with logic. RC Sproul doesn't realize that when he preaches sermons like these, he's actually creating more ammunition for atheism, but there is another burning question that needs to be addressed here:

Why isn't there any hell in the Old Testament?

The Original “Hell”

Basically, the closest thing you can get to hell in the Old Testament is a place that is described as "Sheol." Sheol is basically a place where the dead simply sleep, or at least it's portrayed in such a mysterious manner, like some sort of shadow world. But it isn't meant to be a place of torment or pain, just a location where you are forever at rest, kind of like having a sleepover in your basement with the lights out.

Then along comes the New Testament, and suddenly there is this insufferable doctrine that's being forced upon you - one of fire, nashing of teeth, the devil and his angels, and unimaginable torment. What happened between the Old Testament and the new? Why isn't it more consistent? Why this new medieval version of the underworld that makes hell appear as a torture device?

Some people think the imagery of hell was influenced by Dante's inferno - a 14th century literary piece of poetry. Later paintings and artwork were definitely influenced by Dante, but the gospels were penned long before that. Most scholars today have made the case for what is probably the most likely scenario:

The gospel writers were influenced by Greek culture and the tales of the underworld, and those Greek influences manifested themselves into the gospel literature. Stories of Hades were in wide circulation before the New Testament was written, and so like good midrash enthusiests - the evangelists of the four NT gospels included many cultural references to the Greek underworld.

This is the explanation that seems to make the most sense as far as I can tell. The four gospel writers that we refer to as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John may have never interpreted hell literally, but they wanted people to think that Jesus did.

It's also interesting to note that Paul never even mentions hell, although he does mention judgement and sometimes goes to great lengths to employ threatening language that describe a terrible fate for unbelievers and blasphemers. Considering the fact that the gospels were written way after Paul's letters, just goes to show another step in the evolution of the judgement that is so harshly crafted. The final delivery of this package is in Revelation where it describes hell as "the lake of fire" where god will eventually cast all sinners into at the end of time.

It's easy to see the progression here. There is no one version of hell in the bible, only multiple versions which anyone can interpret as literal of figurative anytime they please. I for one, do not believe that the historical Jesus ever mentioned anything about hell. He was a first century Jew, and because he was a Jew that meant that he would most likely believed in Sheol - the Old Testament version of the underworld.

Why did the writers of the gospels think it was necessary portray Jesus as a believer in an eternal hell? Because the early church needed a tactic to ramp up the threat of eternal torment so people would convert. They needed the type of religion that preached a message of urgency, so it would scare people into believing. This is the exact reason why so many Christians cling to their faith today - fear of either going to hell, or fearing that they will become immoral if they don't remain Christian.

Is this something that would come from a loving god?

A Supersized Double Standard

If you had a child that hated your guts, and never wanted to see you again, it would hurt. You bet it would, but would you punish them for it? Would you have the audacity to send them to a place of eternal torture if you could? Could you bring yourself to do such a thing? Again, my guess would be no, because your moral instincts tell you that it wouldn’t be loving.

If you had a son or daughter who didn’t believe in god and wound up going to hell, would you think they really deserved it? If god could open up a window to show you how much they would be suffering and being tormented for not believing, would you take god’s side? Or would you not be horrified?

I would almost be willing to bet money that you would be screaming, begging god to give them a second chance. Is this an accurate picture of what we know to be a healthy relationship, between a parent and a wayward child? Think about it.

If you knew you had relatives in hell, and god changed his mind and decided to let them into heaven, would you be glad? Or would you still think they deserved hell just so you could be consistent with scripture?

If you had a spouse who wasn't a Christian and they died and went to hell, which state of mind would you choose in heaven if god allowed it? Would you choose to have knowledge of where they were at, so you could remember them? Or would you choose for god to wipe your memory so that you wouldn't remember them at all? Or............choose to remember them, but forget what happened to them?

To have choose between either one of these inescapable options would be no less than horrific.

Christianity has argued that Jesus had to die, in order to save humanity. And I say why? Does an all-powerful god have no other alternative? Looks to me like that a god of unlimited power wouldn't really have to do anything. He could just forgive humans, and be done with it. What was the point of a god bleeding on a cross for a few hours, only to be taken back up into heaven again a few days later?

Like that would be terribly hard for a god to do.

How can you say that Jesus suffered and bled on a cross when he planned it that way? It's simply a contradiction for any god to suffer for you because he wanted to. It would be like saying that the Jews had the power to stop Hitler, but they didn't because they loved humanity so much that they were willing to go through with unspeakable acts of torture. Is this real suffering?

Many loving parents I'm sure would die for their kids if they had to, but how many would tell their kid that they are going to commit suicide because they loved them? That's not love. Any parent who would try such a thing, needs to check themselves into a sanitarium.

To say that god didn't force sin on you - he "allowed" it is devoid of anything rational. Why would you allow something to get loose that you could easily put a stop to? The only logical answer is that he obviously didn't want to stop it. He needed you to be a sinner so that he could save you. Then he created Lucifer, because he needed him to fall, so that he could go around the earth tempting people to sin.

What good is a devil if one is already born with a sinful nature? What purpose could Satan possibly serve, with humans already being reprobate from the beginning? It seems like the biblical god has such an obsession with his creation sinning, that humans being born in a depraved state just isn’t enough. He needed humans to be tempted to sin. The vicious downward spiral continues.

You would think that Yahweh would be happy with his two billion followers, but no. He has to have everyone believe, because evidently he really is that insecure. He seriously can't live without a few million fans, because his emotional needs must be met. Yet another self-righteous cog, in god's unconditional wheel of love.

"It may not be fair to you, but it's fair to God."

You could have said the same thing about Attila.

It doesn't jive that an omnipotent creator invented a different kind of logic for humans, separate from his own. He wants us to somehow just trust him on the issue of hell, despite the constant struggle to make moral sense of it. Many Christians have left this medieval attitude behind, and have resorted to a softer version of hell, or no hell at all - simply because they can no longer carry the pressing weight of such an uphill battle.

Christians that lived 200 years ago, had no problem with telling someone that they would go to hell if they rejected the bible. Nowdays, it's just a big open question. Most Christians today will have a more dubious response, or just say, "We leave that up to god to decide."

As non-judgmental as this sounds, it's actually more harmful. It leaves people with an uncomfortable uncertainty, that keeps gnawing at their conscience. The whole concept of "what if?" is extremely powerful. The big question has been posed time and again by evangelicals - "do you really want to take a chance?" They sell fear insurance, to give you a way out - when ironically, it's them that created the fear in the first place.

The Swapping Test

In certain versions of the Hindu religion, there are people who are reincarnated in one of two ways. If you're good, you can be reincarnated as a higher being, but if you are a bad person in this life - some Hindus believe that you can come back as a person with a deformed body.

This belief as you might guess, can cause major problems within a society. If a handicapped person who needs help is rejected because of the belief that he did something bad in his past life, then that would be appalling to most Christians. Most Christians would most definitely think that such a belief is harmful, not to mention ridiculous.

After all, how can a person be blamed for what they did in their past life if they have no recollection of it? How can you prove that there is such a thing as a past life in the first place? It doesn't seem fair to blame someone for what they did in another life, when that life has nothing to do with them now. Almost any Christian would reject this horrible belief system without a second thought.

Yet...........Christians still cling to the doctrine of original sin. How can you blame people living today, for what Adam and Eve did? Almost without realizing it, Christians make the same mistake that Hindus make so blindly. How is mankind being cursed with sin for what two prehistoric people did any different than what a handicapped person did in a past life? How is Christianity any less ridiculous in that regard? It's so funny how many believers can recognize the same dangerous motives in other religions, but they can't recognize it in their own.

Let's suppose for a moment that the bible swapped beliefs with Hinduism. Let's pretend that there was no teaching about original sin or hell in the New Testament, and instead - Jesus would be quoted as saying that all humans with deformities are suffering for what they did in another life.

If this was the crux of Christianity, then Christians would think nothing of it, and accept it as truth because Jesus said it. Except, let's say that the Hindu scriptures taught about hell and eternal damnation, instead of the bible. Let's say that despite people being good - they were dammed to an eternity of suffering because they didn't believe in Vishnu.

Pretend that people were born into sin because some ancient Hindu drank from forbidden jar of water that Vishnu told him not to drink from - a jar of water that would give people KNOWLEDGE. Then to pay for that mistake, Vishnu decided to take the punishment upon himself by becoming a man who suffered by being buried alive, and then rose again within three days. Those who did not believe in this great sacrifice, would already be condemned in their sins, since Vishnu paid the price for you. Meanwhile, you keep trusting in Jesus because you believe that if you are good, you get to be superhuman in the next life.

It's all too blatantly obvious. Christians would think the whole idea of hell was absurd, if it was foreign to them. They would think the same thing about hell that they think about reincarnation now, if the both religions swapped those two doctrines.

A Belief That Can’t Be Changed

If you happen to be a Christian reading this, and think that my arguments are arrogant, then let me assure you - there is no way I could possibly compete with the arrogance of your bible, or the god who is in it. You can't possibly get anymore self -inflated than the biblical Yahweh - a deity who punishes his own creation for his mistakes. One of my favorite science writers, Lawrence Krauss, has the perfect response when evangelicals tell him he's going to hell, in just two words:

"Gee, thanks."

It's a light-hearted, and yet stern, clever, brush-off.

The whole concept of hellfire was invented to keep people feeling guilty about asking too many questions, or more accurately - the wrong questions. As I stated near the beginning of this blog, the church encourages thinking, as long as you don't think too much. They just don't like questions that they don't have a ready-made answer for. They don't want you to find the exit door out of the matrix.

If god is so powerful that he could do anything, then why would he absolutely have to die in the fashion that he did with no alternative? If Jesus didn't want to suffer when he was in the garden praying to god(himself?) then he could have just walked away and found some other method of forgiving people.

Or better yet, get rid of the devil. Or better still, create humans without sin. But of course we couldn't have that. Because without sin or the devil, there's no story. And without a story there's no bible. And without a bible, then there is no religion to control people with. Is there?

CHAPTER 5

THE PROBLEM WITH A GOD WHO ALLOWS SUFFERING.....

" Give your burdens to the lord, and he will take care of you.” - Psalm 55:22

Out of all of the issues with the bible, this one is the easiest to criticize, even for the layman. Christian theology claims that god is omnipotent, all-merciful, and all-loving, but what kind of love is it? I finally had to ask myself the question of how loving god could be, when there is so much endless suffering on the planet. I can live with a god who is all loving but not all-powerful. You can't have it both ways, if you live in our universe. Our cosmos is far too random, too vast, too unpredictable, too indifferent and too hostile for there to be a creator who has these unlimited qualities.

Nature alone could easily satisfy god’s plan to have us suffer. We live in a universe that wants to kill us, or at least is indifferent to our state of being. If god created everything in six days, then that means he created the asteroid belt, before man “sinned.” That means the cosmos was never created perfect, after all. Asteroids can be terrifying, if you really let your thoughts get carried away.

The bigger ones measure about 1000 miles across, and if one of those came in contact with us, then you can say goodbye to our civilization. Earth seems to be a target for the universe’s endless, uncaring ways.

It seems strange that a loving designer would purposely install the human body with cancer cells, just waiting to misfire. Most scientists will tell you that the scariest thing on the planet is the human body. Biology can simply be at times - downright horrifying. Viruses, bacteria, bad cells, pestilence, disease, superbugs, ect are all too eager to force you into an early fate.

Consider for a moment why god would create any insect to burrow and eat people’s bodies from the inside out, but that’s exactly what you get in Africa. The Loa Loa worm has to burrow into the eyes of children just to survive. Yes, they can be removed, and are not necessarily fatal, but what is the purpose behind creating such a creature?

One has to wonder. If you want to get any more gruesome, there is always the African Siafu ant, that is known for attacking entire villages, and burrowing through the bodies of infants in their cribs, stripping them to the bone with surgical precision. If god created every single creature on the planet, then I would at least have to ask the question - what the hell was he thinking when he created ants who’s purpose was to destroy everything in their path?

Most Humans Are Not Evil

According to Christian doctrine, suffering happens because god gives us freewill. Isn’t that what it’s supposed to be about? In fact, god gave human beings so much freewill, that he gave man permission to murder, rape, lie, cheat and slaughter people.

History is a swamp full of man’s ingenious atrocities that have been foisted upon innocent civilians. From Attila to Hitler, to the average street thug, there have always been a large minority of people just waiting to ruin your life.

Narcissists, bad CEO’s, bad family members - you name it, the majority will always suffer because of the minority, but this is exactly my point. God allows a vast amount of people to suffer, all because he gives everyone freewill to do what they please, but of course the majority do not have it in them.

The majority do not commit murder, rape, or molest children. This evil minority who make innocent people suffer, are the ones who are exercising and abusing this unlimited amount of potential freedom.

One has to ask: What is the point of making so many people suffer for the poor choices of a few twisted human beings? What kind of mileage is god getting out of Kim Jong Un torturing an entire country, with his inane, backwards freewill? This is why most human beings cannot be blamed for the evil that man does. When we talk about “the evil that men do,” we are obviously talking about a certain kind of man. Not most men.

At what point does a person become a bad person? The answer seems to be different for everyone. This is where things start to become complicated, and hard to sort out. Its' one of the biggest intellectual hurdles that the bible should be forced to deal with - and yet we get no answer to these easily-glossed over questions.

If the bible is the word of a god who is logical, then it should acknowledge that every human is different, therefore every single person should be dealt with differently. Some should get harsh punishments, and others hardly punished at all. This is the same logic that is available to us, and the kind of system we base our society on.

We think that rapists and murderers should be put away for life. How harsh should the punishment be for theft? Again, there are differing opinions. Besides anything physical that is harmful to a human being, then we are left with almost an endless mount of uncertainty as to what to do with all of the leftover baggage concerning morality.

The writers of the bible easily dodged these pesky issues, by creating a on-size-fits-all category of sin. That means even though you have been an honest, charitable person your entire life, you are still in god’s book - an evil person. In accordance with Christian theology, no one can be good enough for god. I say, SO WHAT? Would it be too much to ask of an all-powerful creator to make the punishment fit the crime?

For example, Hitler and Stalin would feel the exact same amount of pain that they caused the people they tortured. They would be put through absolute pain and misery for every life that they ruined. Then in the end, they would be redeemed - because they would be able to see the pain they caused others. Not an eternal hell for infinite crimes they didn’t commit.

The sad fact is, unlimited suffering is pointless for living life. Evangelicals like to use the "robot" argument. You've heard it many times - "If we didn't have any freewill, then we would all just be robots." This might be true in a sense. But the pressing question still remains - how much suffering is needed to keep humans from being robotic? A little suffering, or a lot?

If everything is fitting in order to "god's plan" then it is undeniable that he wants, needs, or allows different levels of suffering for different people. It could be god's plan for one person to be born into an existence where their only purpose in life is to scrounge for scraps of food so they won't starve. In another person's existence, the only suffering they may experience is having to go one night without an electric blanket. If there is some kind of moral justification for suffering, then why the imbalance? If it's good for some people to have pain, then you should give the same amount of pain for the privileged.

Let's face the obvious. There are many fortunate humans that go through life completely unscathed by cancer, starvation, or any form of stinging adversity. They get to have luxurious vacations, private jets, own multiple homes, and own their careers. They still have purposeful, fulfilling lives, without getting bored. The answer it seems to me, is simple. We don't need suffering or chaos, in order to live a good life.

Humans need activities and challenges. It’s good for us to have obstacles in life, that make us stronger, dedicated and more passionate humans. If you took human violence out of the equation, there would still be more than enough challenges in one’s lifetime without being robotic.

A myriad of challenges awaits us daily: Getting to work on time, financial stress, mortgages, rent, raising kids, dealing with in-laws, marital issues, getting through school, creating art, fighting disease, natural disasters, developing new technologies, moving up in the workforce, romantic relationships, running marathons, sports, outcasts trying to fit into society, philosophy, scientific discoveries, surviving the holiday rush and more. These obstacles are more than enough to make life meaningful without warfare, violence and hatred.

We don't need hate in order to experience love. We only need indifference. A quiet, indifferent universe screams at our innate senses to do something about being here. The world is ambivalent to our wishes, and the more we realize that, the more loving and compassionate we should be.

What do a great number of Christians do in a time of suffering? They turn to the story of Job. Many believers find comfort in this mesmerizing tale, about a man who suffered and didn't deserve it. The story is very powerful, but unfortunately has a darker undercurrent of twists to it, that can't be labeled as anything less than disturbing. A god who goes behind a man's back to make a deal with the devil just to TEST his faith, is pretty sleazy.

At the end of Job’s test, we get an angry god who questions him, after he was kind enough to jump through all of Yahweh’s hoops. All Job wanted were some answers, and god just wasn’t in the mood for questions that day. By the end of the story, we’re right back where we started with the issue of suffering. It doesn’t help that god restored Job’s life back to the way it was. That doesn’t happen for most people. Most of us don’t get happy endings. My conclusion? The book of Job is useless for any answers regarding human suffering.

God’s Failed Plan

The shallow belief that "god has a purpose" for every human being, is a charmed lie. Yes, there SHOULD be a purpose for everyone, but there just isn't. We fool ourselves, and keep telling ourselves that there is. Sadly, there is a long list of less fortunate humans, who got life stolen away from them at an early age. Among these people are children who died of bone cancer, got hit by am automobile, murdered by a serial killer, died of a sickness, drowned, went missing, lost blood, had a bad asthma condition, died of allergic reaction, miscarriage and so many more.

What about serial cannibalists like Jeffrey Dalmer? I would like to know what his so-called "purpose" was. Same with other famous killers such as HH Holmes, Ed Guine, John Wayne Gayce, and Ted Bundy. Clearly, they had a purpose. What did it serve? What need did they fill for society that was beneficial? Please don't tell me that raping little girls, murdering innocent people and eating their corpses was all part of god's plan.

Are you really going to go there?

The one word that no loving parent should have to hear in their life is the word "missing." Yet every year, thousands of parents have to endure the nightmare of their child's disappearance. As a result, many moms and dads have trouble moving forward with their lives and some end up committing suicide, or having to commit to lifelong counselling just so they could get up in the morning. Others are on medication, to the point where they can barely function. All because their child was ripped away from them. Someone please explain to me the "purpose" behind these heart-breaking scenarios.

My burning question is - if god's ultimate plan is to have humans develop their gifts on earth so that purpose can be used in heaven, then why are so many people left without a purpose? There is no point in giving so many people lives on this planet, if all your going to do is allow the chance that you gave them to ripped away. What is the point of allowing a serial killer to use his purpose, on a young girl who has yet to figure out her own purpose? I suspect that the Christian God is more concerned about whether or not that young girl believed in him. God's ego always trumps logic.

Imagine a woman in the heat of the violence of rape. In the act, she cries out to god to make her assailant stop, and nothing happens. This is a situation that is all too common. There is approximately a rape about every five minutes in the United States, probably every minute. Before I get finished typing the next paragraph, some woman will be raped in a certain fashion. As awful as this sounds, it's the reality we face daily. A woman who believes in Yahweh, cries out to him and her god still allowed her rapist to go through with the act, and made her feel powerless. This makes god look just as bad as the rapist, and further damages his reputation as a loving, heavenly father. Should this not bother god?

Please do not tell me all of this is because of Adam and Eve. I sincerely BEG you not to do that.

Some will try to use the argument in favor of mentoring others who have gone through tough times. In other words, some Christians have suggested that anyone who has been raped can help other rape victims, and council them. Or a parent who's son went missing and never returned was able to help someone else, who went through the same thing. You've heard it before- "something good came out of something bad." This sounds comforting on the surface. But we must ask ourselves: If we are really being honest - is this something you could have lived without?

If you had to make a choice between being raped so you could help other rape victims, or finding another purpose that didn't involve rape, which would you choose?

Let's say that you had a 5 year old daughter who was traumatized by trauma for life, because she saw a shooting on your neighbors front lawn, and that god allowed her to witness it. She saw a dead body. If you had the choice between counselling other trauma victims because of your daughter, or choose another universe where none of that had to happen, what do you think your choice would be?

If you became a rape councilor, because you were also a rape victim, I doubt that you would you want to relive the experience. Would you want to go back in time and have someone rape you, all because you could help someone else who was a victim? My guess would lie on the side of no, you probably wouldn't. It all comes down to whether or not you think that being raped was something you needed in your life.

It seems like the best explanation Christians can come up with for suffering, is that god wants to be part of it - that you and him are going through it together. Yet, if all god can do to give you comfort is suffer with you, then you might as well erase him from the picture, and find a human to comfort you. At least a real-life friend suffering with you, is better than an invisible one.

The church often preaches that everyone has a gift, and those gifts that are developed on here on earth and will be used in heaven. But this idea presents a problem: If there are no tears in heaven, and no evil, no pain or sickness, then that ultimately eliminates a lot of professions. That means that doctors and surgeons will no longer be needed, along with lawyers, firemen, law enforcement, businessmen, farmers, detectives, financial advisers, case workers, councilors, and so many more. And what about pastors? They can't be much use in heaven either..........Or what about the people who’s only dream in life was to get married and have a family? Is that allowed in heaven? Even the bible would be useless in heaven.

You wouldn't need the bible if everyone there can talk to god. What good is a crime novelist, or a news reporter in a place where there is no conflict?

Just about every profession on earth is, in someway connected to solving problems, or filling a human need. That would render about every single earthly gift useless, if there is nothing in heaven that god’s power can’t supply. What was this life for, if everything is going to start over new in the afterlife, with no pain or sorrow? If there is no evil in god’s paradise, then what was the point of having evil on earth, if it’s not going to be useful in heaven?

If you are going to insinuate that evil was used to bring us closer to god, then that could have been accomplished without human violence. But evidently for Yahweh, more is more. He just had to use violence, war, and rape as part of his mysterious little plan. It's almost chilling when you think about what else we're missing.

Dealing with suffering without a personal god, or a heaven, doesn't make loss any easier, but I think it does make life simpler. We are not in the ideal situation. If there is a loving personal god, then belief in that god complicates suffering all the more, by having to constantly juggle the why's, the how's, and wasting energy being angry with that god. It just takes too much effort, to make such a god behave.

When you cease to believe in a religious god, it diffuses the pressure of having to fight your way around all of the baggage. You can just take life as it comes, and embrace the universe as it is. It may not be the ideal situation, but at least it's real. At least it's something to work with.

In the end, suffering is simply not needed for one to have a meaningful existence. If three is a heaven where there is no more suffering or tears, then it makes suffering on earth twice as pointless. We are to suffer only for it all to be wiped away in the end. That is simply a waste. It would all be for nothing, and if there is an explanation, then where is it?

CHAPTER 6

THE PROBLEM WITH CHRISTIAN CULTURE.....

"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." - Luke 23:34

The number one accusation that believers like to wield at secularists, is that we walked away from the faith because something bad happened to us. We were angry at god, for whatever reason, had a bad experience with corrupt Christians, and my personal favorite: "You were never really a Christian to begin with."

It's simply not true. There is no way any believer can read my mind and say I was never really a Christian. There were plenty of instances from my past where I was angry at god, but never would have thought of walking away. It's clear that these types of Christians do not understand that there is a difference between deconverting for emotional reasons and deconverting for intellectual reasons. They often don't consider that one can simply take a second look at their religion, reexamine it, and decide it isn't true, without a bad experience in your life.

That’s why the reason for my unbelief had nothing to do with anger, bad Christians, or any of the above. It DOES however, have to do with the way many Christians think. The reason why so many people of faith think the way they do, is because of the bible.

The bible itself has been responsible for the way that evangelical culture behaves, or at least 90 percent of the time. I'll admit that sometimes the way Christians act has nothing to do with what's in scripture. Rather, my argument here is not about the way evangelicals act, but the source behind what controls their thinking. More often than we would like to admit, the bible has caused more cultural tension than any other book, simply because of what's in it. Whether you argue literally, or metaphorically, these things appear in the print that's on the page.

Throughout the course of my life, I went from being raised an indoctrinated Christian, to a moderate Christian, to an all-out secular non-believer. When I was making my way through these transitions, I was convinced that other Christians were wrong in their theology.

Warning people about hell, indoctrinating children, condemning homosexuality, and telling unbelievers they were sinners, didn't align itself with what I thought was the "right" approach to having faith.

The more moderate I became in my Christian belief, the more I couldn't stand American evangelicals. I HATED their messages and their ignorance, but they were loving people. They were kind, and not hateful. They just didn't want to see people burn in hell, and they really, really believed that same-sex marriage was against god's will. These people actually thought that they were doing the right thing by telling others that they were sinners. They didn't do it in a hateful manner. They thought that they were being loving. That's when it hit me:

The problem with Christianity is NOT the bad Christians. It is the GOOD Christians who can't think for themselves. The bible does the thinking for them.

All of these things are taught in the New Testament. Does the bible come with an instruction manual on how to think through these issues? No.

Does the bible teach critical thinking? No.

Does the bible tell you how literally or metaphorically to interpret certain passages? No.

Does the bible instruct parents on how to teach children about hell? No.

Does the bible teach children to think for themselves? No.

Does the bible say that all scripture is "God breathed?" YES it DOES.

There lies the problem, boys and girls. Certain passages of scripture have seared it's branding upon young impressionable minds, and because the bible says these things, then how can one blame Christians for believing such things?

Challenging the “Anti-religious” Jesus

These kinds of doctrines are stressed by kind, loving, people of faith. They aren't judgmental people. They don't have to be. The bible does that for them, because the bible is a very judgmental book. As a result, you have the neverending paradox of kind, loving people, spreading nasty beliefs. You will find the same mentality in Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism.

What kind of beliefs are at the core of your Christian love?

Jesus was certainly a radical moral teacher, and he challenged the religious and political sect of his day. He constantly stressed love, kindness, helping the poor and oppressed, forgiveness, and charity.

That aside, Jesus also believed in eternal hell, original sin, that you should love him more than your own children, that anyone who didn't believe was already condemned, that there would be a second coming, that nothing should be removed from the law, that he was the only way to heaven, that calling someone a fool puts you at risk of hellfire, praying without ceasing, not using the lord's name in vain, and calling a divorced wife an "adulteress." Jesus had a side to him that wasn't very nice, and this is demonstrated in the New Testament, using numerous different passages.

Jesus continues his ministry by chasing the money changers out of the temple with a whip of cords, regardless of the fact that selling things in the temple was a perfectly normal and harmless thing to do in that day. In Matthew 8:32, we see Jesus commanding demons to go into a herd of pigs, and the demons make the pigs drown themselves - not the best way to portray the son of god. Luke 14:25 makes it clear that to follow Jesus, you must leave your entire family and give up everything. This seems to go against family values.

In Matthew 18:6 we see Jesus quoting this:

"but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

If you're a father, and you influence your kid to sin in anyway, then Jesus thinks you're better off being drowned. That seems rather bizarre to me at best, and ludacris at worst. Those Christians who pretend that Jesus didn't endorse eternal punishment should read this passage in Matthew 10:28 where he quotes:

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Basically, you should fear your heavenly father who has the right to destroy you in any way he chooses. Even if it's a threat from beyond the grave.

Matthew 15:21 tells of a situation where Jesus refuses to heal a Canaanite woman’s daughter..........at first. She cries out to Jesus that her daughter is suffering from demonic possession, but Jesus does not answer her, and even the disciples tell Jesus to send her away.

He tells her that he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel, and he says directly to her face - "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs!"

She replies, "even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the master's table" Then Jesus tells her that she has great faith, and heals her daughter. Sounds to me like Jesus cares way more about the Jews than he does anyone else, if this Canaanite woman had to beg him to do the right thing.

Then without skipping a beat, Jesus makes it plain that anyone who even thinks a lustful thought has already committed adultery in Matthew 5:27:

"But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

To me, this sounds like an ancient accusation of thought-crime. Don't think the wrong thoughts..........you might be sinning.

All of that should be enough right there, to tell you that Jesus had plenty in common with the conservative evangelicals that moderate Christians so love to slander. The only difference is the approach. Jesus believed in some very bigoted ideas, but acted loving.

He made the bitter tasting medicine easier to swallow, which again, brings us back to the problem of interpretation. Moderates have every right to their version of "Jesus the hippy", but conservatives have just as much of a right to "Christ the Judge." Both are accurate and found in the New Testament. When you strip away the veil of the social liberal Jesus, then you basically get the evangelical church. Early Christians believed these things, and were not moderate in any sense.

I constantly hear the cop-outs such as: "Jesus didn't believe in religion!" I bought into this way of thinking for many years, before I realized what was wrong with it. I slowly became aware that even though Jesus was supposedly loving, kind, and had many great moral teachings, he never backed down once when it came to conservative theology. All of the doctrines about eternal punishment and original sin, were taught explicitly to the disciples directly from Jesus himself.

He also stressed a very harsh, conservative stance on lust, and sexual immorality, just like the church does. That's why it's impossible to completely divorce Jesus from evangelical Christianity. He taught a lot of the same stuff - he just packaged it in a different way. He was a social liberal, while being a theological conservative.

The only difference between Jesus and the church is that Jesus would hang out with you, eat with you, and talk with you like a human being before he let you know that you were a sinner. The church gets it backwards - they tell you what a sinner you are before they will hang out with you, eat, talk with you, and befriend you. Nevertheless, at the core, they are the same doctrines. The bible explicitly teaches that you are a sinner who deserves judgment, who needs to repent. This is the same message that Paul also drove home, again and again.

You can pick and choose whatever you want to believe in the bible, but it doesn't change the fact that as long as you are preaching in LOVE, then you are acting like a Christian. To tell someone in that they are a sinner in a loving way, isn't being hypocritical.

It's exactly what the bible preaches, and what the apostle Paul preached. To warn someone out of concern about eternal damnation, is exactly the way that Jesus would have done it, and just because he didn't beat people over the head with it, doesn't mean that he didn't endorse the idea. These kinds of teachings make people feel judged, but it's not because Christians are getting it wrong. It's because they are actually getting it right. My conclusion is as follows:

The bible gives GOOD people the license to believe in BAD ideas.

Ex-Christians Were Always Fake Christians?

Speaking of bad ideas, there is one particular axe that Christians love to throw at former believers. Even though I've already mentioned this, it needs to be stressed that it's origins are not something that Christians are making up, but is clearly backed by scripture. The who concept of leaving the faith, or becoming apostate is huge to the mind of the believer. It reminds me of the countless accusations that I've heard through the years, that people who walk away from the faith were never really Christians.

This very mindset is harmful in more ways than one, because is it shuns any other kind of reasonable explanation for why people become non-believers. You can not read people's minds, and tell them that they never really believed. This kind of accusation is infantile, and childish to assume that you know how someone else's brain works.

As I have already explained once, there are more than legit reasons for people to become apostates. For some, it’s growing up in an abusive religious home, for others it was taking a second look at the bible and concluding it didn’t make sense. Or maybe others became disenchanted with the historical data of the bible, and no matter how hard they struggled to try and hang on, they lost the battle with belief.

It does no good to explain the reasons for disconnecting with the faith, because the reasons will never suffice for the hard-core Christian. In their mind, you are a first class loser and they will not listen to any kind of rational explanation for why some of us walked away.

In 1st John 2:19 we get the very verse that justifies this way of thinking:

"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. Who is the liar? It is the man who denies Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist - he denies the father and the son."

Thanks to John 2:19, we get these condescending attitudes from Christians who will not budge from such a position, simply because this passage of scripture could not be anymore clear - someone like me is an antichrist, a denier of the truth. It doesn't matter that I struggled so hard to not believe, it only matters that I'm a liar and an antichrist.

Because the bible states this idea so plainly, it causes many people to go through abject turmoil when they find out that a member of their family isn't a Christian anymore. It's verses like these that cause panic, and emotional upheaval in society that lead to bitter feuds and strained relationships. It breeds unnecessary strife in one's daily existence, and emotional tension among spouses, friends, family, and even daily relationships in the workplace.

Let's get some things in alignment here - there are some major logical problems with these faulty affirmations. If you are so quick to dismiss anyone who "used to be" a Christian, then let me ask you a few things. How many Christians do you think will be non-believers in the future?

I'm sure the responses vary on this issue, but my point is simple: Anyone you know in your church, or your circle of Christian friends could deconvert at any time. You are talking to faces every day who in the near future may become "antichrists." That puts you in a very uncomfortable position with almost anyone in your path, because the odds are at least one person you know in your lifetime will deconvert.

That means all that trust, all of that admiration for their faith, could be meaningless if you don't know who's who. That means people who were once pastors, missionaries, and apologists were complete liars, and fakes from the very beginning. There are many who will hold their apostasy a secret for their entire lives. If you are that confident that there is no such thing as an ex-Christian, then it seems to me that it would be a monumental task to trust any Christian at all, when you have no clue what they actually believe.

There are many ex-Christians(some of who I know) that were once active in ministry, preached in the pulpit, conducted bible studies, went on missions trips, actively gave to the poor, started homeless shelters, and prayed without ceasing. They didn't show any signs of doubt back when they were Christians, and these were people who's actions were fruitful, and they were just as passionate about the bible as anyone else.

Then after they walked away, they get accused of never really believing. Allow me to illustrate how insane that is: It is no different than accusing a former scientist of never being a real scientist, because of a career change. Or saying that because I used to be a janitor, I was never a real one - since I’m not a janitor now. That's how low you have to stoop to accuse someone of never being a real Christian. Because according to John, real Christians can't change their mind. This kind of thinking has the fingerprints of a cult all over it.

Let's not forget, that there are to a degree - certain people who leave the faith and then come back later in life. Now, how are you going to explain this? Are you really going to say that they were not really Christians the first time, but became real Christians the second time?

You can start to see how ridiculous and complicated this whole thing gets. The word “denial” means to proclaim that something isn’t true, but in order for one to deny something, it has to be a proven fact, or at least shown to be very likely true. This isn’t the case with the bible. It has not been proven to be true in any sense, and you cannot deny something that cannot be proven.

I never, ever proclaimed that he bible wasn't true, only that I'm no longer convinced. The case is clear - apostasy is way more complex than the average Christian would like to believe, but because of verses like the one in John, it gives them permission to be dismissive toward the real issues. The bible gives Christians the right of passage to call people like me, liars. If 1st John doesn't sound extreme enough for you, then consider the passages in 2nd John 9-11, where it talks about avoiding people who don't subscribe to orthodox Christianity.

"Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have god, whoever continues in the teaching has both the father and the son. If anyone comes to you, and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work."

To top things off, it says something even more jarring in 2nd John verse 6.

"I ask that we love one another. And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love."

I certainly don't get how turning someone away from your home because they had different teachings, is a loving act. If anything, it looks like you would invite people in so you could possibly discuss the matter, and set them straight. But it says if you welcome anyone who has a false teaching of Jesus, then you are also "sharing" in their heresy.

According to John, you basically just don't associate with anyone who teaches a false gospel, or you're automatically like them. You're either with us or against us. And the definition of love according to this NT author, is whatever Christ commands. So the signs are clear: Morality according to orthodox Christianity, is obedience to Jesus above all else -not the way you treat people.

Putting the Gay Back in the Closet

As we know, the holy word of god doesn't stop there in it's mission to underestimate people who have had skeletons buried in their closet. The homosexual controversy is one of the most widely debated, if not the most inflated topic in Christianity. You can talk about how Jesus never brought it up, but it's in the bible, and it it's not taken lightly. If the bible is believed to be divine scripture, then Christians have every right to take it seriously.

The Greek word "arsenokoitai" has never been properly deciphered. But it appears to have fooled many translators into thinking it means "man on man" relations, and as a result, ended up as homosexuality in the bible. No one knows which translation is correct, and that causes huge problems. Even if arsenokoitai does not mean "homosexual", then I'm sorry. It's a little late for apologies. The mind-virus that has spread because of this passage, cannot be easily forgivable just because of someone's lazy mistranslation.

The bottom line is this: It's in the BIBLE. Period.

Claw at it, if you must. Debate it all you want. But in the end, it’s dubious - and that means anyone can get away with using whatever interpretation they like. The price that we pay for this, has had devastating effects. I’m talking about REAL, passionate, loving, Christ followers. These people never meant to hurt anyone. Because these verses make them think that homosexuality is wrong, it allows for them to be bigoted in a loving way. How is this possible, and how does it work?

On one hand, you have a Christian hate group, yelling at people on the street holding up anti gay signs. Then you have the loving group of Christians who say, "don't worry, we can fix you." Because these Christians are so loving and accepting, YOU -the gay person places your trust in them. Then they march you through a tortuous hell of conversion therapy, because they are trying to heal you. These are your brothers and sisters in Christ. They just want to help.

Like a puppet on their strings, you pray. You fast. You read the bible. You stash your porn collection. You try to date women. Nothing works. Year after year, it's the same therapy. You keep feeling the guilt. You WANT it so desperately to WORK, and yet it doesn't. Before you know it, you've wasted half of your life trying to get "fixed", before you realize it was all a hoax. All of this, for a few passages of scripture.

This means that you worship a god, who allowed his own book to cause the suffering of millions, all because of someone's flippant, scribal mistake. How does that make you feel, dear Christian?

Lesbian singer/songwriter Brandi Carile, once told the story of wanting to be baptized by her pastor at age 15. All of her family and friends were going to be there. On the morning when she was to be baptized, her pastor cancelled at the last minute because she was a lesbian. She says that "he just couldn't bring himself to do it." Right in front of her family. This caused her years of heartache, along with nearly losing her faith. The pastor tried to do an about-face and beg her forgiveness, but she wasn't having any of it.

Too little, too late.

In the end, the meaning of the original Greek word for "homosexual" isn't what matters. What matters is - that's the way it was translated, like it or not. Once it gets in the bible, you can't tell someone that they're reading it wrong. That's just silly.

You may not agree with what it means, but if someone sees it that way, then you can't just tell them that it means what you want it to mean. Most people who believe in the bible have busy lives, with jobs and families. They don't have time in their day to decipher original Greek translations, or delve into the bible's history. You can't blame them for reading the bible as they see it. That's why we have so many English translations in the first place - so people could read it as it is, not so they could debate endlessly over what it means. How many Christians do you think are signing up to take classes in Greek?

What kind of Christian you are depends on which bible verses you choose to ignore. Every Christian writes their own bible. Which version of god you believe in, whether it's a benevolent god or a dictatorial god, hinges heavily on how you interpret scripture. How you view god, is determined on which patterns your brain is most familiar, and comfortable with.

That's why after 2000 years, it doesn't help to suddenly say, "Oh pshaw, we got the translation wrong!" No, I'm sorry. You just can't take something like that back, after all of the psychological damage that's been caused. After all this time, we are suddenly realizing that we got it all wrong? Seriously? That's why it's time to put the blame where it belongs - on the bible itself.

It's hard enough to believe in a god who allows suffering, but a god who allows his OWN BOOK to cause suffering, is something that is completely reprehensible, and is beyond anyone's level to possibly fathom. Such a god in my opinion, is certainly not deserving of any respect or worship.

It's funny when I see loving Christians being against gay marriage, and encouraging conversion therapy to try to get homosexuals to suppress their natural feelings. However, it's always interesting that when Christian parents find out that their kid is gay, they are forced to take one of two paths - either spend the rest of their lives fighting it, or change their beliefs. Many wind up shifting their biblical views, because they don't want to be locked into a lifelong emotional battle with their offspring.

It's being proven once and for all that gay conversion therapy DOES NOT WORK. One of the biggest conversion organizations called "Exodus" had to shut their doors and admit that the whole thing was a waste. This is just another victory for secularism, exposing that science and psychology always wins over biblical thinking. Gay conversion therapy does nothing more, than put the gay person right back in the closet - forcing down their natural feelings in exchange for a mask to cover their guilt.

Should a loving god, not be bothered by these things?

Child Indoctrination: Bringing Hell to Earth

If a kid that grows up in a Christian home has doubts and doesn't want to believe anymore, then that child should be able to express it openly. They should be able to say," Hey mom and dad, I don't want to go to church anymore. I no longer believe any of this stuff." Then mom or dad could respond in kind: "No problem. You should be able to decide for yourself." This should be the attitude in EVERY Christian home. How often do you think this happens? Maybe once in a blue moon. But is that the normal scenario? Obviously not.

If you're a Christian parent who teaches their children that the bible is god's word, then you have already bought yourself a volatile package. You have no idea where your kids can end up, and if they eventually choose to reject the faith that you worked so hard to instill in them, the result can wreck you emotionally. The parent who chooses to indoctrinate, is the parent who lives on borrowed time.

I feel sorry for parents who have to go through this, but my empathy must end there. The reason why I say that, is because if you indoctrinate your children with certain beliefs you are basically creating a landmine. You don’t know if or when it could blow up in your face.

From my own research, when someone tells their family that they no longer believe, the reaction is usually complex, awkward and sometimes vile. What seems to be the norm however, is that most people's family relationships are still fine...................except something still isn't quite right. They go home for the holidays, talk to their parents like normal, laugh, joke around, and yet despite all of that, there is an uncomfortable disquiet, as it were.

There seems to be an ongoing consternation that lives beneath the surface of people’s family relationships, if you’re a non-believer. You can still carry on with your religious relatives like nothing ever happened, but the elephant in the room doesn’t go away, and is always right there in the background to cause that uneasiness that is seldom talked about. It’s like a slow poisonous vine that keeps growing, and yet all the while nobody says anything.

To me, this is the type of scenario that does the most damage, and yet it's the most common. It's an uneasy truce, that smacks of social awkwardness. Many parents lives are emotionally destroyed around their kids becoming atheists. They are constantly blaming themselves, living in agony and asking "what did I do wrong?" The answer is simple, but sadly is something they can never accept.

You went WRONG, when you taught your kid that the bible was TRUTH, instead of letting them DECIDE.

That's what you did wrong. But since the bible doesn't mention this as an option, Christian parents are forced to take that verse from Ephesians 6:4 to heart:

"Parents, don't be hard on your children. Raise them properly. Teach them and instruct them about the Lord."

Good News Translation "Parents, do not treat your children in such a way as to make them angry. Instead, raise them with Christian discipline and instruction."

New International Version "Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord."

Do not "exasperate" your children, it says. The problem still remains - How do you instruct children, and train them in a certain religion without making feel pressured? This is a paradoxical nightmare. On one hand, it says not be hard on your kids, but on the other hand it says to "instruct" them in Christian teaching. How does one bring their kids up in certain religion without indoctrinating them?

The answer is - it’s impossible. Somewhere along the line you’re going to be forced to instruct you kids according to your bible, or re-thin your position. If you choose to follow the bible, then don’t be surprised if things go sideways, and it may get ugly.

The best option is to let your Children decide what they want to believe, but that's NOT in the bible, the word of God almighty. You can't blame parents for thinking this way.

It's obvious that most Christians believe this stuff because they think they have to - not because they want to.

People should be able to express their feelings about religion openly, and the fact that most of us can't, is completely unjust and aggravating. We can't tell some of our family members that we don't believe because we know it will completely destroy them.

We lie to them out of love, because we don't want to hurt anyone. As much as I believe in practicing empathy, it makes me angry that I have to hide my feelings, but I have to cater to someone else's comfort because they're brainwashed. All because of a holy book.

The bible teaches that whoever does not believe, is already condemned in their sins. It's this kind of fear that grips people at an early age, and can send our loved ones on an emotional roller coaster of inner turmoil, if we reject it.

Documentary film maker Brian Flemming, said that when he was in his youth, he was constantly praying to god to keep him from denying the holy spirit. He was scarred on a daily basis for simply having "the wrong thoughts." "Jesus would forgive me for anything", he said. "Anything at all"...... except denying the holy ghost. And since this mysterious little crime had multiple explanations, that meant that almost any thought you had could send you to hell.

Basically, the one unforgivable sin in Christianity was thought-crime. Not ever knowing when you could commit this crime, was terrifying. You could get off easily for denying the son, or the father, but denying the spirit? That is not worthy of pardon. (Luke 12:10 and Mark 3:29)

Atheist Nate Phelps, (son of Fred Phelps) was still a Christian long after he escaped his family's terrifying Westboro cult. When he had a family of his own, his 5 year old asked him about hell. He said:

"Dad, what is hell?"

To which Nate replied, "well, it's where people go who don't believe in God."

To which his child asked him, "for how long?"

Nate said, "for an eternity."

His kid asked, "how long is eternity?"

Nate replied, "forever."

When he said that, he said his child immediately became hysterical, and started sobbing. That's when things started taking a different turn, and set him on the path to non-belief.

I heard Nate talk about that story over the airwaves back when I was still a struggling Christian. When I heard him say that, something deep inside of me snapped. There was a part of me that became furious. I wasn't mad at him - he was simply answering a question his son had, but I began to realize, that even teaching children about hell in the most loving way possible, can still frighten them. It's a heavy, volatile, subject. You don't know how they are going to react.

Again, rejecting Christianity, has nothing to do with the way Christians behave. Because you can warn someone about hell and sin in the most loving way. You don't have to be hateful, or belligerent. At the end of the day, it's the whole concept or an idea that's bad. The tone that is used shouldn't matter.

I never feared hell when my parents spoke about it, but just because I was never affected by such a lie, doesn’t mean that these situations are isolated cases. Not everyone’s reaction will be the same, when they are taught this insufferable doctrine. Some kids will be fine. Others will be scared for life - and that’s the great crime here - teaching kids about an imaginary horrific place that there is absolutely no evidence for.

The bible does not say how much or how little to teach your kids about hell. And since it does not, that leaves the playing field wide open. It doesn't matter if you mention hell once a year or five time a week, as long as you are "training them in the lord" and doing it in love.

Again, we see the contradictory pattern of loving people teaching their kids a message that's the opposite of loving. This is the kind of power that the bible has over people's lives. This is something I can no longer be nice about. People should be outraged that children are being taught such garbage. Unfortunately, since it's so ingrained in our cultural patterns of thinking, it's blindly overlooked.

This is the point where people may start doubting their core beliefs. I of course, think that doubting religious doctrine is a great gift. There are also a growing number of Christians who champion questioning as building a stronger faith. But does doubt really strengthen one’s faith? It depends on the person. It��s either a “house of cards” faith, or a “swamp” faith. The house of cards will tumble with the slightest doubt, and the swamp gets so clogged and messy, that faith and doubt virtually become the same thing. The pressure is unhealthy from both sides.

I used to believe that the more I questioned, the more solid my faith would be, and it worked great for awhile. That was then, so what happened? I finally realized that it doesn't matter whether you're more conservative, or more of a liberal Christian - and it doesn't matter how much you've questioned. It all has to do with the way a person's brain works. It really doesn't get any more complicated than that. I can't explain why it took me ten years to come to the conclusion I did.

There came a point where I felt my faith getting weaker, not stronger. Of course, once I became a non-believer I had people point the finger and tell me that I "just didn't understand Christianity." It kind of makes me laugh. The next time a Christian tells you that you don't understand what Christianity is all about, tell them that they don't understand what Judaism is all about. The Jews will say the exact same thing about the Christians.

Fear of Natural Desires

Another thing the bible has mastered, is it's control over your sex life. Matthew 5:28 quotes Jesus saying that anyone who looks lustfully upon a woman has committed already committed adultery. As you might imagine, this has caused more poisonous damage than one society can muster. Most churches preach this doctrine to teenage boys, and encourages them not to engage in any sexual activity until marriage.

Any sexual desire is frowned upon, even masterbation. Are you really going to tell a 15 year old male who is full of testosterone, that he shouldn't pleasure himself? It has been scientifically proven that it's healthy for teens to masturbate, and the results may be dire if they are discouraged from it. Many churches or even Christian parents avoid the subject completely. Most people assume that if your Christian, sex is something you just don't think about until your wedding night.

Not everyone is cut out for marriage. And unmarried people still have a sex drive. So please tell me what they're supposed to do. Live their lives in agony or ignore their desires? It's proven that sex is good for the body, whether you're married or not, and here is the bottom line - your sex life is nobody's business. End of story. Not the bible's. Not the church's. Not god's. There is nothing wrong with abstinence, as long as it's UP TO YOU. A holy book should not make that decision for you.

This is why purity culture is such a dangerous, ridiculous sham. Purity culture is a mindset that goes back quite a ways, but in recent years certain religious organizations like James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" or Richard Ross's "True Love Waits" were the hallmark of this particular way of dealing with sex.

The whole system became a culture of piety in itself, encouraging men and women to stay "pure" until they kissed at the alter, and young people went as far as to wear purity rings or other forms of jewelry as a promise to themselves. Countless women have suffered anxiety, and feelings of guilt over these toxic cliches. Like homosexuals, they are made to feel dejected and ashamed of their own bodies a result. Even long after they're married, many women who come out of this culture - still feel bad about their own bodies. The price that young adults pay for believing in this sort of sewage has become one of the most controversial subjects within the church.

A 2005 study was done by research experts Hannah Bruckner and Peter Bearman, both of Yale University and Columbia. The study showed conclusively that 88 percent of people who claimed themselves "pure" had pre-marital intercourse. And even though there were the ones who delayed, when they finally became sexually active, they were less likely to use protection.

An evangelical Christian named Josh Harris wrote a book called "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" back in the early 2000's. It basically shaped the purity culture of a new generation, encouraging people to avoid dating, and instead engage in courtship. At the time he was the poster boy for this bestseller, going all around the country giving talks, sermons, and challenging young teen Christians about how they handled their bodies.

Fast forward about 20 years later. Harris has denounced everything he said in the book, because of the backlash he received from women who had been hurt by his teachings. Today he is no longer a Christian, so I'm glad he finally admitted he was wrong, so he can move forward. Another win for secularism, and another nail in the coffin for religion.

The purity culture has died down somewhat, since more and more Christians are figuring out that maybe it wasn't such a good idea. Still, if these kinds of teachings are slowly being done away with, then how is the church going to handle it? What's going to take their place?

According to recent articles that I've read, churches are being more open to talking about sexual desires, and not treating abstinence as the only option. More churches are wanting to be more informative, instead of dogmatic in their approach to sexuality. While I certainly applaud their efforts, something still isn't sitting right with me............Here is one particular quote from an article written by a Christian from a professional blog, wanting to revise purity culture into a different approach:

"Being chaste is not about 'saving yourself' for a spouse, or having great married sex, or following some kind of approved formula. It’s about setting a godly example for others of a faithful and self-controlled Christian life."

This sounds good on the surface, but what do they mean by 'self-controlled?' I'd love to know. Does it mean just being careful? Or does it mean to hold off until marriage? In another article, that quotes from a book by the author Audrey Roloff, she has this to say about sexual purity:

“If we could meet youth where they’re at in their journey, which is inundated with sex everywhere, and meet them in this struggle, let them ask questions and walk alongside them instead of giving them the blanket cliche answer, because that doesn’t allow them to navigate everything in between. In this culture, where sex is so rampant, it’s about teaching them these old truths through a new lens.”

What does 'teaching old truths through a new lens' mean? Again, something sounds off here. In the article, it never defines what the "old truths"are, but I can pretty well guess. It means to teach abstinence through a more nuanced approach. These new approaches to chastity, simply change the wording, and the terminology that were formally used to change it into something that sounds less intimidating. Do you really think that most churches are going to encourage youth to just decide for themselves what's best for them?

I really don't think so, but since the purity culture has ruined so many lives, the church has to start over with a new approach that sounds more mysterious or "spiritual." They can't exactly abandon the bible completely, so they have to walk a fine line. This new nuanced approach never explains where the fine line is.

Instead, the bible does. Since the bible is the core of the Christian belief system, let's just see what it has to say about sexual purity. Let's just see how nuanced the bible is in it's approach to pre-marital sex. I can guarantee that these passages are what spawned purity culture, or at least had something to do with it. Like some things in the bible, the following verses are not ambiguous, and they do not mince words. Take whatever you want from it, but don't tell me that the bible's stance on sexual chastity isn't cut and dry:

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body." - 1 Corinthians 6:18

"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry." - Colossians 3:5

"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." - Hebrews 13:4

"Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes." - 1 Peter 3:1

"It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God" - 1 Thessalonians 4:3

"Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh.' But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies." - 1 Corinthians 6:13

"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." - 1st Corinthians 7:9

These kind of damaging teachings, are further proof that the bible cares more about this idea that holiness should trump happiness. It doesn't matter whether or not you have a happy sex life, it only matters that you follow the rules.

Again, I'm not advocating that young people should just go out and sleep with anyone and everyone, but there has to be a grey area - or at least some wiggle room for certain situations. Yes, dear parents - your child at some point in their young adulthood, will probably engage in some kind of sexual activity before marriage. Not everyone of course, but the odds are that they probably will.

It's not the end of the world.

We are sexual beings. If two consensual adults sleep together before marriage, then there is a way to educate people so they can stay safe, and still have fun and enjoy themselves. There is nothing wrong with that approach.

Yet, according to scripture, there are NO grey areas. All sex is off-limits until marriage. Why do you think so many people get married so young? With all of these raging hormones floating around, it's very difficult for them to wait too long. It's all about an obsession to "stay pure" when in fact there are just as many Christians obsessed with sex as non-Christians. It seems like the promise of chastity, is rather forced or faked just so people can feel good about following the bible.

The Confusing and Damaging Mysteries of Prayer

The prayer life of a Christian is a shaky one. It enters into territory such as supplication - praying for one's needs, intercession - praying on behalf if others, and spiritual warfare - battling with demons. This is where things start to get complex and messy.

If you're destitute, and pray for the rent to get paid, how soon should you expect an answer? 1 Thessalonians says to "pray without ceasing." In Matthew 7:7 it says - "ask and you shall receive." John 14:14 quotes - "You ask for anything in my name, I will do it."

Many Christians live by these rules exclusively. So again, how long should you wait for an answer, what is the answer supposed to look like, and most of all - how do you know when the answer isn't just coincidence? These are difficult issues to sort out, and at times, seem impossible for Christians to tackle. With so much that's unknown about the mysteries of prayer, it is basically the equivalent to buying a scratch-off ticket, and hoping you win. This can cause unhealthy anxiety.

One of the biggest problems with the whole prayer healing routine is the fact that sometimes people get healed and then sometimes they don't. Eventually we have to be able to ask the question of why god only heals ailments that can't be seen with the naked eye such as cancer, blindness, muscle pain, Leukemia, and other diseases.

When was the last time god healed an amputee? When was the last time you heard about god healing someone’s deformed face? Where was god during the Civil War when men were dying from gunshot wounds? When was the last time someone was healed from Alzheimers, or the Ebola virus through prayer?

The situation becomes even more problematic, when you realize that besides people not get healed from cancer, they sometimes will be healed only to have the cancer return later! This is the ultimate slap in the face from a creator for whom they've put in their trust in, and put a lifetime's worth of effort into worshiping.

Or what about the family who prays for their dying daughter to get healed in a hospital room, and they’re prayers succeed - while across town in another hospital, another family is praying just as fervently, and ceaselessly only to have to watch their kid die right in front of them. This is a scenario that happens all too often, and exposes prayer for being the overrated vice that it is. Don’t forget that we’re talking about a god who wants people’s undivided attention, worship, and respect - and yet it seems that he only wants to give back whenever he feels like it, changing the rules whenever it suits him.

Heal one person today, neglect another tomorrow.

Any human who would do the same, wouldn't be tolerated long by other humans. Why does god keep on getting such undeserved respect?

Any doctor or surgeon who refused to treat half of their patients because of some mysterious religious reason, would be in danger of losing their practice. Again, why should god be allowed any exception to this rule? Christians keep plotting onward, acting as if this problem weren't really an issue.

Would Christians be so bold as to ask god for their children never to get sick? Why doesn't anyone pray for that? Why pray for healing when you can just pray to never get sick in the first place? If you can ask anything in god's name, such as John 14 suggests then it would not be beyond god's power.

If you pray for someone in the hospital, and they get healed, then how do you know that it was god who did it, if they had medical treatment? How much credit goes to the science? It seems to me, that prayer acts as something to fall back on, "just in case" the science doesn't work. Otherwise, it would be foolish to even bother with science and just let god do it all.

Christians will constantly repeat the argument that if everyone got healed, then people would treat god like a slot machine. Yet, isn’t that kind of the way it is now? People pray in high hopes of getting an answer, even when they know they might not get one. It’s exactly like playing a slot machine - you might win sometimes, and most of the time you lose. Plus, if god uses science to heal people, then science unlike god - will deliver consistent results. We take science for granted, until we are forced to depend on it. Science reminds us day in and day out that it WORKS, and is a hard-won gift of knowledge.

Ask yourself if you think a loving parent would ignore their child whenever they felt like it. If a child needs help from their parents when they are sick, then a loving parent tends to their every need, everytime - no questions asked. Is the child treating their parents like a slot machine? No! Of course not. So why does god get off the hook here? I'd really like to know.

Jonas Salk was considered to be a hero to many for basically wiping out polio with his vaccine. I don't know of one Christian who tried to stop him. I don't know of any Christian who told him that he should treat some people, and refuse others.

God intervenes everytime someone becomes a Christian - right? When one becomes saved, the holy spirit is supposed to come into their lives. Then why not intervene everytime when a Christian needs desperate help? This problem just goes to show once again, that the Christian faith isn't about being happy or being moral. It's just that god wants you to believe in him, more than anything else. He shows up anytime someone wants to be saved, but not everytime a person really wants to be healed.

This brings me to my next point: If you as a human being knew that you had the power to heal all diseases in the blink of an eye, would you do it? If you had the power to at least cure cancer, would you proceed in doing so? Almost everyone would say yes - of course they would. In conclusion, what humans know instinctively about taking care of one another is at odds with worshiping a deity who only heals on a whim.

That’s why we have science. We got tired of trying to figure god out. Science isn’t perfect, but at least it gets consistent RESULTS. When science doesn’t work, we can always go back to the drawing board and figure out why something didn’t work, test it, and improve it. We no longer have to depend on a mysterious figure in the sky, for our physical needs.

In the New Testament, when Jesus healed someone - there was never a time when his miracles didn't work. He didn't heal one person and not heal another person. Imagine if the Jesus of the gospels tried to heal every sick person he came in contact with only to have his miracles work half the time. Would you still feel the same about him? My guess is that you would be questioning him a little bit.

Why not do the same with god, especially since Jesus is supposed to be god? Why do Jesus’s healings in the gospels work everytime and yet now, god does things differently? Let’s also remember that Jesus did something in the gospels that god has yet to do today - he restored a man’s ear after it had been completely cut off. Jesus simply reattached the man’s ear to his body.

If this kind of healing was really legit, there wouldn’t be one hospital that wouldn’t use it. Christians will make all kinds of miracle claims that happen in different parts of the world. Supposedly, blind people are healed, deaf people are magically healed - and yes, even amputees.

Why don’t these stories make news headlines? Because they are non-falsifiable and unproven. Even if these people were really healed by some mysterious power or force, it doesn’t do much good for the rest of the world. What I’m interested in is consistency - not isolated cases.

As far as spiritual warfare is concerned, this is a very fragile topic. Some people have moved into homes where they claimed they were attacked by demons, or evil spirits. When they pray over their house, or invite a priest to cleanse the house, it doesn't always work.

The so-called spirits do not go away. They put in all that work, for zero results. Because of that outcome, some have lost their faith because the spirits still harassed them, and the one person who was supposed to take care of it - god, did nothing. Why would a loving creator allow his own children to be bullied by these forces, when all they did was follow the bible? Especially since it destroyed their faith.

Once again, should a loving heavenly father not be bothered by any of this?

After all, if demons really attack people then it makes you wonder why they are just limited to old haunted houses and vacant buildings. Why aren't demons everywhere attacking people 24/7 in public - at the grocery store, or the mall? What about when you're on an airplane, at a party, a football game, or concert? Why don't we hear anything about demons attacking people in their swimming pool, in the middle of the ocean, or outer space? Or what about the daytime in the middle of a high school math class?

I would love to challenge a group of occultists to try to do a ritual in the middle of a hockey game with screaming fans, or a group of Ouiji enthusiests to take their spirit board in the middle of a crowded parking lot and see if it still works.

A god of Favoritism

That being said, Christianity has bigger problems that are far simpler than the occult. The whole idea behind getting saved is to become more like Jesus, deny yourself, and avoid hell. Obviously, the problem with receiving the holy spirit is an endless yarn of complications and fragmented answers. Let's look at the situation from a bird's eye view - everytime a person confesses that they are a sinner and ask Christ into their heart, they are supposed to receive something - the power of the holy spirit.

What’s so frustrating about this, is that no one can seem to give an answer as to how powerful it is, or how it acts in one’s life once they become a Christian. We need to face this head on; that there are people who change for the better when they become Christians, and then people who become worse! What gives here?

Imagine that you have two people who converted, and prayed the same prayer of repentance at the beginning, and one becomes a better person, and the other does not show any signs of change. Why isn't the holy spirit working in every Christian if they all asked forgiveness in the beginning?

Did the holy spirit just give up on some people?

Of course Christians will argue that “they never really meant it,” or “they converted for the wrong reasons.” I’m not buying this. You would have to ask why anyone would even consider becoming Christian in the first place, if they didn’t feel compelled. If they felt like they needed to repent, then most Christians would say it was the holy spirit compelling them, even before they prayed the words.

If the ‘holy spirit’ was real, wouldn’t such a spirit at least influence all Christian people to behave in a good way? If so, where did some of them go wrong, and what am I missing here? If the answer is “freewill,” then you might as well not have any holy spirit at all, and just have people live according our basic instincts of right and wrong.

In my opinion, it all boils down to inspiration. How much you are inspired by something, will tell the tale. There are some who become greatly inspired by their new faith to become better people, and others will find that their inspiration wasn't what they first thought - hence no inclination to change.

And surprise, surprise - many people who become apostates are better people AFTER they deconvert. People like me, find inspiration in secularism and free thinking in order to be better citizens. The brain is a complex organ, and if there is anything that religion has proven, it's that it's up to the person to change - not a spirit living within them.

Don’t you find it funny that many Christians who struggle with their temper have to end up going through counseling, or some twelve-step program? What about alcohol, or porn? Why doesn’t the holy spirit intervene in those situations, instead of having to go to a councilor? If you say that it was the holy spirit that gives people inspiration to seek guidance for their problems then again - any non-Christian can do that as well.

Pre-Packaged Christianity

More moderate Christians have boldly suggested that it would be better for the world if Christians were in the minority again, like in ancient times. They assert that it would make Christianity look better, if it was under secular rule. Yes, I've heard it before. History has shown that Christianity does much better when it is under the pagan thumb, but the problem with this theory is that it actually suppresses the very thing that Christianity is trying to accomplish - god's kingdom on earth.

Don't Christians want as many people to come to Christ as possible? If it's true that Christians have to be this minority in order for real Christianity to thrive, then that leaves a big gaping hole. If Christianity set itself back a couple of thousand years to where believers were a minority group, then that would completely undermine the "kingdom" that Christianity was trying to create. It would appear that the Christian faith actually needs a secular society in order to function, which means that god needs a certain number of people to be unbelievers in order to make the whole thing work.

If Christianity is really true, how did it just so happen that I was born into the right religion? Either Jesus rose from the dead, or he didn't. If he did, then that would make Christianity the one true religion - would it not? If it's true then, why are there still people being born into situations where they will never read a bible or hear about Jesus? Why would an all-powerful god depend solely upon missionaries to spread his word, when all he would have had to do, is devise a system where everyone in the world knew about him? There would be no need for any other religion, or any missionaries.

People like me who were born into a Christian home, got lucky.

I'm always disgusted whenever I hear someone talk about how blessed they were to "grow up in a Christian home." That means then, that god showed you some favoritism by allowing you to born with the right information, and that poor Hindu in India was stuck with the wrong information. The proclaimers of the gospel, still struggle with these massive geographical hurdles. In America, more and more millennials are less inclined to attend church than any previous generation, or believe in any faith.

The great commission as it were, seems to be out of commission.

Not only that, but it's completely insulting to other religions, and everyone who lived before Christianity. The rumor on the street is, that Christ died for all humanity, but as we know, that's completely false. Sooner or later, you're going to be forced to think about the civilizations that existed all over the world long before Jesus came.

This would include the Mayans, Africans, Chinese, Japanese, Greeks, Yazidis, Indians, Eygptians, Vikings, Eskimos, Abariginese, Polynessions, and prehistoric man that goes back hundreds of thousands of years. This means that everyone else besides the Jews, never had any access to Yahweh, or the prophecies about a messiah. What happened to these poor pre-historic souls who never go to hear the good news? Surely, they were in need of hope and a savior, just like anyone else. Surely, they sinned like everyone else.

Even long after Jesus lived and died, most of the world still didn't hear about Christianity for many centuries after that. Just like today, there still parts of the world where a lot of people have never heard of Jesus. Christians struggle with this one. More often than not, their answers are more along the lines of, "God had a different plan for those people." Or, "they just did the best they could."

If it's possible for god to work out some other plan for our unlucky ancient ancestors, then why do you really need Christianity at all? It would have made more sense for Jesus to die at the beginning of creation, rather than wait thousands of years to come in the middle of history.

At least that way, everyone could have heard of him, and no other religion would have had a chance. Looks like Jehhova has a bit of a timing problem, and that wouldn't be an issue if you are the true savior of the world. Is the only way to heaven through god's son, or is there a different way? If people who haven't heard of Christianity get an alternative plan , then again - why do we even need Jesus? God could have simply used the alternative plan for everyone, and just bypassed the cross altogether.

The bible was simply cleaned up, reinterpreted, re-packaged in a neat way so it would appeal to the masses. Think about the way the bible is presented visually. It’s pages are usually colored with gold. It’s cover is almost always leather with gold lettering, adorned with some decoration like a cross, or another religious symbol. The paper that is used is very uniquely thin, and everything is written in columns.

Hardly any other book in history is presented in such a way. In other words, the bible was made to have a special kind of look - one that is instantly identifiable. If you took away the appearance or the "specialness" of the bible would people start to look at it differently? If God's so-called word was manufactured just like any other paperback, where nothing was in columns and read from left to right, just like any other book - would people still have the same view of it that they do now?

I'm not saying for sure that they would. But they might. Because it's obvious that the church has taken great strides in order to appear powerful over the centuries, building great cathedrals, and composing powerful music.

The architecture of the church, with it’s monolithic halls of stained glass was nothing more than a shrine created by mere mortals. It would only follow, that it’s adherents would want their holy book to have the same effect. The church wants the world to view the bible to appear sacred and special, with it’s special looking covers, and special looking pages.

Christians love to mention the fact that the bible is the best selling book of all time. Well, make no mistake - it definitely is. The question should be - who's buying them? With well funded religious groups such as the Gideons, and different missionary organizations who buy up millions of bibles and stuff them into hotel rooms every year - it raises the issue of how many people who own a bible actually bought it themselves.

Every bible I've ever owned as an adult was given to me - bought by someone else. How many people in the world who own a bible, actually bought it? There are entire third world countries who have bibles because missionaries distributed them, not because every citizen in these countries wanted or needed a bible.

Is the bible really the most popular book of all time, or the most donated book of all time?

Christianity Spawned All Western Values?

There is part of me that gets angry that all of the money that has been spent on bibles by the Gideons, and could have been used to help poverty or build better educational facilities. These people somehow are duped into thinking that it's more important to believe in an ancient book, than the well-being of humans. How many millions are spent every year on printing bibles and distributing them?

The argument also leads into the territory that Christians love to claim for themselves - that western values exist because of Christianity. Throughout the decades people of faith have made the declaration that we wouldn't have hospitals, universities, women’s rights, the arts, economic systems, science, mathematics, abolishment of slavery, and architecture if it wasn't for Christianity.

This tiresome affirmation has made it's way into millions of churches, schools and public thought. The claim is completely absurd, absolutely false, and must be dealt with accordingly, once and for all.

Before you decide to come after me with torches and pitchforks, let me set some things straight. I'm not arguing that Christianity had absolutely no influence in western values. It certainly played a significant role, but I will also make it clear, that secularism and other religions ALSO played a role in our value system, and by no means was Christianity the main source from which all other great discoveries came about. Again, Christianity has a bad habit of feeling insecure for not getting enough credit in a free market of ideas.

Let’s start with hospitals. The oldest hospitals in the world actually originated in India, and Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka, you have the legendary ancient Mihintale hospital - that was around anywhere from 400 to 100 BC. The Carakasamhita is the earliest surviving medical encyclopedia in Indian Sanskrit. Dominik Wujastyk is a medical historian who dated the text around 100 BC or as early as 150 BC. In the text of the Carakasamhita, it describes in detail how a hospital should be equipped, and an ancient Chinese monk named Fa Xian described Indian hospitals in 400 AD as places where any civilian could go to get care. Xian describes this in his travel writings:

"All the poor and destitute in the country, orphans, widowers, and childless men, maimed people and cripples, and all who are diseased, go to those houses, and are provided with every kind of help, and doctors examine their diseases. They get the food and medicines which their cases require, and are made to feel at ease; and when they are better, they go away of themselves."

In 400 AD, India had very little Christian influence, if any, and this would have been long before any Christian hospitals would have gotten underway in western Europe. All this shows, is that the idea of universal health care was in full play before Christianity ever got a hold of it. Even as early as 100 BC, the Romans had hospitals called "Valetudinaria" where they took care of sick slaves, gladiators, and soldiers.

However, this was not open to common civilians, and these early medical centers were not wide spread. Sometime around 520 AD, hospitals started by the Catholic church sprang up all over Europe. These hospitals were a step above the limited medical care of the early Roman empire, and thus Christianity had sparked another revolution in upcoming medical facilities for common people.

According to limited archeaological evidence, the ancient city of Gundeshapur in Iran had many skilled doctors from different beliefs and backgrounds all coming from Edessa somewhere around 500 AD. Together with pagans, Chinese, Indians and even some Greeks, the city supposedly had these ancient scientists and doctors carry out important research projects in medicine, astronomy, and mathematics. The exact evidence is uncertain among some scholars, but it at least paints a picture that science and medical research were not unique to just Christianity.

Were Christians the very first people to establish the University system? That depends on which school we're talking about. If we're talking about the first American colleges, the answer is yes, but what most Christians don't tell you is why they were started - for the purpose of training ministers. Institutions like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Rhode Island College, Columbia, and College of William and Mary were all resurrected for reasons pertaining to religious agendas. As time went on, more liberal subject matters were added to the curriculum, and this is because secular ideas started to influence the culture. Benjamin Franklin founded University of Pennsylvania in 1755 as a secular school, and was not guided by the training of clergymen in any way.

In fact, the oldest surviving University in the world, the University of Bologna - was started as a secular institution. It was founded in Bologna, Italy in 1088 and it's aim was mainly to aid students in studying law. They had religious studies if you wanted it, but it's sole purpose had other academic priorities. Before that, they had ancient schools of higher learning in Greece such as Plato's Acadamy, and Pythagoras's school of mathematics in the Greek colony of Kroton.

There were plenty of Christians who revolutionized science. The list is extensive - Newton, Mendel, Faraday, Pasteur, Copernicus, Maxwell, and countless others. Even Galileo, as much as he was persecuted by the church, he still held onto some type of god belief. Even so, is Christianity responsible for the majority of scientific breakthroughs? A resounding "no" will suffice. Anyone who claims that it was, is simply ignorant of the facts, and falsely misguided.

As expected, the truth is always bigger than ourselves. And the truth is that the very foundation of science, and the groundwork that was laid for later discoveries, developed in a whole different time period, long before Christianity came on the scene. Ancient Greece played a huge role in early science which really came out of geometry. You had men such as Eratosthenes, who was the first (as far as we know) to document the circumference of the earth. You had Euclid, who was an early mathematician. Aristarchus was the first to document the heliocentric belief that the earth revolved around the sun - something that was only re-confirmed by Christian scientists hundreds of years later.

Archimedes was one of the first mathematicians to apply calculous and mathematics to inventing machines. Hipparchus is considered the father of trigonometry. And of course Leonardo DaVinci is the most inngenious polymath of all time, and there is no record of him being religious, or at least not orthodox. All of these guys except DaVinci are in BC, before Christiandom.

Without these giants who laid the foundation to work from, we wouldn't have science - period. Ancient Greece invented democracy, modern philosophy, and many of the world's first scientists and skeptics. Let's not go soft on the Egyptians, who were working with plumbing, electricity, medicine, toothbrushes, and even brain surgery. The Muslims invented algebra, and Christian scientists like Issac Newton invented calculous. To be clear, the Christian scientists were standing on the giants shoulders.

Here in today's modern age, let's face it - most of the world's leading science educators are secular. Some of the biggest names in the field include, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Cox, Victor Stenger, Sam Harris, Bill Nye, Eugenie Scott, Neil Shubin, Jerry Coyne and so many more.

Also, one of the biggest breakthrough’s of all time came from the 19th century with of course Darwin’s famed tome - Origin of the Species. Darwin might have started out a religious man, but progressed into an agnostic rather quickly it seemed. Simply put, Science is all-inclusive when it comes to religion, race, and different walks of life. There have been Christian scientists who we should thank for their discoveries. There are atheist scientists who we should be thanking for their contributions. No one owns science, and religion does not have a monopoly on it.

What about women's rights? Isn't Christianity at least responsible for that? I've been told by certain believers who actually have the nerve to say that Christianity has treated women better than any other religion. This lazy and uninformed proclamation, is nothing but pure garbage. If that's what Christians think, then they are in for a very disappointing, and inconvenient surprise.

Ancient Sumerian women could buy, sell, and inherit property, and Egyptian women had all the same rights as men depending on social class. They could also had freedom to testify in court. In the Old Testament, women could have some of these privileges also, but that's kind of the point - Old Testament Judaism wasn't any further ahead of the curve then everyone else.

In the early Hindu Vedic period, women and men had equal rights in nearly every aspect. Indian women were given the same amount of education, and when they were old enough they could choose their own husbands in a practice known as "swayamvar." I challenge Christians to find me ONE example of a woman in the Old Testament or new, who got to choose who she married. I dare you.

In opposition to that, the Medieval English Christian Church treated most women worse than second class. Women were considered inferior, and were not allowed to divorce under most circumstances, if any. Most of the appalling treatment of women is influenced by the New Testament. Of course Jesus really didn't have anything to do with this, but other books certainly did.

The mistreatment of the female gender is mostly because of New Testament theology - that the pain of childbirth was punishment for Eve's sin. The church also used certain passages to justify their bigotry:

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." - 1 Timothy 2:12

"For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." - 1 Timothy 2:13

"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." - Ephesians 5:22

"Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands so that no one will malign the word of God." - Titus 2: 4-5

Now as far as who championed women's right's, we have candidates coming from both sides. The Christians like to use evangelists like Billy Sunday as an advocate for women's rights, or Dr. Mary H. Fulton who's Christian ideals promoted her to start a medical school for women in China. Of course John Staurt Mill who was an atheist member of parliament in England, was ahead of his time - arguing that the oppression of women was outdated, and was setting humanity back. He fought hard for women's rights in England during 1869, and for the ending of slavery.

Victoria Woodhull was one of the most outspoken feminists of her day supporting free love, and going as far as being the first woman to run for president. She certainly wasn't Christian, and more of a spiritualist.

Let's just forget about the whole "Christianity spawned western values" argument, shall we?

Christian Persecution: An Overblown Myth

Christians often make the argument that missionaries will spread the gospel to all four corners of the world before Christ comes. They will say that when they get to a particular country, those people had already been searching for Jesus- even though they didn't know his name. Then how come so many missionaries were killed by savages, and brutal tribes?

In January 1956, five American Christian missionaries were brutally killed by members of a remote tribe in the Amazon. They had made contact with the Auca (or Huaorani tribe a year earlier), in an attempt to convert them to Christianity. However, the Huaorani were notoriously suspicious of outsiders, and ended up killing all five men.

Just in the past year, in November 2018 a young missinary man in his 20's named John Allen Chau was trying to share the gospel with the Sentinelese - a remote tribe off the coast of India. The man had ben warned not to got there, as the Setinelese did not take kindly to anyone who came to the island because they are not immune to whatever diseases people bring with them. Blinded by his faith - Chau was determined not to listen and try anyway. They shot at him once with arrows, with one arrow sticking in his bible. He managed to escape once, but came back again. The second time - they succeeded in killing him. Chau is quoted to have said:

“You guys might think I’m crazy in all this but I think it’s worth it to declare Jesus to these people, please do not be angry at them or at God if I get killed.”

No, I don't think you're crazy, dude. You're just stupid. Anyone who was given a warning -twice and still didn't listen, I'm not sorry for. I'm sorry for his family, and friends but I unfortunately have no sympathy for him. You couldn't pay me to think such an act was worthy of praise. That's not courage - it's simply anti-intelligence on steroids. What did he expect was going to happen? That the holy spirit was going to just magically intervene?

The problem lies in what most Christians think is somehow "spirit-led" conversion without having to say anything. This mindset comes from the famous quote from Martin Luther when he said: “I did nothing; the word did everything.” In other words, if you are a missionary who goes to a remote tribal area, somehow it's all going to work out, because people are searching, and god will just do the rest of the work. Such wishful thinking is beyond comprehension to me. I respect missionaries who's first priority is not to convert people, but to help poor undeveloped countries. I just can't stand the one's who are simply out to play Tarzan.

Jim Elliot, was one of the five men on the mission into the jungle when he got killed in the Amazon by the Huaorani. His daughter was quoted as saying that she learned to forgive his killers. I say to the daughter - you don't need to forgive his killers. You need to forgive your dad, for being so willfully naive.

The success of Christianity depends heavily on cultural indoctrination, not curiosity. That's the reason why it's flourished. When you asked people why they are Christian, how many times have people said, "that's the way I was raised." At least seven times out of ten - that's the response you will get. You don't get very many responses such as, "I was curious about different religions, so when I read the bible I became saved." That happens here and there, but not often. Would Christianity survive on only curiosity? Would it survive without missionaries and indoctrination? I think the answer is simple, but I leave it up to the person.

The whole missionary ordeal leads right into the problem with Christian persecution. The idea of martydom and persecution were around in early Christianity, but in recent years ancient persecution of Christians is starting to be questioned. No doubt that there were reports of early Christians who were definitely persecuted for their faith.

However, we find once again that many of the classic tales we hear about martydom from the ancient world are more often than not - extremely exaggerated, factually inaccurate, or spun from whole cloth entirely. The question should not be whether Christian persecution is historical, but rather what kind of persecution existed, and how much or how little of it took place in certain periods.

As popular as the image might seem, Christians getting eaten alive by lions in Rome was not a constant or even an inevitable punishment. It only happened on specific occasions in the the third and fourth centuries, and it should be stressed that this type of punishment was not necessarily restricted to only Christians.

After Rome burned, Nero blamed Christians for the fire so according to the historian Tacitus, Nero punished them by having wild beasts eat them alive. It should also be noted that not all of these beasts were lions. In this case Christians were punished not for their faith, but being blamed for arson. Of course one might say that it WAS persecution for faith, by blaming them for something that they didn't do, but we don't really have certainty on that front, do we?

The stories of martydom all originated in the first century AD. There are only six accounts that scholars take seriously as actual historical events, and even with these particular six, there are problems.

They are The Martydom of Polycarp, Acts of Ptolemy and Lucius, Acts of Justin and Companions, Martys of Lions, Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, and Passion of Perpetua Felicty. There isn't one of these accounts that hasn't been revered to be questionable. All the same, most scholars will acknowledge that these people did exist, and were probably persecuted in some way, but it doesn't mean that these stories were 100% factual.

After these six, the persecution stories get even more unreliable to the point where some were completely made up. For example, the story of John being boiled in a vat of oil and then surviving to go to the island of Patmos is a complete fiction. There is no extra-biblical evidence for this. It's conclusive that the sole purpose of these martydom tales were not to keep an accurate record of history, but to bolster the faith of Christians and to inspire them in times of turmoil.

The same can be said of the apostles - we don't know how most of them died, or what was actually said, because there are conflicting accounts. James and Paul might have been martyered for their faith, but there are numerous accounts of how Paul died, and we don't know how accurate any of them are. We don't know what was said, or any of the conversations that they had with their persecutors.

In the gospels, Jesus predicted persecution, and because Jesus was quoted as saying that many people take it on face value that all of these persecution stories are true. This was an easy prediction to make, because the Jews were persecuted in the Old Testament and that’s probably where Jesus got it from, or where the gospel writers got it from.

The reason why I bother to bring the persecution argument up is because evangelicals LOVE to play this exact card, over and over again wherever you see it. Christian culture has formed what's called a "persecution complex" especially in America. This thrives on the mentality that Christianity is constantly being mocked, and scoffed at in the media and in the school systems.

Evangelicals want to sauce it up, finding isolated cases where a teacher gets in trouble for mentioning god in the classroom - making it look like this is going on in every school. But nothing could be further from the truth. Most of these are exaggerated cases, and even if they are true they are completely laughable compared to other forms of persecution. It's basically a slap in the face to Christians in other countries who are really suffering. I'm sure that Christians who get killed in other parts of the world for their beliefs would give anything, just to be thrown out of a school for saying the word "god."

This kind of thinking causes all kinds of dangerous propaganda. The ideology behind Christian persecution has spawned awful movies like "God's Not Dead." The first movie of this series features a Christian going to college and then gets humiliated by his militant atheist professor, which makes the whole class sign the statement that "God is Dead" on a piece of paper.

The student spends the rest of the movie taking Professor Radison down in a debate - which by the end of the film exposes him to really believe in god, it's just that he hates god. This is the way that every SINGLE atheist in the movie is portrayed - backstabbing, lonely, miserable, and hateful. It even stereotypes Muslims as it shows a Muslim father beating his daughter for converting to Christianity.

Then if that wasn't crazy enough, they came out with "God's not Dead 2" which was about a teacher who said something about Jesus in the classroom, so she gets in trouble and has to go to court. Then they come out with "God's not Dead 3" to show a church being vandalized and burned down to portray how Christians are constantly under attack.

I can't stress enough how backwards, inaccurate, and harmful these types of movies are to our society. I'm all for freedom of speech, and people should have the right to make the film, but it's not just for entertainment - there is a certain platform that the filmmakers are pushing with these types of movies.

It's an effort to brand atheists in the worst light possible, so evangelical Christians can keep basking in their ignorance about secularists. Fundamentalist Christians can't imagine why anyone could be happy without their faith, so they must do something to keep hashing out the myth that atheists just hate god - instead of admitting that they just don't believe in god.

The producer David AR white has a definite agenda, and is now the owner of PureFlix - a film company like Netflix that specialize in Christian movies. How much more crap is he going to produce before he realizes that the incidents in "God's not Dead" are unrealistic, and are not based on anything other than a few isolated incidents? Most atheist professors would not even dream of acting in such a manner, let alone forcing students to sign a statement that's against their faith.

These movies are nothing more than a stack of evangelical, sensationalist garbage. Maybe one day David AR White will grow out of his backyard-bible school mindset, grow up, and actually start producing real, artistic films.

The Christian Nation Lie

Christians of this particular stripe want to know why atheists can't just keep quiet. Because as you know - Christianity is all about keeping quiet. I don't feel like I have to defend secularism. The purpose of me writing this blog isn't to defend the secular position - it's to address why I left a certain faith. If you disagree with my reasons, that's fine - it won't bother me that much.

Secularism need not be defended. Why? Because, basically everybody IS secular. It's your natural born state. Everyone is born a non-believer. Religion is something that has to be learned. Every Christian is just as secular as I am about Islam. Every Muslim is as secular as I am about Hinduism. Every Hindu is as secular as I am about the Norse gods.

Every religious person is as secular as I am in every other area of life - except for the one religion they believe in. The only difference between me and a religious person is that they are 90% secular and I'm at 100%. I don't believe in Christianity for the same reason that Christians don't believe in Islam. It's that simple. My disbelief in all religions is no different than a Christian's disbelief in every religion but their own. Everyone is secular - the question is, to what degree? That's why a non-religious point of view doesn't need to be defended, because everyone has it to some extent.

That's why evangelical Americans are so bent on proving that America was founded as a Christian nation. It's ridiculously false, and a lot of people know it - it's just that the myth has manifested itself in our heritage for so long, that many American church goers will accept it as truth. America wasn't even founded on Christian principles. It was founded on may different kinds of principles, including some Christian ones, but not exclusively on the bible.

The founders were very mysterious and dubious about their beliefs, but we know at least three of them were deists - Thomas Jefferson, Benjamen Franklin, and Thomas Paine. Many evangelicals like to denounce Paine as not being a real founder, but this is false. They just don't like the fact that Thomas Paine vigorously attacked Christianity in his "Age of Reason."

The founder of Vermont, the legendary Ethan Allen - was a deist who gave Christianity a good roast in his book "Reason: The only Oracle of Man." Benjamin Franklin was a member of the electric hellfire club in London (a debaucherous group), and Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the gospels entitled "The Jefferson Bible" in which he leaves out the divine aspects of Jesus because he thought it was ridiculous.

Washington was so mysterious about his faith, that at times no one knew whether or not he was a deist or a Christian. The paintings of him kneeling in prayer, are based off of unreliable assumptions. George Washington refused to take communion at church on communion Sunday, and when the clergy confronted him about it, then he stopped going to church on communion Sunday altogether. The founders have quotes of them saying great things about Jesus, the bible, and Christianity. Yet very often, no one bothers to tell you that there are just as many anti-religious quotes coming from the founders:

"Christianity is the most perverted system ever shown on man." - Thomas Jefferson

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches" - Benjamin Franklin

"The bible: A history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalise mankind." - Thomas Paine

“This would be the best possible of all worlds, if there were no religion in it.” - John Adams

“Religious bondage shackles the mind, and unfits it for every noble enterprise. The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” - James Madison

There are way more to draw from , but this is just the tip of the iceburgh. The reason why the founders said such things, is because they were more influenced by enlightenment than by the bible. They appreciated the beatitudes in the New Testament, as well as some other teachings but they also were fans of Voltaire. They were fans of freedom, and the bible is the complete opposite of everything the founders stood for. How can I be so sure? Because the bible is pro-authority at every turn.

In the Old Testament the Israelites were not allowed to worship any other gods or they would be put to death. In America, you are allowed to worship any god you want - or no god if you want. This is freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. The bible denounces both. Case in point - take Paul's writings from Romans 13:

"Let everyone be subject to governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which god has established. The authorities that exist have been established by god. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what god has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves. For the one in authority is God's servant for doing good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bare the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."

Wow.......Paul really couldn't be more clear in this verse. According to Paul, Hitler, Stalin, and dictators like Pol Pot were set up, and established by god. Gee, thanks Paul. It's verses like this that make American Christian nationalists look like the five-star hypocrites that they are. I love it when evangelical Republicans talk about less government, and more capitalism. They fear more government control, and socialist ideals. But this is the very thing the bible is for - obeying your government in all aspects no matter what.

Robert Boucher, an Anglican minister from Maryland was a loyalist who moved to England before America became independent. He actually argued AGAINST independence, and he relied heavily on the bible in order to do it. He stated that independence was against god's law because "obedience to the government is every man's duty" and "when Christians disobey human ordinances, they being disobedient to god, no matter how repressive the government"

Boucher also quotes, "it is our duty not to disturb or destroy the peace of the community by becoming refractory or rebellious subjects." The motion is clear - the bible relies on blind obedience, and acceptance of authority. This is anti-American on every level. The ideals on which America was founded, had nothing to do with the bible.

The Declaration of Independence has quasi religious language, and because of that, Christian nationalists love to tout that we are a Christian nation because of phrases like "endowed by their creator." What most people don't know is that those words, were not originally written by Thomas Jefferson. The original draft states, "and from that equal creation." The phrase about the "supreme judge of the world" isn't in the original draft either.

It's no where to be found in Jefferson's original document. Jefferson's draft was edited and revised by Adams, Franklin, or the Continental Congress. These little phrases or wordings are why we have fake historians like David Barton - who's main agenda is to get politicians to believe that we have a Christian nation. Barton has been proven to be a fraud, after one of his books got pulled from publication because of it's horrendous, and flawed historical views. The book was called "The Jefferson Lies." It was a book of lies alright, but the lies were coming from David Barton, not real historians.

The pilgrims coming to America is very similar to the exodus story. When I was in grade school I thought that the pilgrims were being persecuted for wanting religious freedom. Like most people, I bought into the lie that the pilgrims wanted freedom from tyranny, and being oppressed for their beliefs.

As so often happens, that presumption got broadsided by a more shocking truth; the pilgrims came to America because they only wanted freedom for their particular brand of Christianity. Anyone who dared to disagree with them, or challenged them got punished or often times, executed.

In the bible, when the Isrealites fled Egypt, they may have fled slavery - but they only exchanged it to be part of Moses's horrific desert cult. They swapped one type of oppression for another. This is why so many Americans today believe we have a nation founded on Christianity - because of the pilgrims, but the pilgrims weren't the founders.

The founders had a very different vision, and it was one that was informed by the brash level of theocracy that the pilgrims dished out. Our founding fathers saw these dangers, and it became a warning sign as a plague to avoid. The great irony is that most Christians who like to scream that we have a Christian nation, wouldn't have liked living in a puritan society. It was strict, formulaic and laced with religious piety at every turn.

You were constantly being watched, or even suspicioned of the slightest infraction if someone thought you were guilty enough. This mindset was what caused the Salem witch trials, executions, and constant fear that in-group thinking causes today. If you're a religious person who thinks we should have a Christian nation, then I urge you to look into what life was like in a puritan society. You may find out that you are less Christian than you thought.

The Bible is NOT Anti-Slavery

When evangelicals point out that the University system was started by Christians, they don't often tell you how those early colleges were run, and how they survived. Most early American Universities might have been founded as seminaries to train clergy, but what went on behind closed doors that made these prestigious schools flourish? Slavery. That's right.

Harvard's ties to the slave trade has left a trail of embarrassing history for the school, even being controversial to this day. Many of the first Harvard students slept in beds and ate meals prepared by slaves, and later on in life many of these students because slave owners themselves. After all, slaves were the ones who built the schools.

Sounds pretty anti-academic doesn't it? But this was the case for Harvard, Brown, Georgetown, Columbia and many more. All places where you went to be trained as a minister. Sure it's anti-academic, but is it anti-Christian to be pro-slavery? Well, let's go to the source. It's clear that the Old Testament condoned two kinds of slavery - indentured servitude and chattel slaves. But what about the New Testament?

"All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles." - 1 Timothy 6:1-2

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eye service, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free." - Ephesians 6:5-8

Believe it or not, the bible says absolutely nothing about abolishing slavery. It simply tells slaves to obey, no matter how harsh their masters treat them. To the bible's credit, I'll at least admit that there are passages where it tells slave owners to treat their slaves with love and respect. Even Paul quotes in 1st Corinthians 7:21 - “If you can obtain your freedom, then do so.”

But a couple of lines before that he quotes - “ Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you.” Christians will like to argue that the book of Philemon - one of Paul’s letters is discouraging slavery, but all it’s really discouraging is harsh treatment of slaves. In Pilemon, Paul is actually trying to persuade the master to take back his slave Onesimus - he’s only begging the master not to treat him too harshly. Paul quotes:

“Now he will mean much more to you, as a slave, and as a brother in the lord.” -Philemon 16

In other words, it’s like Paul is treating slavery as a minor annoyance, not a crime against humanity.

This does not help things, when the general message is not anti-slavery and is instead based on teaching humility to slaves. This opens too many doors, and that is exactly why it took 1900 years to finally abolish slavery, and still long after. There was no outcry from Paul, or Jesus about getting rid of slavery for good, when they easily could have said something.

Even the gospel writers could have inserted some passages in there, about abandoning the idea of slavery once and for all. Why didn't they? Why wasn't anything said about demolishing this horrible crime in the bible, if god knew how people were going to interpret these verses?

I'll tell you why. Because the bible promotes authority over morality - that's why. It's all about being humble and meek for Christ, even though you might be beaten or whipped as a human being. The god of the bible does not care about your happiness, he only cares that you are righteous, and practicing holiness.

These are the rules. Jesus simply wasn't concerned about the needs of slaves - only that they would serve him. These kinds of teachings make other ancient people look good by comparison - for there were even people in ancient times who worked to abolish slavery.

* Cyrus the Great put a ban on slavery, and built the ceremonial capital of Peresepolis with paid labor in 538 BC.

* The Athenian lawgiver Solon abolishes debt slavery and frees all Athenian citizens who had formerly been enslaved in the early sixth century BC.

* In 326 BC, Lex Poetelia Papiria abolishes debt bondage.

* In the 3rd century BC Ashoka abolishes the slave trade and encourages people to treat slaves well in the Maurya Empire, covering the majority of India, which was under his rule.

* In 206 BC, the Qin Dynasty in China took great strides to include the abolition of slavery and the establishment of a free peasantry who owed taxes and labor to the state. They also discouraged serfdom.

* In 9-12 AD Wang Mang, first and only emperor of the Xin Dynasty, usurped the Chinese throne and instituted a series of sweeping reforms, including the abolition of slavery and radical land reform.

* In the Medevial period, the Council of London banned the slave trade by 1102 AD, and in 1100 serfdom was no longer present in Normandy. In Jerusalem, The Council of Nablus decrees that a man who rapes his own slave should be castrated, and that a man who rapes a slave belonging to another should be castrated and exiled.

This law in Jerusalem was enacted in 1120 AD, and goes to show that you DON'T obey or respect masters that treat their slaves in harsh manner.

All of these mavericks of ancient history were already abolishing slavery long before the bible was canonized, and yet neither Jesus nor Paul or any apostle makes any attempt to put a stop to it. All for the sake of obedience. This is embarrassing for the bible.

If Paul and Jesus were ahead of their time, then why couldn't the bible be also ahead of it's time by getting rid of slavery? I understand that there were many Christian abolitionists in the early history of America, but there were also Christians who were pro-slavery and both parties were often reading from the same bible to back up their views! Again, we see the bible having issues with one of it's worst problems - the often dubious, and unreliable clarity of the text.

The bible was ambiguous enough with slavery, to where you could either condone it, or condemn it.

Addressing the Real Issue

This is why I'm getting sick of hearing that the main problem with Christianity is the church. If that were true, then I might still be a Christian! Even if every believer in the world was a free-thinking, pot smoking, gay loving, tree-hugging- hippy, liberal vegan, then that still wouldn't change what's in the bible. It no longer helps to say that "there is a big difference between Christianity and Jesus."

Keep on thinking like that, if it makes you feel better. But it's not going to make the problems with the bible go away. Jesus was a mixed bag. He could either be the social liberal who taught useful ideas, or the religious judge that taught bad ideas. Pick whichever Jesus you like, but please don't tell me that YOUR version is the correct one, since it's been 2000 years and there is no way of knowing what the mortal, historical Jesus actually said.

If Jesus was really against religion like so many believers say he was, then he would have been against Christianity too. If he disliked religion so much, then what is Jesus even doing in the New Testament? Why then, would he preach and talk about righteousness? Why all the talk at the last supper with his disciples about drinking wine and breaking bread in remembrance of him? Why would he teach people the lord’s prayer? If he really appeared to Paul - why would he choose Paul to be the founder of the church? Doesn't sound like a person who hated religion.

Let's be honest, Christians just don't like to admit that Christianity actually IS a religion. It's just as religious as Islam, or Hinduism - only in a different way. If Christianity is god seeking man, instead of man seeking god, then that only means it's a different kind of religion, not dissension from it. It could have been the other way around. All the religions before Christianity could have claimed that god seeks man, and had holy spirits come into people's lives. Then Christianity could have been the first faith to have man seeking god - and it would have been just as revolutionary. It too, could have claimed that it "wasn't a religion." Right. Sure it isn't.

Religious indoctrination is the big culprit here. The reason for that indoctrination, is the bible. No more, no less. I would be kinder to the bible, if it was just ancient literature, but it's not just literature, it's an instructional book, full of good and bad. Because the bible is based on instruction, then it's the bad that so many sadly feel like they have to accept. If you are a Christ follower, then this is the bitter pill you must swallow.

Since it's God's word, then everything in it must be for good, even if it's bad. This is what causes the fear, the brainwashing, and the intellectual entrapment. Even Christians who come out as gay, continue to worship a God who allowed scripture to be against them. Forget the crusades, forget the inquisition. Forget the religious terrorists. Biblical indoctrination is terrorism of the mind, which is the worst kind.

Christians love to point out that why would atheists waste their time arguing against a book they don't believe in. The fact is, most secular people DON'T spend a lot of time arguing against it. Most of us just live our lives without caring too much, but we do have spokesmen out there who are fighting against religion because of the harm it causes.

If billions of people demand that their religion is the right one with no evidence then we have a right to investigate it, and scrutinize it. The great irony is - the majority of Christians don't know the bible very well. The real question should be - Why don't Christians spend more time studying something that they claim to hold so dear?

Almost any human being on the planet would agree that there is good stuff in the bible - it's just not everyone would agree on the bad stuff. But according to many Christians - it's ALL good because it comes from god. If the bible only consisted of the good teachings that everyone cold agree on, then we wouldn't even need to call it religion. It would be just good, moral philosophy. Religion only works, when you have good teachings combined with bad ones. The church needs the good stuff in order to attract followers, but they need the bad stuff to keep those followers in line, and to keep them from doubting. It's an ingenious system that has worked for centuries.

What good are god’s words, if they are written by man? All that religious belief systems have ever proven, is that holy books can be written by anyone, and believed by anyone. That’s the reason why we have continued to bicker, fight, and squabble over the truth for thousands of years. We have been the victims of holy war, flawed scriptures, power struggles, brainwashed minds, yet god still has made no effort to show up.

Then if you start to have doubts, then it's Satan who is making you do it, except you're the one to blame for giving into his temptation which you didn't ask for, and you didn't see coming. Out of all the human rights the bible has trampled on, it goes out of it's way to condemn the most basic human right of all - the right to think for yourself.

In spite of all of this, Christians still believe that god has chosen to reveal himself through the worst system possible - man-made revealed religion, which has been shown to fail on every level. He's the one true god who can do anything he chooses, but because he's so mysterious, it was okay for him to make Christianity look just as flawed as every other religion that has ever existed.

CHAPTER 7

THE PROBLEM WITH CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS........

"Although they claim to be wise, they became fools" - Romans 1:22

There are several different definitions of what apologetics is, but I define it as a way to defend one's faith using everyday logic instead of relying on the bible. Unfortunately, this is very hard to attain, but Christian apologists will not stop trying their best, and very often take strident leaps in order to do so.

Apologetics aims for a certain audience. It doesn’t quite appeal to the average Easter and Christmas church-goer, or the average blue collar layman, but instead markets itself to mostly young and eager minds - people who are of a more educated background, or who are just entering college, and are starting to experience skepticism from certain professors or classmates about their faith.

It's certainly comforting to many Christians that there are people out there going to battle on the front lines for them, in intellectual circles. Christians have won many debates, but what does it really mean to win a debate? This is a topic that has long been uncharted. Many Christians have won a significant amount of arguments. That being said, are debates always won by using cold, hard facts?

Or is it something else?

The sad reality is that most Christian debaters are steered very heavily in the direction of emotional and intellectual bias, that at times can be quite convincing for the way it sounds. Unfortunately, many young people, even the most educated ones, will often overlook the fallacies in the arguments of these Christian apologists. Which is of course, the exact way they planned it. They know in advance that most audiences in attendance at public debates are looking for “answers” instead of actual facts. It’s not that these trained apologists have no facts at all, quite the opposite

It's how they report the facts, shuffle them around, and dispense them that can easily sway someone who is desperately looking for an answer. It needs to be emphasized that Christian apologists cannot be underestimated in any way. These men are not stupid. They are highly educated, and clever individuals, that at times, operate on almost a level of twisted genius.

The adoptive term "answer man" is certainly deserving of such dedication and devotion, to defending the bible. Ask them anything. You want an answer? They've got it. And when they don't have a good defense for a certain argument, they will make it look like it was supposed to be that way.

When they do give you a great answer, it's because they have thought it through a million times, and were prepared. When they don't, they will explain why not having an answer isn't a problem. Either way, the game is rigged in their favor. Apologists are simply intellectual acrobats, knowing exactly when to play the right card, or stump their opponents with slight-of-hand tactics. Many of these men are also public speakers, pastors and teachers. They have radio shows, podcasts, and are constantly being interviewed.

In other words, they know how to talk, and have had A LOT of practice at it. They know how to pound pulpits, and sweep people off their feet with petty emotion. I often compare them to political pundits, who have talk shows. Political debates are also a great example of how so many intelligent people can be duped into into thinking that their side has all the facts.

The ancient historian Richard Carrier has defined Christian apologetics as "calculated deception," and I think that's a pretty accurate way of looking at it.

Aplogists will incessantly beat people over the head with their backstories about how they came to Christ, and are constantly pedaling tales about what miserable atheists they were before they became saved, and what sinners they were. They love to pour it on thick, telling how they all had money, women, drugs, and were vile heathens; all haters of Christianity. It's a marketing gimmick that still sells.

What all of this shows , is that debate is an art form of rhetoric, emotion, and entertainment. It has nothing to do with getting at the actual truth. The only truth that can be shown in any debate, is that the answers are never easy, and both sides simply complicate things by making it more difficult to get to the root of the problem.

One of the most glaringly obvious traps in Christian apologetics, is the fact that it is a business. That is a truth that cannot not be downplayed, or escaped. If you don't believe me, go to amazon.com. Here in the 21st century, we are now more than ever inundated with books, books and more books on how to defend one's world view.

There are somewhere in the realm of over several thousand titles alone on the subject of faith, god, and how to defend it. If you are wondering why I consider this to be a problem, it's because it never seems to be enough. The bible is about a thousand pages long, and in the past 2000 years, we have exhausted just about every single micro-detail of it's message.

There is only so much you can defend, before you run out of arguments, and yet the hunger for more apologia seems to have no end in site. What am I getting at here? All of these books written by these “answer men” are no more than the same sermon being recirculated over and over again.

These are the same debates that have plagued us for the past two millennia. The apologetics business wants to constantly appear like they never run out of arguments, but the truth is that they ran out of arguments a long time ago. They are now simply refueling the tank, and stuffing as much as they can into an already oversaturated market. The sheer volume of output in this particular field is overwhelming, and yet publishers keep pumping out the books.

It’s not that Christianity has suddenly sparked a golden age of refutations or answers against skepticism. It’s more like a hundred different people have figured out a hundred different ways to say the same thing. Any argument that is found in one book for the resurrection, can be found in another book by a different author.

It's their personalities, their writing style,and (sometimes) their wit, that altogether makes Christian apologetics appear to be wiser than it is. Let's don't get it wrong here. These guys are in fact, great writers, and that's the whole appeal, but many different apologists will give you their own brand of stock answers for the same questions that have been circulating for decades.

One particular cliche which really stands out, is this ridiculous declaration by apologists that the hard questions have already been answered - it’s just that atheists aren’t satisfied with the answers.

This is a strawman. Why? Because in order to get to the truth about anything, you cannot always be satisfied with another human being's answer, especially when you are dealing with religious arguments. Why should I lower the bar just for you? I am not going to lower my standards just because you want me to be satisfied with a certain answer.

I challenge you to try using that same logic with science, solving crimes, detective work, or in the medical field. Imagine the kind of horrendous results we would get, if every jury in the country was satisfied with the very first answer that came out of someone’s mouth.

Many people have been proven innocent all because one jury member stood up to everyone else and questioned their verdict, until the decision was completely flipped in the other direction. A great example of this is illustrated very well, in the movie "12 Angry Men". If skeptics aren't satisfied with the Christian answers to their questions, I say good. Questioning is how we make progress, not blind acceptance.

You also have to take into account, that not even Christians can all agree on the answers to their own arguments. If one apologist makes a case to show evidence for the something in the bible, there is always another apologist that will disagree with their interpretation.

We must ask - who's answers are being presented, and how can we all come to an agreement on what is satisfactory and what is not? If you want to accuse me of "not being satisfied" with someone's evidence for Christianity, then you're going to have to include a lot of believers as well.

Again, why do so many Christian defenders of the faith appear to have the upper hand? The conclusion that I’ve come to is that it’s because they know how to spark more emotion, more wit, and sway people by their words rather than give direct answers. These kinds verbal tactics are the very reason why the church has gotten away with fooling so many people. I love the way Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it:

"Words that make questions, may not be questions at all."

Many of these evangelical gatekeepers simply take what was written in their books and apply it to the pulpit, and while they're speaking, they have control over people's minds.

Ravi Zacharias

Ravi Zacharias has been one of the most coveted Christian apologists of his generation. All you have to do is get on You Tube to know what this man is all about. In order to grapple through with issues from skeptics, he often embarks on a verbose crusade, taking up to ten minutes to answer a question so he can gloss over it.

The moment he begins to tackle you with big intellectual sounding phrases, is a sure sign to run for the hills. Using impressive shoptalk like "rational indubitable certainty", and "correspondence theory" vs "coherence theory", he constantly traps you with useless philosophical jargon, until you're drowning in his swamp of intellectual patter. By the time he gets finished, you feel like you have just ran an uphill marathon.

Ravi employs many of the classic tropes when criticizing atheism, such as pointing out that secularism offers the world no hope, and that Hitler and Stalin were influenced by Nietzsche which led to their horrible deeds. He also loves to stir the emotional pot when talking about his suicide attempt when he was younger, and claims it was "because he didn't have Christ."

Zacharias makes misconstrued statements on the subject of suicide, that are so embarrassingly fowl, it makes you wonder how anyone could call him a philosopher. When asked about Christians committing suicide, he dodges the issue by saying, "I wouldn't want to commit suicide, and then have to deal with God."

Then he goes on to say that to kill one self, is the equivalent to "murdering God." Huh? His final whimsical remark to anyone thinking about suicide, is "don't do it!"

Ravi’s sheer lack of sensitivity, and ignorance for people struggling with depression, just further exposes what a sorry excuse for human ha really is. Suicide and depression are complicated issues, and nothing to take lightly. It just goes to show that he has never studied or thought about the subject. Some people struggle with depression so much, that they actually have to die, in order to find peace.

To tell someone that they took their own life because they didn’t have Jesus, is a sick and perverted way to deal with the facts, and is an insult on every level. Seriously, someone should smack Ravi across the face for making a living from sabotaging young minds with these dangerous ideas. If the majority of the world’s intellectual elite have never heard of Zacharias, this is just one of the many reasons why.

Ravi tries to justify his bigoted stance on homosexuality by using complicated pseudo-intellectual explanations. He piles on the word-salad when he talks about the “logical problem,” “theological problem,” and “relational problem.” From there, he goes into more of a complicated spiel by using terms such as “theonomous culture,” “heteronimous culture,” and “autonomous culture.” He goes to these lengths, only to tell you that homosexuality is wrong because it’s in the bible. He just wants to intellectualize his way out of it, so he can sound more rational.

What is the point of such rhetoric, when you can just give someone a simple answer? It's apparent that Ravi has mastered the art of embellishment, but has yet to show conciseness. His constant overuse of bloviation is almost off the charts, and is about as vexing as driving with no brake pads.

He also likes to bolster the argument that a Christian society is more tolerant than Islamic culture. He challenges atheists to go over to Saudi Arabia; "criticize their religion, and see how long you last." He has his audiences laughing at this little joke, making him look clever.

Ravi forgets all too well that about a thousand years ago, the Christians were the terrorists with their ruthless crusades, the inquisitions, witch burnings, and trials for heresy. Even though Jesus didn't encourage those things, the old testament god DID, and as a result the bible looks just as violent and intolerant as the Quran.

If Ravi challenges atheists to go over to Islamic countries and criticize them without getting killed, then he should also admit the same for Christianity if one went back in time to the dark ages.

If you don't find any of that interesting, then Ravi has more gems in store for you. He has been proven guilty of academic fraud, claiming to be "Dr. Zacharias" when in fact all of his doctorates are simply honorary. The evidence is all over the internet, and attorney from California, Steve Baughman - has been a huge help in tracking down Ravi's lies.

Over the years, Ravi has made wild claims of studying under people he’s never studied under, lectured at places he’s never lectured, and has taken credit where he has no business treading. Some of these include: being a visiting scholar at Cambridge University, Senior research fellow at Oxford, lectured at Oxford three times a year, winning the Asian youth preacher award, and my personal favorite: Studying quantum physics at Cambridge Universities(big laugh LOL).

All of these claims have been proven to be false or misleading, and they have been used to bolster Zacharias's reputation. Since he has been exposed, Ravi has stopped using the title "Dr." on his website, but continues to use it in other situations.

Ravi's statements are designed to do just what the art of Christian apologtics were set up to do - turning an official loss into an artificial win. It seems as if Mr. "Dr. Zacharias" isn't willing to give up his prestige and actually take the time to get qualified.

Why? Because Ravi is in the answer business.......and business is good.

Lee Strobel

Speaking of business, another star apologist, Lee Strobel has an entirely different problem. His 1997 best seller "The Case for Christ" was huge in the Christian market. His backstory of becoming a Christian through journalism has been a classic tale, when his wife became a Christian and he decided to investigate Christianity for himself. Through painstaking research, and much skepticism, he finally caved and gave his life to Christ in 1981. Fast forward 20 years later, and Lee writes his best-selling book.

The catch is, that there is a huge red flag. He wants to act like he is one of the most skeptical people on the planet, and yet "In the Case For Christ" he never interviews ONE atheist historian, or scholar. The people he interviews are all believers, and most of them very conservative. One must keep in mind that many of the Christian "'experts" he interviews cling to the doctrine of inerrancy. How do you think they are going to respond?

This should sound the alarm bells loud and clear, in anyone’s head. If you’re going to interview Christians who already assume that the bible cannot be flawed, then you might as well just write the script for them in advance. I would be willing to bet, that if Lee had set out to write a book debunking Christianity, and only interviewed atheists, then the evangelical community would have chastised him for not interviewing any Christian scholars.

If one was really looking for truth, then they would give equal amount of time to both sides. Not only is Lee's skepticism flimsy, his quest to find the truth becomes a waste of time if the only people he is going to interview are fellow Christians. That basically leads him to the same conclusion that he had already believed in all along. How convenient for him. These kinds of shortcuts are a product of flakey journalism, lazy fact-checking, and glaring dishonesty. Lee has found an easy way out, giving himself permission to cheat, and this does not sit well with me.

There was one defining factor in Strobel’s career that led me to the conclusion that he was indeed a fake skeptic. In “The Case for Christ” there was a section where he was interviewing an archaeologist named John McRay. McRay was a conservative evangelical who firmly believed in everything the New Testament said, including the overblown census claim in the gospel of Luke. Luke’s census of course, is not taken seriously as history - even with many evangelicals.

To combat this problem, McRay told Strobel about an archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman - who uncovered some unique coins confirming that the census might have been real after all. Strobel takes this claim at face value, that it's true.

Some time after the “Case for Christ” was published Strobel started to get complaints from people who knew about Vardaman’s false coin claims. He was told that the coins were fake, and that Vardaman was a fraud. After researching more about it, he finally released a second edition of the Case for Christ, and when it gets to the section on McRay, Lee just simply states that the Vardaman coin argument is not backed by any evidence.

That part had to be re-written of course - because in the first edition, Lee actually believes what McRay tells him. Should be embarrassing, right? Strobel keeps trucking onward like it was no big deal, regardless of the fact that he had to come out with a second edition of the book to try to smooth it over.

You can say that it wasn't his fault, all you want, but this is exactly what you would expect from someone who doesn't bother to check their facts, and who never bothered to interview anyone on the opposing end. Had Lee actually taken the time to get his evangelical hands dirty, he would have realized that the bible and archaeology are often at odds with each other, and the truth is always more complex than it looks.

It makes you wonder,if McRay got the Vardaman coins wrong - then what else could he be wrong about? It's not a good situation to be in, if you claim to be searching for truth. And Strobel has got enough complaints over the years that he didn't bother to argue with any non-Christian scholars, but his response is always the same - that he was asking the same questions that skeptics would ask.

As we know, this isn't a good excuse because an atheist would have raised objections that Lee never would have thought about. That's why it's important to pull the information from BOTH camps. You may think you know how to play the skeptic as a Christian, but it's impossible to act the part when you're not that person in reality. Just because Lee was once an atheist as he claims, doesn't count. Because being an atheist, doesn't automatically make you a skeptic.

Lee Strobal loves to tell the story about how his “atheist” days were full of pleasure seeking, and alcoholism. It’s typical wank for an apologist to emphasize what they were like before they became Christians. He claims that when he found out that his wife became a Christian, then the first thought that ran through his head was divorce. There are many happy marriages where both husband and wife have totally different beliefs and make it work, so the fact that Lee Strobel immediately entertained the idea of divorce, makes him look a little peculiar.

In my opinion, Lee's main problem was that he thought he had to be miserable as an atheist. He thought that "pleasure-seeking" was all that life had to offer if there was no god. Of course, this is false on so many different levels, and I truly feel sorry for him, if this is the case. I know atheists who are perfectly happy without a god, and get plenty of satisfaction by raising a family, being creative, or other healthy pursuits besides alcohol, or constantly seeking pleasure. It may have been true for Strobel, but not for many non-religious people I know.

Lee tells us that his wife met another Christian woman who she became good friends with, and that other Christian woman stared talking about the gospel. According to Strobel, his wife had “never heard anything like it before” - and as a result, she became saved.

In a much earlier book before "The Case for Christ" he describes his wife Leslie as having grown up Methodist. This was documented in his book "Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary." If Strobel's wife was raised Methodist, then it's really hard to imagine that she had never heard the gospel before.

Perhaps Lee really means that she had never heard it presented to her in such a way, but it makes you wonder if there isn't some form of exaggeration going on there, and I wouldn't be surprised if there is.

In his other book, "The Case for Faith" Lee sets out to find the answer to objections raised by skeptics about the turbulent passages in the bible concerning hell, Old Testament genocide, and certain contradictions. The only skeptic that Lee interviews for this book is Charles Templeton, a Canadian news commentator who was once a famous evangelist along side Billy Graham. Templeton lost his faith, and eventually and went back to Canada as an agnostic.

When Lee sat down to interview him, they start talking and somehow the interview came around to the subject of Jesus. When Templeton starts talking about Jesus and what a "moral genius" he was, then Templeton starts to break down. He starts crying - "I....I....I miss him!"

One has to wonder how Strobel just so happened to get lucky as to interview an atheist who starts getting all choked up, when talking about Jesus. Lee could have picked any atheist he wanted, to interview them about how they lost their faith - Dan Barker, Robert Price, Richard Dawkins, Seth Andrews, Matt Dillahunty, Tracy Harris, John Loftus and many more. I can assure you without a doubt, that 99.9% of ex-Christians would not start crying when you mentioned Jesus. Most of us are WAY past that.

How does it just so happen that Strobel picked the one atheist who would do such a thing? You can bet that it was bait for Strobel's book, to further confirm the stereotype that all unbelievers are accused of - that deep down, they secretly believe.

Did Templeton really start to cry? Or did Lee exaggerate the story? I can’t say I know for sure, and no one else can either because no one else was in the room when it happened. Strobel evidently records these interviews, so maybe he still has it somewhere - hidden. My point is that something about this sounds too good to be true, when in almost any other case, Strobel wouldn’t have been so fortunate to get an atheist to emotionally break down, about missing Jesus. Perhaps it’s because Templeton was once an evangelist, and still had feelings that were attached to that part of his life.

In the same book, Lee also tracks down evangelical bible scholar - Dr. Norman Geisler(now deceased). Geisler was famous for his stance on inerrancy - so much so that he actually had the audacity to fire a faculty member at the seminary where he was teaching for not thinking that the bible was infallible. Mike Licona was the other professor who was the victim, and all that he did was have some doubts about whether or not a verse in Matthew was literal.

It was the passage about the dead coming out of their graves and start walking around Jerusalem. Licona thought that the verse was perhaps more apocalyptic than literal, but Norman Geisler wasn't having any of it. Geisler, throughout his whole career constantly pelted everyone in his path with the teaching that the bible cannot make mistakes. Since he believed that so fervently, he decided that anybody who disagreed with him was wrong and should lose their career over it.

Evidently, Strobel decided that interviewing Geisler would be a great idea to defend the bible. In his conversation with Strobel, Geisler makes all kinds of pompous statements that are typical Christian arguments - that the slaughter in the Old Testament was completely justifiable because the people were evil, and that killing babies was actually showing them mercy in order to “protect them” from their bad, bad, Canaanite parents.

Of course he finds loopholes to explain why certain verses only appear to be contradictions, and not really contradictions! For example in the gospels, it mentions that there was one angel at the tomb, and then in another gospel it mentions that there were TWO angels at the tomb. Geisler counters this by saying that "two can actually be one." Huh?

Did I miss something? You just round two off to one to explain why something isn't a contradiction. Strobel is buying this stuff, hook, line and sinker.

In Strobel's book "The Case for a Creator" he interviews scientists who are more of the intelligent design persuasion to try to disprove evolution. One if the first scientists he interviews is a biologist named Jonathan Wells. Wells has become famous for causing several different scientific controversies including dedicating his entire career to "destroying Darwinism", writing books attacking evolution such as "Icons of Evolution" and citing that he has never looked at the evidence for a four and a half billion year-old earth.

He claims that he believes that the earth might be four and a half billion years old, but still maintains that he has never quite "looked at the evidence." If he has never looked at the evidence, then why is he a biologist?

Well’s views have been refuted by evolutionary biologists, and his articles and debates are not taken seriously by anyone in the larger mainstream scientific community. He also has a PHd from Yale in biblical studies, and through much devotion to prayer, he claimed that his prayers convinced him to destroy evolution.

Does this sound like a serious scientist to you? Plus, back in the mid 90's Wells and his mentor Phillip E. Johnson were exposed of the denialism that HIV causes AIDS. They tried to garner signatures with a petition to gain publicity for their efforts which eventually fell on deaf ears.

Another famous anti-evolution advocate that Lee interviews in the book is Micheal Behe - a biologist who teaches at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. I seriously wonder if Lee Strobel knew what he was walking into when he sat down with Michael Behe in his office. Did he know for example, that Behe’s own views have been challenged by the very University he teaches at?

Lehigh University sees Behe as an embarrassment because of his extreme anti-evolution viewpoints, but they can't get rid of him, as long as Behe teaches evoltuion to the students. Does Lee know that Michael Behe despite being a ID advocate, still accepts that humans and apes share a common ancestor?

The problem with Behe, is that he cannot back up his theories when asked to present them in evidential light. His case relies too much upon assumptions and distortions of evolutionary science. A great example of this is when Behe was asked to be present and defend intelligent design at the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School district trial. For one, Behe will simply refuse to specify which “designer” he is talking about when in fact, he is a Roman Catholic.

He obviously believes in the god of the bible but won't make this clear, trying to pretend that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion. At the trial, he was exposed for several flaws in his thinking for the theory on "irreducible complexity." Behe had to embarrassingly admit that the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting, was not a result of irreducible complexity, and therefore the evolutionary explanations were more legit.

He was also forced to admit that the number of prokaryotes in soil takes millions of years to evolve, instead of a short period of time. By the end of the Dover trial, Behe's views were shown to be nothing more than propaganda, and the one thing that put his defeat over the top was his agreeing that there isn't ONE peer reviewed source on Intelligent Design.

Once again, Lee Strobel is guilty of not interviewing any people with secular viewpoints, but settles for Christian scientists who do shady work. In the "Case for a Creator" he does not interview ONE evolutionary biologist, even though there are many evolutionists who are Christians. Strobel would rather duck and run, selecting in advance who he wants to interview rather than to research and ask around about who the good sources are. If Lee is collecting his evidence from scientists who have been proven to be complete shams, then why should I trust whatever else Strobel writes?

Lee will constantly tell you what a skeptic he used to be when he worked at Chicago tribune. He loves to tell his audiences, "I have a degree in journalism and law, you can't get any more skeptical than that!" Of course, lawyers and journalists can also turn out to be some of the biggest liars. It goes both ways, doesn't it Lee? In summery, Lee Strobel has produced a mega-empire of evangelical best sellers, earning him millions of dollars. I've got news for you, Lee. Real skepticism rarely sells.

Do you really think that Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Life" would have been wildly successful if it had been about questioning people's beliefs? Had Strobel done his job the honest way, and set out to interview both Christian and atheist scholars, I can almost guarantee you - that "The Case for Christ" would have only sold a fraction of what it is now.

People generally don't like to read things that cause them to think, which is why Strobel's formula works so well. He's playing the role of the atheist so he can have complete control over what his own atheist says, instead of taking the time to interview a real one that would challenge him. Most Christians have fallen for this sort of posturing, thinking that Lee is presenting a challenge to their faith, when it's in fact - the opposite.

In addition to Strobel's "Case series", he also has another series, just for kids. The "Case for Christ for Kids", "The Case for Faith for Kids", ect. This is basically an upsell of the adult version. Looks like in addition to making bank, he also supports child indoctrination.

Lee likes to brag about how atheists that happened to come across his books, read them and became saved. I wonder if he would be interested to know that he is also responsible for Christians who read his books, found them unconvincing, were skeptical, and became unbelievers.

In conclusion, Strobel's books aren't designed to create rational thinkers, they were packaged to create Christians. He simply reinforces the frustrating reality that most Christian apologetics books are not written for skeptics. There are many more apologists who will market themselves this way - masquerading as intellectuals when they are really just trying to sell you a product.

William Lane Craig

Dr. William Lane Craig, has gotten quite the reputation as well. He is widely known for his debates, arguments, and his books.

Craig is known to explain away things using charts, graphs, and advanced mathematical rhetoric. Like any good apologist, he knows that the smarter you sound, the more people take you seriously. If you read "Reasonable Faith" which is supposedly Craigs magnum opus, he does not make it easy for you. He definitely does not want to appear like other apologists who basically give you a Sunday school lesson. This, I can appreciate.

That is, until he goes to the opposite extreme. I simply want to know why you believe in the Judeo-Christian God. A trained apologist should be able to explain it in simple terms without giving me algebra lessons, but this is exactly what Craig does - he overexplains his case to the point of ridiculous hair-splitting. I don't really have time to wade through a sea of mathematical mumbo jumbo just so you can explain the resurrection to me, but that's exactly what he did when I read his book. I tried my best to take it like a man, but wanted so very desperately to put a gun to my head.

It should also be noted that Craig is a believer in the “divine command” theory. What’s disturbing about this kind of theology, is it teaches that whatever god commands is JUST - no matter how unfair, or wrong it seems. In other words, Craig actually justifies a god who commands the Israelites to slaughter innocent women, children, and infants - simply because he’s god. This is highly disturbing coming from someone who is considered to be an intellectual in Christian circles, and is a good reason not to take too many of his arguments seriously.

Craig's most famous argument is the Kalam Cosmological argument, which theorizes "everything that begins to exist has a cause."

I will not comment much on this argument here, because I have not yet studied it in depth, but many skeptics and people who have PHd's in physics - unlike Craig - have been challenging him on such issues. Back when I was a Christian, I thought William Lane Craig was incredible.

I thought he was going to eventually shred atheism, and put it through the grinder. That’s how confident I was in his arguments. I thought that no one could possibly refute him. He was well respected by other atheists, so naturally I thought that Craig was beyond legit.

However, somewhere along the way, he started to lose me. I started watching more of his debates on the internet, and the more I watched, the less impressed I became. The first couple of times I caught him in a bind, I just shook it off as him having a bad night, or thought maybe he was jet lagged, or tired. And then he became even worse. I began to notice that most of his debates were him just reciting the same arguments from memory.

I began to notice how he dodged questions that he didn't really want to answer, especially about Old Testament issues or hard concepts that he had to deal with in the gospels. Still, I kept making excuses that Craig was still a good scholar - and he did in fact have a PHd. And then I found out that his PHd was in philosophy, not history, or theology.

Craig’s descending spiral of logical deficiencies kept plummeting to the point where I could no longer stand him. It took awhile, but I finally figured it out - William Lane Craig was nothing more than an evangelical mouthpiece, who was willing to compromise common sense for the sake of his beliefs. He was intellectually dishonest, and couldn’t really defend the bible that he so ferociously wanted people to believe in. Because he was a great speaker with a smooth vocabulary, I was convinced that he was a great philosopher. I was too busy listening to him talk, instead of paying attention to his actual arguments.

I was too busy hoping he was right.

Craig's shady debate strategies are well displayed in a conversation he had with a deist named Miklos Jacko. This conversation is pulled straight from You Tube:

Miklos: "What about genocides? The god that I believe in would never say to kill all of those people. You might say "kill Hitler" and I would say fine but, killing all the Germans, woman and children? To me, that is an extreme, barbaric god, not a loving god."

Craig: "I agree with you that this is a tremendously difficult challenge to understand."

Mikos: "It's not difficult for me, I simply reject it."

Craig: "Well, what you reject is biblical inerrancy. The reservations that you have expressed could all be met if you we're a Christian and just say this doesn't apply to biblical inerrancy. The primary move was not to kill them, but to drive them out of the land."

Miklos: "I can't agree with that."

Craig: “Oh, but that’s true. The idea is that the land of Canaan was being given over to the Jews, and these indigenous clans were to be driven out. But there was no command to chase after them, and hunt down.”

Miklos: "But it says to "utterly kill."

Craig: “Those were the one’s that stayed that didn’t flee that tried to stay in the land, so they were exterminated. We know that they weren’t all exterminated because they appear in the biblical stories later on. If they had just left when they saw the advancing armies coming, nobody would have been killed. They were being destroyed as nations, as states......and what god was doing was giving over the land that they had to the Jews. And it was those who stayed behind and tried to fight who were utterly exterminated, but it wasn’t genocide. That’s just a pejorative, emotionally laden mislabeling of this.”

Miklos: "but killing the women, the children, the babies, the animals..........."

Craig: “But Mickey, genocide means to kill off everybody in the race. There isn’t any sort of command that says hunt these people down, and if they flee to other countries keep after them. I feel pretty confident that I’m in the right on this one, that this isn’t genocide. The judgement is divesting the land and giving the land to the Jews, and that’s what is so important - who has the land.”

Okay, time out here. So Dr. Craig.......if you feel pretty confident that "you're in the right on this one" then let's just see how correct you are, shall we?

For one, the term "Canaan" among most scholars simply means a wide spread regional area of many different ethnic groups. When the bible mentions the word "Canaanite" it is not referring to a specific group of people, but rather a geographical location.

The people who lived in the land of Canaan includes groups such as, the Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. Let's take a look at what Joshua did to them:

In Joshua 10:28 - "That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and it's king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors."

In Joshua 10:29 - "Then Joshua and all of Israel with him moved on from Makkedah to Libnah and attacked it. The city and everyone in it, Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there."

In Joshua 10:32 - "Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army - until no survivors were left."

In Joshua 10:40 - "He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the lord god of Israel commanded."

Let's not forget that Craig says that there was no command to chase after them, and hunt them down. Well, let's see........

In Joshua 8:24 - “When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had CHASED them, when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it.”

In Joshua 10:9- "But don't stop! PURSUE your enemies, attack them from the rear and DON"T LET THEM REACH their cities, for the lord your god has given them into your hand,"

In Joshua 11:8 - “They defeated them and PURSUED them all the way to Greater Sidon, to Misrephoth Maim, and to the Valley of Mizpah on the east, until no survivors were left.”

In Joshua 8:22 - "Israel cut them down, leaving no survivors nor FUGITIVES."

Gee, Craig. There is absolutely no chasing going on here at all? Just because the Israelites weren’t chasing them into other countries, doesn’t mean that they didn’t want everyone dead:

In Joshua 11:14 - “The Isaelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword. They totally destroyed them, not sparring anyone that breathed.”

In Joshua 11:6 - "And the lord said to Joshua, 'Do not be afraid of them' because by this time tomorrow I will hand them all over to Israel, slain."

In Joshua 10:40 - "So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all of their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the lord the god of Israel commanded."

I think I’ve made my point. Craig keeps insisting that this wasn’t really genocide, but of course it was. If you look up the definition of genocide online it is: “The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.” Please explain to me, what part of the Canaanite slaughter wasn’t genocide? The fact that some of them escaped? You’ve got to be kidding me.

Then Craig has the gall to say that nobody would have been killed if they all had seen the advancing armies coming, but of course this completely contradicts what the bible says about these societies being sinful and wicked. It's crystal clear that by reading the surrounding context that the Israelites wanted these people dead, not just to "drive them out" as Craig suggests. It's quite conclusive that Craig is trying to pull a "Paul Copan" on this one - attempting to make the bible sound better than what it actually says.

Of course Dr. Craig says absolutely nothing about hardening their hearts. I mentioned earlier in my section on the Old Testament that because god hardened the hearts of the Canaanites to do these things, then that simply can mean nothing more then an all out take-over of the land.

In Joshua 11:20 - “For it was the lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the lord commanded Moses.”

How can you possibly argue that it was all about "driving people out of the land" if god saw to it that the Canaanites waged war against Israel? Craig has some explaining to do here, but of course he would probably come back with one of his shmoozing "No, no, it doesn't really mean it that" arguments. It's hard for me to have patience with someone who's so patently dishonest, and it's because of people like Craig that Christianity continues to masquerade as an intellectual enterprise.

Speaking of dishonesty, Craig has asserted that just because the bible has these stories in it, doesn’t have anything to do with mere Christianity. He claims that you don’t have to believe in biblical inerrancy to be a Christian. He’s right of course, but he makes it sound as if he himself does not believe in inerrancy. Craig seems to reject the literal flood story of Noah, or at least he says he’s unsure about the topic.

He says that believing in biblical inerrancy is unecessary to believe the bible. Isn't it interesting then, that he teaches at Talbot school of Theology in California where he signed a statement that specifically states that the bible is inerrant:

"The Bible, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, a supernaturally given revelation from God Himself, concerning Himself, His being, nature, character, will and purposes; and concerning man, his nature, need and duty and destiny. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind."

This is the exact wording of Talbot's statement that you can find on the internet. Craig says one thing, and believes another, and it doesn't really surprise me for someone as slippery as he is.

Craig's urgency to get people to believe is painfully obvious and unfortunately, is the main reason why he has studied so rigorously. He has gone out of his way to fine tune his arguments, spending his entire life defending the gospels - all for the sake of converting people. As I have mentioned before about Lee Strobel, Craig's apologetic style is completely masked in the illusion of getting skeptics to think, when all he really wants is for them to come to his side. He wants to make his arguments sound so convincing, that in the end they are designed for you to take a blind leap of faith.

J Warner Wallace

Apologist J Warner Wallace has a career, that uncanny enough - mimics the one of Lee Strobel. At one time an angry atheist(so he claims) he was a cold-case detective. When his wife became a Christian, he decided to investigate it for himself - using the exact same method he employed for solving cold-cases. After he used his detective techniques to find out whether or not the gospels were true, he became convinced that they were. He then wrote a best-selling book entitled - “The Cold Case Gospel” and like Strobel, waited many years until he went to work on it.

One of Wallace’s most popular arguments is that an early church father named Polycarp, knew John the apostle. As I have already mentioned, the problem with this claim is that it is at best, dubious.

It relies way too much on church “tradition” and not reliable facts or sources. Once again, the only source we have for even guessing that Polycarp might have known John the Apostle, is in a letter Ireanaeus who was living near the end of the second century.

Ireanaeus claims he heard Polycarp mention conversations that he had with John, but scholars cannot figure out which "John" Ireanaeus is referring to. It could be John the elder, or another John entirely. Too much has been assumed by the church, and their traditions only show signs of shaky evidence at best.

In his lectures, Wallace tries to convince his audiences that book of Acts can be dated as far back as 53 AD. This is simply ludicrous, and amounts to nothing more than playing fast and loose with dates. I have never heard one scholar, Christian or otherwise, who agrees with this.

The author of Luke also wrote Acts, and the general agreement among scholars has been that the two books were written no earlier than 80 or 90 AD. Where Wallace is getting his info is clear - from his own imagination.

To make up for this conundrum, J Warner Wallace tries to make it look like both parties are examining the same evidence, but then he plays the good old “presuppositionalist” card by asking what skeptics are basing their “inferences” on. The key word he loves to use is “inferences.” He really wants the gospels to be dated earlier than what most scholars have shown.

I’m curious as to why this is. Why does it bother him so much that the gospels are normally dated at 70 AD and later? For me, it really doesn’t matter when they were written, although I would have to say - if they were written in the time that Jesus lived, it would be far more of a solid case.

J Warner Wallace’s specialty is convincing young Christians that if a solid enough case is built with convincing evidence, they can win people to Christ. He makes it clear that it’s not easy because people build up a wall - and “shun” the truth out of convenience. He teaches young people that are eager to minister to their friends how to make that wall go down, so they can get through. Wallace says though, that first - you need to know three reasons why people don’t want to hear “the truth” or try to keep it out. They are:

1. Rational - People want to rationalize that they need good evidence for you to demonstrate that something is true. He claims that most individuals will say that they are not convinced by what evidence you present, so you need to make your case more thorough.

2. Emotional - Wallace claims that sometimes people shun the truth for emotional reasons, because they had a bad experience with Christians. It has to do with an emotional response with somebody who calls themselves a Christian.

3. Volitional - People who don’t want Christianity to be true, even if it was true they wouldn’t believe it, Wallace claims. It’s an attitude problem, according to him.

According to Wallace, it might be an emotional or a volitional issue that's really the root of the problem. He encourages Christians to pray so that god will open up people's hearts to the truth, but of course the inevitable question arises.................if god is going to do the work, then why even bother with the evidence?

Wouldn't you think that if god or the holy spirit touched people's hearts that they would even need any "cold case" proof?

We would have to ask what Wallace’s real motivation is behind wanting to build an evidential case for the gospel. Why would he go to such great lengths writing books, preaching, and doing two day seminars? Because Christianity is in trouble. He’s smart enough to know that Christianity doesn’t look intellectual or appealing to outsiders. He has to find a way to make religion look smart - which is kind of the whole point behind apologetics to begin with.

He doesn’t want people’s main reason for believing to be because they grew up with it, or because they had an emotional experience. He doesn’t like those claims, because he doesn’t like the way they sound. He wants to convert people with historical evidence because he knows it’s more reliable than if somebody just prayed and believed in Jesus. He says, “those aren’t good reasons,” but here’s the catch - to a lot of Christians out there, they are good reasons. They’re just not reasons that he’s satisfied with.

If J Warner Wallace traveled back in time to 1st century Judea only just a few years after Jesus, and tried to convert people, do you think he would be able to fool anyone with his detective shtick? Do you really believe that his tactics would work? There was no church history then, so he couldn't use his Polycarp argument. He wouldn't be able to build a case with the martyrdom of the apostles, for most of them would be still alive. He would not be able to date the gospels, because they didn't exist yet. He wouldn't be able to use any arguments from Paul, because no one knew who he was.

In the very beginnings of Christianity, what was it that made people convert? Cold case evidence? I don’t think so. I think that what made people believe was more spiritual and mystical than what Wallace realizes, and it’s still a powerful emotional tool that converts people to this day. Wallace does not like this because it makes Christianity look like any other religion. You can believe in any god if you have an emotional experience. What’s so special about that? Wallace knows this, and so he lays down a hard detective case.

One of the first things that peaked Wallace’s interest as an investigator into the gospels, is what he calls “unintentional eye-witness support.” This is basically when you have two different witnesses with different versions of the same story, but they need to both be present to tell the details for the whole story to make sense.

Wallace says he found that very same thing in scripture. He uses the example of Matthew 26:67 where Jesus is being challenged by Caiaphas the high priest, when he asked who just struck him. It really is a scene that makes no sense, until you read Luke's account of the same scenario that says Jesus was there - blindfolded. A detail got filled in by Luke that wasn't there in Matthew. These are often called the "undesigned coincidences"of the gospels.

Of Course, comparing that to a modern eye-witness report just wouldn’t follow, because you can go talk to witnesses that are still alive in this day age in most cases. You cannot talk to people living 2000 years ago, and if Wallace was living back in that time, then who would he have talked to? Since we don’t know who the gospel writers were, there is not a single person person he can point out that would have had this information.

The new testament writers could have easily tampered with the narrative to fill in the blanks of the eye-witness accounts. Luke was written way after Matthew. Where did Luke get his information? Wallace doesn't know this of course, because he cannot go back in time and talk to the writer of Luke. He just assumes that Luke's information is reliable. This isn't good dectective work.

Wallace then asks, "how do we know that the Jesus we read about in the gospels isn't different than the Jesus that actually existed?" Well, I can tell you right now that J Warner Wallace doesn't know, but it's not going to stop him from trying. He says there is a way to actually test this. The claim Wallace makes here is that there is something called a "chain of custody" for the New Testament.

Evidently, this whole thing starts with the apostle John, then goes to Papius and of course our good friend Polycarp (once again) gets thrown around somewhere in there. Then the chain continues to Ireanaeus and Hippolytus who he claims are revealing the same information as John except these people NEVER were eyewitnesses.

Wallace concludes, "so the Jesus we read about today is the same one that was talked about by the original eye-witnesses. Nothing has been distorted."

Oh? That's what he thinks? Because there are a couple of problems here. For one, let's just say that the gospel accounts are completely accurate and exactly what the chain of custody reported from the very beginning. Does that make it true? Just because you have a bunch of people passing on the same accurate story from one generation to another, doesn't make it history. The story could still be false.

The big crutch Wallace has to rely on, is the fact he is taking it on faith that the gospel writers knew the eye-witnesses. How could he possibly know that? I’ll make it easy for you - he doesn’t. Since the gospels were penned way after the fact, he is forced to trust that these stories are actual history all based on the assumption that the writers somehow got the correct information. But there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that they did.

We can see clearly that the other two synoptic gospels were taken from Mark, and John is practically a mockery of the synoptics because it is so contradictory. The four gospel writers could have taken people's stories that they heard circulating around that time, and elaborated on them.

This is where things really start to get sticky. How good a detective can one be, if they think these are sound arguments? Here's what I think: I think that J Warner Wallace IS a good detective in all other situations - but when it comes to the bible he makes a special case so that he can sidestep having to deal with the lack of evidence, and takes the other half on faith.

Because he holds the bible in such high regard, then he is forced to rely on things that a deceive normally wouldn't rely on, such as church tradition and hearsay. His assumptions fill in the blanks of church history in order to make it look like all of the dots connect, when in reality they don't. The fact is, if J Warner Wallace applied his double standard that he has for the bible to every case he worked on, then his career would be in jeopardy.

He may claim that he looked at all the evidence before becoming a believer, but we need to ask what made him look into it in the first place. Well, as it turns out - his wife was a Christian. That's always where the gold lies isn't it? Like Lee Strobel, Wallace knew in his subconscious that in order to save his marriage he was either going to find a way to convert, or he was doomed to fight an uphill battle. When his wife invited him to church, he started reading the bible to find out if it was true.

This is where the root of the problem began, in my opinion. Wallace knew nothing of the bible before becoming a Christian, so he was ignorant about it's history and he way the bible came together. Instead of going out and consulting a historian or getting a second opinion, he relied too much on his own methods, and assumed that the New Testament lined up with everything he knew about solving cold cases. To this day he still ignores the vast amount of problems with the gospels, despite eventually going to seminary and learning about them.

In my opinion, Wallace's wife had more of a powerful factor in his conversion than he realizes. I could be wrong, but I've seen this happen too many times to not think that this was the main ingredient in changing his mind. I've seen marriages where one spouse gets influenced by the other whether it be politics, religion, or some big lifestyle change.

Case in point - Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. Tom was big into Scientology, so Katie followed........for awhile at least. A person can be a skeptic their whole life until a woman enters the picture - or vice versa. Isn't that the way it usually goes? It also stands to reason that Wallace's detective analogies for the gospels can also be applied to Mormonism, Islam, and Catholicism since those religions have "eye-witness" accounts for certain events.

We also need to think about something else here for a minute. Are there not other detectives just as smart as J Warner Wallace out there and just as experienced, who could look at the same evidence and NOT be convinced? Don't you think that another detective with the same skills could look at the gospels, come to a different conclusion, and write a "Cold Case Gospel" series from an atheist point of view?

I wonder how many fans of J Warner Wallace have ever thought of that.

In Lee Strobel’s situation, a Journalist is an atheist. Journalist’s wife becomes Christian. Journalist uses his “skeptical” methods to investigate the gospels and becomes saved. Journalist writes best selling book, “The Case for Christ” years later. J Warner Wallace was an atheist and a cold-case detective. Cold case detective’s wife, becomes Christian. Cold-case detective uses his crime skills to investigate the gospels and becomes saved. Cold-case detective writes best selling book, “The Cold Case Gospel” years later.

Do you see a pattern here? If that's not enough to convince you, then it's also worthy of mention that J Warner Wallace also writes a "Cold Case Gospel" series - FOR KIDS! Yet another marketing strategy, borrowed from Strobel. This kind of evangelical cash-in scheme, is obviously more about business, not ministry.

Frank Turek

Farnk Turek is yet another rising star in the Christian apologist world. His ministry called "Cross Examined" has a vast growing number of videos, and internet traffic. In his illustrious career, Turek has debated the late Christofer Hitchens, Michael Shermer, as well as other well-known skeptics. Like so many apologists out there, Frank has his own style, stage presence, and his own way of engaging with secular matters.

He is a master at dodging uncomfortable questions, and is always coming up with creative ways to get himself out of a tough spot. At the very least, his lectures and debates can at least be entertaining to watch in order to get you through his swamp of pseudo- arguments.

Turek knows how to deflate any opponent who comes at him with a hard question, and a good example from You Tube is when a girl who wasn't a Christian asked him if she was going to hell for an eternity, and he responded: "What do you mean by hell?" To which the girl responded: "You know, will I end up burning forever?" And Turek responds: "What do you mean by burn?"

From there, Frank descends into the usual tap dancing game that is so predictable with most evangelicals. The tactic is simple: Distract the skeptic from the original question by answering with more questions. It's the classic Yahweh verses Job technique.

Unfortunately, Frank's neverending game of dodge ball gets much deeper than that. If you are ever so lucky to attend one of his lectures, then it doesn't matter what kind of questions you ask him - he's going to have an answer, and a confident one at that. You can be the smartest person in the room and think of a million different ways to trap to him, but Frank is an apologist. He does this for a living. When he's asked a tough question, it's not like he's just going to scratch his head and go, "Gee, ya really got me on that one!"

Here are some conversations he's had during the Q & A portions of his talks, and once again - many of these conversations are pulled straight from his videos.

One gentleman asked Frank about people who lived before Christianity. What about the people who lived before Christ who didn't get a chance to hear about him? It's indeed one of the biggest holes in the Christian faith.Turek responds:

"Paul talks about the gospel was preached to Abraham, and Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness - they just trusted in Yahweh. They knew there was a savior coming , they just didn't know his name. But by trusting in Yahweh they would be saved. So it's retroactive for people who came before Christ - Christ's salvation applies to them even though it hadn't happen chronologically in our world yet."

What about people who weren't Jews?

Frank goes on: “Well, we don’t know much about them but we do know there was a priest called Melchizedek. And if you go to Genesis 14, you can read about Melchizedek. Melchizedek seems to come out of nowhere, and Abraham makes a sacrifice and Melchizedek blesses him - we don’t know if god’s word had gone out to other people at that point, we don’t have a record of it - or it could be in those days people just put their faith in some sort of creator, and didn’t know the name and they we’re saved that way. All we know is this - since god is the standard of justice, then nobody in the afterlife is going to be treated unfairly.”

Okay, this is where the logic ends and the fun begins. I'm going to take on Frank here- point by point. I have already sorted this problem out before, but because it's such an embarrassing issue for believers I don't have a problem addressing it twice. There seems to be a classic double standard here. Because Jesus wasn't around yet, people just believed in Yahweh and that somehow made them saved, or at least okay in god's eyes. Of course the problem gets worse when you realize that nobody else in the world would have known who Yahweh was, unless they were born an Israelite. You had people living in ancient China, India, and the Americas. You had the Mayans and the prehistoric Aborigines.

According to Frank, there is some mysterious priest named Melchizedek who's going to take care of this problem? It doesn't make sense. There is nothing in the Old Testament that suggests Melchizedek ministered to anyone, especially people who were non-Jews in other parts of the globe. I have no clue what Frank is getting at here, other than the fact that some believe Melchizedek was actually a foreshadowing of Jesus. It sure sounds to me like Frank is trying to invent evidence where there is none to solve the problem of the majority of people not knowing about Yahweh.

Here is my main concern with this huge hurtle - if it was okay for people to be saved just by knowing there was some sort of higher power, then what's to stop god from using that same system for everyone? If everyone on earth really needed Jesus, then it looks like god would have had Jesus die in the Garden of Eden the moment that Adam and Eve ate from the tree. God could have seen it through that no other religion on earth could have taken influence from Christianity or borrowed from it.

Christianity could have been the original religion, with Jesus's resurrection being right from the very beginning so that Adam and Eve could have passed it on and everyone would know about Jesus. That would have been so easy to do for any all-powerful god. But instead, Yahweh thought it would a great idea to make Christianity look inconsistent by not sending his son until a few thousand years later, so that only people living in AD knew about him.

What was the point in changing up the game, when all you would have to do is stick to one method? Has Frank ever thought about how much this double standard makes the bible look ridiculous?

Frank Turek defends the New Testament by saying "we have most, if not all of the New Testament documents prior to 70 Ad."

I'm just going to call a spade a spade here - he's lying. BIG TIME. The only documents we know for certain that were written before 70 AD, are six of Paul's letters, and those start at about 55 AD, and onwards. Mark is the only gospel that has any hope whatsoever of being dated before 70, and even that's stretching it. From what we can tell from scholarly consensus, all of the gospels were composed long after 70. The fake letters of Paul, Revelation, James, and 1st and 2nd Peter are constantly being debated about when they were written. Nobody knows for sure, but evidently Frank Turek thinks he does.

In addition to such a fantastic claim, Turek also makes this bold assertion: "The documents were filled with eye-witness testimony that only eye-witnesses would know." Again, Frank is either terribly ignorant here, or he's lying and hopes that you won't notice.

The only direct first hand eye-witness testimony who we know wrote about seeing Jesus was Paul. Of course, Paul's experiences with Jesus were all in his head; they were only visions. Other than that, all we have are anonymous third party sources who wrote about people's post-resurrection experiences with Jesus. We don't have any information about whether or not these people were still alive to be interviewed at the time that the gospels were written.

Turek goes on to quote: "If you look at the characters in both the old and new testaments, they were all Olympic quality sinners." Is this really true? Only if you've never read the bible. Christians love to repeat this, citing examples of King David and how he was an adulterer, a murderer, and King Solomon's wives. Moses of course killed a man. They like to use Jonah as an example of disobeying god, but I don't consider a guy who didn't want to go to Nineveh that bad of a guy, I guess. Apologists constantly use examples of the big names in the bible being great sinners, because it makes the bible sound more authentic somehow.

Even so, what about Job, the one man that the bible claims was good in god's eyes? Or what about Noah and his family who were the only righteous people on earth? What about Ruth? What about Obediah? What about the stories of the prophet Daniel? Radshack, Meshack, and Abednigo?

What about Joshua who completed the Canaanite conquest and did nothing but obey god's orders? What big sin did he commit? What about Melchizedek? These people were written into the bible as good trustworthy citizens who didn't commit these "Olympic" sized sins.

In the New Testament, you have the three wise men, Jesus's mother Mary and his father Joseph, James the brother of Jesus, Mary Magdalen, Martha, Andrew, Nathaniel, Bartholomew, Silas, ect. What were the great crimes these people committed?

There is one particular video where Turek is talking about the challenges facing their kids when they go to a secular college. He is extremely devoted to making sure parents train their kids in the faith before they send their children out into the world. He has this to say about such endeavors:

"It doesn't matter what college your kids go to, you have to make sure they're inoculated. You may even find other college kids that call themselves Christians that have doubts who are going to pull your kids away. In addition to inoculating them with evidence before they go to college, make sure that once they get there, they are involved in a Christian group, they get a Christian roommate, or have some support on campus. It can be good for your kids to go to a secular school and be salt and light. Put a stone in the unbelievers shoe, to cause them to doubt their worldview."

Frank is being one of the biggest hypocrites of all time, by trying to make sure his own kids don't doubt, but he wants unbelieving kids to doubt. In other words, indoctrinate your kids one way if you're Christian, but indoctrinate someone else's kids another way. In the end, it's all a big marketing gimmick to evangelize other people's kids. He wouldn't dare have his own kids challenged by an atheist roommate, but he wants Christian college students to challenge the atheists. If it were me, I would say fine - bring it on.

What would be so bad about having Christian kids doubting the faith that was instilled into them by their parents? If Frank is such a thinker in his own right, then why wouldn't he want that? Because deep down, he's scared of his own kids losing the faith that he's worked so hard to drill into them.

I save my favorite Turek episode for last. He was being asked by someone at a lecture about child sacrifice in the Old Testament. There was a guy who stood up and his question for Frank was very simple:

Guy: "If god commanded you to kill an innocent child, and if you had a way of verifying it was god - would you do so?"

Frank: "Well, that happened to Abraham, as you know. Abraham is taking Isaac up the mountain -Mount Moriah, and Isaac asks where the sacrifice is and Abraham told him that god would provide the sacirfice. Abraham takes Isaac - puts him on the alter, starts tying him up, takes out his dagger, and starts to sacrifice his son to the lord until an angel comes and told him to not touch the boy. Two thousand years after that on the same mountain, god just doesn't provide the sacrifice, god is the sacrifice. Jesus was executed on Mount Moriah for the sins of the world. The dagger didn't stop - it went through."

Just as I predicted, Frank isn't answering the question here. He knows that this particular question is the number one question that all apologists hate to deal with. So he keeps trying to buy time........

Guy: "I'm sorry - would you or would you not?"

Turek: "I'm getting there. If you're looking at the Old Testament examples, Isaac is what we call a type - a type of Jesus, he foreshadows Jesus, Jesus comes along later and is the sacrifice. Abraham is god sacrificing his son - but doesn't. In the New Testament on the same mountain god does sacrifice his son - Jesus. Now I would have to be very, very sure that god wanted me to sacrifice my son for me to ever do such a thing. And today we lock people up for believing that god wanted them to sacrifice their son. I think the cannon is closed - I think a revelation like that is over, so I don't expect god to come to anyone today and say kill your son. There isn't a need for god to tell us what to do - we already know through the bible. So I don't think that's going to happen today. And I agree that I would never willingly kill another human being. And I'm glad you wouldn't either. But we need to know how the bible was written and what those events foreshadowed - the true sacrifice which saves you and me."

Guy: "My question was hypothetically- would that be moral if god asked you to do it?"

Turek: "If god wants to take my life or anybody else's, then he's the author of life - he can take it anytime he wants."

Guy: "So is the answer yes or no, if god commanded it?"

Turek: "If I was in ancient Israel and if god commanded me to do it - then yes."

Of course that wasn't what was being asked..........the guy never asked Frank what he would do if he were in ancient Israel. The guy just wanted to know what Frank would do if god asked him to kill someone now - in our time. Turek knew darn well what this guy meant, but he wasn't about to let him get away with it.

The reason why Frank dodges these inconvenient issues, is because he can't cope with his mind being overtaken by the invading forces of logic. It's plain to see that Frank Turek isn't in this business to challenge people's thinking. He is simply a small man with a small mind, and a wishful thinker who wants nothing more than to force the narrative his way.

Sye Ten Bruggencate

All around the country, there are apologists and street preachers who debate in the public sphere. There are the Lee Strobels and the J Warner Wallaces out there who are trying to prove gods existence with evidence. You have all kinds of Christian apologists from every walk of life out there, including the ones who do not try to prove the gospels are true but instead talk down to people insisting that they have just sinned against the almighty and need to repent.

These are the old style street preachers who still cling to an outdated system of arguments solely based on emotional tactics, and fire breathing scripture lessons. Anymore, I truly feel sorry for them and some of them are so bad that they actually make great comedians without even trying. Or some of them have been cursed with a mental illness, spewing nothing but hate speech and offensive rhetoric that drives them to a certain degree of social insanity.

I didn't think it was possible to get any worse than that...........and then along comes Sye Ten Bruggencate

Sye Ten Bruggencate is one of those people who I can't figure out why they're famous. He's the poster boy for what they call "presuppostional apologetics." This is a style of apologetics that veers from the more historical and theological arguments, and focuses solely on how one thinks. The one gigantic flaw in presuppositional arguments is that in order for it to work, you already have to assume that every atheist secretly knows that the biblical god exists.

This causes massive hurdles for the Christian to overcome, because of course, it's impossible to prove. How does someone like Sye get around this? By hammering home the same broken record of evangelical dreck, that Sye himself has memorized and has made a career out of beating it into people's skulls.

Sye's main line of reasoning goes something like this: Sye assumes that everyone on earth knows that god exists. Not just any form of god, HIS god - Yahweh. He says he isn't claiming to read people's minds, but yet he claims that the bible is really god's word - and that it tells us the condition of the heart and minds of the unbeliever.

He takes Romans 1 quite literally; the verse that says that people who don't believe are "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness."

Sye rejects the style of mainstream Christian apologetics that has for so long built it's case around evidence. People such as William Lane Craig, Lee Strobal, J Warner Wallace, and Frank Turek are all what you call "evidential" apologists. These Christian men all construct their arguments based on archaeological, historical, and scriptural evidence, but as Sye has figured out, these evidential arguments for Christianity are flawed and have raised even more obstacles.

Sye's website, (proofthatgodexists.org) expresses these views in more depth. On his site he has a professionally made documentary about him that you can watch entitled, "How to answer the Fool" where it shows Sye on different college campuses debating with different young people. Despite the arrogant title of the documentary, and how absurd it is to call anyone a fool who doesn't subscribe to your religious views, I actually support his freedom of speech. I support it, because I can guarantee you the more he is out there, the more he is going to make loads of new atheists. So, bravo for Sye.

In certain situations, Sye is taking advantage of young college kids by tricking them into thinking that they somehow know the Christian god exists, simply by getting them to admit that they can know certain things. College students are notorious for having liberal views, and are in a time of life where it's exciting to think outside the box of what they had been taught. Sometimes those views are not always consistent philosophically, or logically.

I'm all for challenging young people with arguments to get them to think, but Sye actually does the opposite of all of that. He preys upon young, eager minds with his ego-laced sermons and presuppositional arguments, to the place where his tone is condescending and abrasive. Sye wants to swoop down and catch them in his sanctimonious net, and he makes a public nuisance of himself when trying to do so.

In one video on You Tube, Sye told a stranger outright - "I pray that you won't have peace until you find Christ." Evidently Sye has trouble with atheists being at peace. He doesn't WANT them to be happy. He actually prays that they will be miserable until they convert to his faith. It's complete filth. From here on out, we can expect more extemporaneous hogwash from out of Sye's mouth, and he continues not to disappoint.

Here is another clip of Sye, in apologist mode:

Student: "A village in India may never hear of Christianity. It makes no sense to me that a loving god would condemn them to hell for not believing in Jesus when they've never heard of them."

Sye: "I've got some good news for you. Nobody goes to hell for not believing in Jesus. Do you know why people go to hell? Because of their sin. Those people in those tribes in the deepest, darkest jungles are sinning against the god they know exists. That's why we send missionaries. Even other people who profess another god, know the true god. Because they're not going to be able to say they thought it was Allah."

Of course if Sye would take the time to study some actual history, he would know that Allah and Yahweh are the same god. That's why Islam, Judaism and Christianity are called "Abrahamic" religions after all. They all believe in the same deity, and sending missionaries cannot suffice for the people in a certain country who die before the missionaries arrive. Do some indigenous people go to hell because there weren't enough missionaries in certain places?

The arrogance to keep assuming that everybody knows your god is real, is a scar on the face of Sye's profession. It is nothing less than ego-driven to even suggest that such an absurdity might be true, let alone pronounce it as though it were fact, but inside Sye's brain, the bible is an absolute truth, and it's a truth he cannot prove when under pressure.

One of Sye's favorite strategies, is to ask people questions that make them fell like they have to answer 'yes' or 'no'. A good example would be this one:

"If you were walking with two people towards a cliff and one person says Jesus loves you, and the other tells you that you should turn around because there is a cliff ahead - then who's the more loving person?"

The sudden feeling comes over you like it's impossible to answer without Sye winning, but the fact is - this is a false dichotomy. If I was walking toward the edge of a cliff chances are I wouldn't need anyone to tell me because I could see the drop-off in the distance over the horizon. Plus, why couldn't one person be able to see the cliff sooner than the other, and have both people still be loving? Sye wants to phrase the question as if it's a 'yes' or 'no' question to make you feel defeated before you can answer.

Sye finds these college students on campuses and tries to find the one’s who say that there are no absolutes, or that nothing is true, in order to make them look bad. He’s not in this to get people to think for themselves - his arguments were designed to get you to convert.

These are not arguments, they are accusations. Once again, we have an example of a god of allegiance vs a god of morality, and Sye's deity is the god of allegiance.

Here are a list of Sye's main arguments, and they're easy enough to knock down:

Sye's argument:

"One thing that you presuppose is that your reasoning is valid. How do you know? In order to determine evidence, you have to presuppose the validity of your reasoning. Evidence presupposes the god of scripture, because you can't have evidence unless you start with god. You presuppose that the bible isn't what it claims to be, but you can't prove that because you can't justify your reasoning. If you don't know your reasoning is valid, then how can you know anything to be true?"

My Response:

This is Sye's number one argument that he uses in order to intimidate people. It's a trap. Every human can justify their reasoning on things that are testable and repeatable, and that are consistent with reality. This has nothing to do with the bible, but since Sye thinks it does - he tries to force your position in his favor to make it look like he's the logical one. I can do the same thing with secular reasoning coming from the opposite point of view - I can say that you don't get god, unless you start with evidence.

I can justify that the bible isn't what it claims to be, based on the lack of historical evidence in it, and we can verify those methods with what has been shown to be reliable in the past. If the bible is true, then we can take certain steps based on certain criteria that has to be met. If the bible lacks evidence of that criteria, then we can say it's not been shown to be true. Our reasoning can be determined by reliable methods. If these methods come from a god, then how do we know it's the god of the bible?

Sye's argument:

"You're putting god up to your moral standard. Because what god is doing in this situation with your twisted view of it; you're saying that it's wrong - that it should go MY way, and that's exactly what happened in the garden of Eden. You're saying to god - 'I know it better than you.' I'm not in the position to question the creator. I just read what god says and he's perfectly holy and his judgments are just.

There are Christians who struggle with the original sin of Adam - I get that, but we sin enough ourselves to warrant an eternity in hell. It’s not about the severity of the sin, but it’s about how good god is. People aren’t sent to hell for not believing - they’re sent to hell for their sin, against the god that they know exists. Because god said it’s justified.”

My response:

Basically all that Sye is saying here is that anything the god of the bible justifies is GOOD. This is the same nonsense that gets peddled about year after year by apologists. God is good, because he's god. Period. Sye's position is claiming that god could have stopped himself from creating the universe - even if it meant that he knew people were going to end up in hell.

According to Sye, I'm supposed to accept this simply because he thinks his god is just, no matter what his god decides. If Sye is not in the position to question the creator, then why would a creator allow people to question him? Why put that sort of logic in people's brains to begin with, if we are in no such position? Sye has proven for the millionth time that Christianity is a cult based on fear, and submissive behavior.

Sye's argument:

"God can save people through evidence, but I'm really afraid of Christians who say that they are saved because of the evidence. If you say that, then you're not a Christian. Because if you say that, then you're still the judge. And the problem with that is you can back into your 3 year old kid who's playing in the driveway, and kill them. Now all of a sudden, you have evidence that there is no God. When we give people evidence, then who are we saying is the judge? Them. And who is really on trial? God."

My response:

What Sye is basically saying here is that evidence really doesn't matter - it only matters that you believe the bible no matter how much or little evidence there is for it.

Let me get this straight, Sye. You want people to get saved through your brand of arguments instead of evidential ones, because you're afraid that if all you have is evidence for god, then you can decide what is good evidence and what isn't - and you don't want people to be the judge of that.

Instead, you want people to accept a brand of evidence that is unchanging, and does not waiver, but unfortunately, this is what makes up life, science and the universe. Sometimes the evidence changes, and when it does - we have to change our views. Unfortunately, Sye doesn't like this, because he wants a special kind of evidence for his god that cannot change no matter what happens.

Sye's argument:

"Any god that requires me to give evidence to you, is not the god of the bible. Would it really make sense that the creator of the universe would have to give you evidence before you will bow down to him? That doesn't make any sense."

My response:

Actually Sye, it does make sense. Do you really think that Sye would accept the god of any other religion based on this argument? If I told Sye that Vishnu was real, but wasn’t going to give him any evidence, he would think I was nuts. The level of hypocrisy here is simply astounding.

Sye is among those Christian apologists who like to flaunt that atheists are actually borrowing from the Christian world view, despite the fact that Christianity has borrowed from just about every ancient worldview before it.

"What drives you is the desire to be god yourself - that you don't want to submit to the god you know exists but you want to be your own god. It's not an intellectual problem - it's a psychological problem, it's an emotional problem."

Everything that Sye is saying here falls right back on him - I could say that his brand of religion is an emotional problem, or psychological problem because he thinks he needs the Christian god to make sense of the world. No Sye, I don’t want to be my own god - never did. Why would I want to be god when I am perfectly happy being human? I just cannot fathom why the Christian god makes any sense. It really is that simple.

This is why I actually think the issue IS an intellectual problem - I cannot make sense of the Christian faith, therefore I reject it on those grounds. It's an intellectual hurdle that I cannot overcome, unless I just submit to the authority of the bible, and I cannot do that based on the fact that I would not make that exception for any other religion. I couldn't believe the Quran or the Hindu Vedas based on any kind of authority without evidence, so I have to apply the same toward Christianity. Why is that so hard for Sye to understand?

Sye is adamant that unbelievers will not be able to understand the truth of the bible until they repent. One of his favorite quotes is the "fear of the lord is the beginning of knowledge" and "Repentance comes before the knowledge of the truth."as it says in 2 Timothy 2:25.

I have heard this many times, but Sye really pushes the issue to a new level. His lofty claim is that people are ignorant to the truth of the bible, therefore when they become saved, it will all make sense. As you might imagine, this kind of accusation becomes problematic when you realize that if you don't have any knowledge before hand, then how could you end up repenting in the first place?

If one repents, and opens their eyes to the bible or any religion, then something had to make them cross over. If repentance comes before knowledge, then what makes a person repent? Doesn't this contradict Sye's view that people already have knowledge of god? And wouldn't 2nd Timothy contradict what was being said in Romans 1?

On a radio show that Sye was on he was asked a unique and curious question by a man who called in:

Guy: “I was wondering, I was a Christian until about two years ago. If I would have died two years ago - where as right now I’m not a Christian, I’m an atheist. If I had died when I was still a Christian, would I have gone to hell or heaven - even though if time were to continue, I would have stopped believing.”

Sye: "If you aren't a Christian now, then you never were a Christian. And if you died at that point, you would have gone to hell. How can you reason your way out of a position where god is the authority of your reasoning? If god is the lord of your reasoning, then how can you reason out of that position? If you reason your way out of Christianity, then you are your own authority."

Once again, Sye will make it easy for you: Former Christians, were never real Christians, and they just all go to hell - even ones that are still Christians now. That's it. He thinks this way because he cannot fathom why anyone could reason their way out of their faith as he quotes: "It's impossible to reason from a position where god is the lord of your reasoning. If you're the lord of your reasoning, then your not a Christian."

Still, here is where the problem breaks down - at what point do you start to reason your way out of faith? If ex-Christians were never real Christians, then when did they become the unbelievers that they always were? This should be a tough spot for anyone who endorses Sye's views. Do people find out they were really never Christian when they ask that first question?

If that first question leads them to a series of questions where they begin to spiral downwards, does that mean they can never turn around and come back? What about the ones who walked away from Christianity and then came back later in life? At that point, will Sye say that they were never Christian, or that they were always Christian?

How far must one go in their questioning, according to Sye? I'm assuming that Sye thinks that his god gave people reasoning for the sole purpose of thinking inside the Christian bubble, and his god gave people just enough reasoning skills for them to start questioning, but doesn't like it when they start asking too many questions.

How predictable.

This is what I've been saying all along - the church doesn't like it when you start asking the wrong questions! Sye's beliefs only confirm this. If god is the ultimate authority, and if he's supposed to be the lord of you're reasoning, then why would a god give any human the kind of reasoning skills to make them doubt? It's useless.

And not only that, Sye thinks that god needs at least some people to go to hell in order for his theology to work. For he quotes:"It would be a pretty weak god if he wanted everybody in heaven and they didn't get there. That's part of his decree, otherwise people wouldn't know the characteristics of his justice and his mercy - if people weren't going to hell."

There are religious families who disown their children over rejecting the faith. I wonder if Sye thinks this is just, or loving. If he doesn't think it's loving for a family to disown their child for rejecting god, then how could he think it was loving for a god to send anyone to eternal torment for doing the same?

The final knockout blow for the number one winning streak in Sye’s insanity, has to be when he said he thought that any country should be based on Christian theocracy. In a debate that was posted on the internet, a man from the audience asked Sye verbatim:

Man: "Do you believe that democracy is the best system in a civilized society?"

Sye: "No, actually. I believe theocracy is. Christian theocracy."

Is this really any surprise considering the source? No, but it is chilling. The most hilarious glint of irony in Sye's ignorant remark comes from the fact that his own bible disagrees with him. In Romans 13, Paul makes it clear that god has put the government in place no matter what type of government it is - and that Christians should follow that authority.

That means if it's a democracy, then you follow it because god put it in place! But of course Sye will ignore anything that inconveniently swerves in front of his own worldview. This is why Sye refuses to answer atheist questions, unless it falls in line with his presuppositional arguments.

When an atheist has a sincere question about a contradiction in scripture, Sye responds by saying: "I don't do bible studies with atheists." He says this because he is convinced that atheists are in denial of the truth, and since the bible is the truth - then they don't have the right to be asking questions about it, since they aren't Christians.

Sye wants to make the rules by creating an environment where only he is steering the ship, and the skeptic has to succumb to his brand of argument. By doing this, Sye is preparing the get-away car so he won't have to deal with the evidence, or any peer reviewed facts. The magnitude of obstinacy that is being displayed here, is nothing short of legendary.

Sye is an emotional beggar. Not the kind of beggar who needs money - no. He's a needy man who has to have emotional validation for his beliefs. When you believe that there is no chance your bible could ever be wrong about anything, not even a one percent chance, then that isn't faith - that's a mental illness.

He has destroyed any hope of me taking him seriously based solely on that reason. There are human beings who are so conditioned, so brainwashed, that they will go to the ends of the earth in order to have anyone agree with them, because of their constant emotional need to be right.

Sye is reaching out to you - he's begging you to come to his side. He needs you to aid him in his emotional comfort, by admitting the god of the bible is true, so he can feel good about scoring another victory for Jesus. He needs those victory points from you, so if you meet him in public - make sure to drop some victory points in his emotional hat.

Here's what I would suggest to atheists. Give him what he wants. Tell him what he wants to hear. Part of his brain behaves like a child, so he needs his pacifier, his lollipop and his milk and cookies. Just give it to him out of empathy. Lie to his face, and say that you admit that his god is real, and you just don't want to worship him. Admit you're just really ticked off at god, and that's why you can't become a Christian.

This will pacify Sye, and you can save yourself the trouble and go on your merry way. In my opinion, this is the best way to engage with such a person. Tell him you would rather go to hell, than worship his god. Don't get angry, because he thrives on that. He loves it when people get angry at him, because it makes him feel like he's being persecuted for the lord - and it makes him look good. Just be civil and nice. Admit that you believe, and tell him that you are just angry at his god. Either that, or just ignore him.

If Sye were sitting with me right now, I can just imagine what he would say: "Do you know that's true? Do you know your reasoning is valid?" Yes Sye, I do know that my reasoning is valid. Because I have seen dozens of others like you, and the pattern of their behavior confirms your own. I can base my reason on anything that is repeatable and testable in the real world. Sye thinks he has to have the Christian god to do that. I don't.

Since Sye refuses to make arguments based on evidence, he has basically painted himself into a corner. Because if you claim that your reasoning is all based on the god of the bible, then you would have to show evidence for that particular god. However, Sye can't do that, because he has already rejected evidence based arguments - and claimed that if you give a person evidence, then you give them the authority to put god on trial.

You give a person the authority to say whether or not the evidence is good enough. According to Sye, that's blasphemy, and since he can't bring himself to do that, then he's stuck in a rut - hoping that you the sinner will repent if he just keeps grinding his presuppositional axe into your face.

Let's take a look at the other reason Sye doesn't use evidential arguments for Christianity - because he thinks they're bad. He's right.......he knows that more and more young people aren't buying into the arguments for the resurrection and the New Testament.

This is one area where Sye is actually ahead of his other fellow apologists. He knows evidential arguments are useless - at least most of the time, but when most Christian apologists start to catch up with Sye, then the only fuel Christianity will have left to keep it going are word games, and Sye's intimidation tactics.

The only thing that Sye has contributed to the argument is no different than what religion has already been doing for decades - mastering the art of saying absolutely nothing.

The Grim Future of Apologetics

First Peter 3:15 says, "Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you." Isn't it interesting then, that the majority of Christians don't know how to defend their beliefs, so they have to depend upon apologists to do it for them. If guys like Sye are the best they've got, then the future of Christianity doesn't look too good.

As I mentioned earlier, I am actually for aplogetics, because the more we expose it, the more people will start to question their beliefs. I wonder if most apologists realize this. Do they not know that many Christians have become atheists because of Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig? Do they not see, the blind error in the whole crusade?

Do they not realize that they are leading just as many people away as they are bringing people in? Perhaps that's what Sye Ten Bruggencate has realized over the years. What's going to happen to Sye's arguments, once Christians begin to figure out that his aren't any better?

It's funny that CS Lewis was one of the biggest apologists in Christianity, and yet he said "I have found that nothing is more dangerous to one’s own faith than the work of an apologist." Even Lewis could see this problem from a long way off. I wonder what CS Lewis would think of his chapter on hell in "The Problem of Pain" having an influence on my apostasy? I seriously wonder how many other people have read that, and were as disgusted by it as I was?

Richard Carrier couldn't have said it better:

“An argument only appears to support rather than refute Christianity when you cherry-pick some out-of-context facts and leave out all the other evidence. When you put the evidence back in, that the Christian apologist has dishonestly left out, shockingly the argument flips. It transforms from an argument for Christianity, to an argument against it.”

The question that needs to asked is - what is the real motivation behind Christian apologetics? Is it more important for people to intellectually defend their faith, or to win souls to Christ? Because it seems to me, that if the whole world was Christian, then we wouldn't need these arguments.

There are many Christians out there who don't even know that the arguments for the resurrection even exist - they are happy just to have faith and believe because they had an experience, or they grew up with it. If one became Christian without knowing the arguments for it, would Christian apologists be happy with that? Or would they no longer need to worry about those people? Is knowing resurrection arguments necessary for a Christian, or just a means to get people saved?

The reason why the argument for an empty tomb and a resurrection are being pushed, and repeated in so many different ways, is because it’s really the last stop in order to defend the Christian faith. Christian apologists simply assume that if you can just convince someone that the tomb was empty - they can win souls. We cannot disprove the resurrection, despite solid arguments against it - so Christians will be more than happy to take whatever convincing arguments they have left - and push it like never before. The bible is living on borrowed time, and this they know.

Apologists understand that they can't defend the old testament anymore with sufficient evidence, because much of it has been shown to be myth - even by other Christians.They know that they can't defend original sin, eternal damnation, or the end times, or why such a god is loving - so the only thing they have left are arguments from a claim made from 2000 years ago that nobody can disprove. They claim because no one can disprove it, then it has the likelihood of being true.

It’s ironic that the further you go back in history, the less apologetics there was available to Christians, and yet more people believed. Now in the 21st century, we have an overload of endless apologetics, and yet the new millennial generation is more secular than ever. Don’t you think there is something a little funny about that? Seems to me that we’re paying a very high price for a lot of wasted ink.

There is only so many times you can repeat something before it becomes tiresome, and irrelevant. How many more books have to be written?

I will ask Christians one more time - Why do I need to be a Christian?

If it's to save me from hell, then that makes you look completely vile, and if there is no literal hell then why do I need Christianity?

No matter how you interpret hell, then you are always going to look bad - either you want me to believe in order to escape punishment for not believing, or you just want me to believe for some useless reason which will not affect me at all in the end, if it doesn't exist. You are forced to choose between a god who is insane, or a god who's too lazy to care about the clarity of his own book.

Take your pick. It really is a tough spot to be in.

The trouble with all of this, is that it shows that god's divine word just isn't good enough. When you have to have thousands of other Christians trying to explain the bible, then that shows that the bible doesn't have enough fuel to prolong itself. If it did, then no one would ever need to read another Christian book besides the bible - ever. In a strange sense, the Christian apologist is automatically defeated the moment he hits the stage. Because they are trying to defend something that they wouldn't have to be defending, if the bible was powerful enough on it's own. Why is the bible so dependent upon man to explain away it's fallacies?

The bible should be all that you would ever need, and you wouldn't have the constant struggle for men to explain a book that was written by other men.

Now to be fair, could you say the same things about atheist debaters and apologists? Aren’t atheist debaters dishonest, and arrogant as well? I will give a most definite “yes” to that. You really do have the same problem on both sides. However.......the only reason that the atheist arguments exist is because religion exists. Most atheists are not making claims that there is no god. They may not believe in god, but I think you will find that most do not claim any certainty, when it comes to the origins of the universe.

Alas, religion does.

That is the very heart of why religion has caused so much skepticism. If one makes a claim about something, then another person has a right to demand proof. Atheism never would have bothered with religion, if religion did not make irrational claims, but it does, and it continues to. There is your difference between Christian apologists and secular ones. One is making a claim. The other is simply responding to that claim.

The trouble with the majority of these apologists -Christian, atheist, or otherwise is that they are not historians, scholars, or scientists. They are motivational speakers, philosophers and fundamentalist church leaders. They have not developed the discipline to report truth as it is.

They discard facts with their own bias, and dispense just enough correct information to get you in trouble. These are the same techniques used by political activists, cult leaders, and dictators. Such people look for facts that are ambiguous, or items that have more than one meaning, and apologists for religion LOVE anything that has more than one meaning.

It looks like the almighty, would have picked better people to be his spokesmen. It appears that god can't defend himself, and if he doesn't need any defense, then why the endless mountain of apologetics?

CHAPTER 8

THE PROBLEM WITH CREATIONISM........

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep" - Genesis 1:2

Creationism throughout the past several decades, has been a huge part of classic American evangelicalism. For hundreds of years, the church had it’s way, enjoying a position of power and doctrinal influence. This power was almost impossible to infiltrate, until recently. In the latter part of the 20th century, science began to be an obstacle to the six-day-creation belief with new evidence to the contrary. It brought evolution out of the dark corridors of time, and into the spotlight.

This all rested on a theory being tried and tested for well over a century tracing itself all the way back to Darwin's "Origin of the Species", and beyond. Today, there is no longer the battle over the issue there used to be, and the majority of the world's scientists have long accepted the fact that evolution is here to stay.

If there is one thing evolution has done for the world - (whether you accept it or not) is that it has shed light on what can happen to humans, when their tradition becomes disrupted. It was the one thing nobody saw coming. It has been the ultimate weapon of inconvenient knowledge for the people who resist it. It patiently waited in the wings quietly for centuries, until it released itself upon the world's stage as a challenge to fundamentalist faith.

At first, it's presence was beaten down by the church. It wasn't so much that evolution wanted to be, or tried to be anti-bible, It was the Christians who made evolution evil, satanic, and a worldly abomination to their religion. It was the Christians who decided that evolution was going to be heretical. They tried for decades to stamp it out. They didn't succeed. Why?

Because more Christians started accepting evolution.

What was the reason for this sudden influx in controversial backsliding? What started changing the minds of the faithful? The evidence did. This is where we have to recognize evolution's most damming feature - it's explanatory power. When new evidence forces it's way into the public, you can't just stop it or slow it down - you can only sit back and watch it accelerate.

Now bible literalists were stuck with a real problem. Not only were they fighting against atheists evolutionists - they were now forced to fight Christians who supported evolution as well - their own spiritual kin. The church has been divided on the issue ever since, and we all have to admit that at times - the debate can get downright ugly.

Ken Ham’s Institution of Bigotry

There is a man who centers his entire existence on making sure that the debate stays ugly - Ken Ham, a creationist from Austrailia. To say that Ken Ham is one of Down Under's most unfortunate exports would be putting it mildly. His former country was probably too embarrassed to put up with his anti-evolution agenda, so they sent him here to the states. Thanks Austrailia!

The "Answers in Genesis" or AIG organization eventually made it's headquarters in Kentucky, and built what is known today as the infamous "Creation Museum" which is considered by real scientists to be an oxymoron. A science museum by definition, deals with facts and ideas that can be backed up with evidence. The Creation Museum practices none of this, and as a result has had to deal with public backlash and controversy.

Since there is no proof for the Genesis timeline in the bible, and no scientific consensus to support it, then Ham is forced to "invent" his own evidence by using large animatronic dinosaurs and wax displays of Adam and Eve. Real museums also change out their exhibits quite frequently, as new evidence or archaeological finds emerge.

However, since the stories in the bible can never change, then Ken Ham and company are stuck with the same exhibits year after year, so they have to keep adding new fake exhibits as the years go by in order to keep people coming back. This was proven true in 2016, when AIG opened their "ark park" of a lifesize replica of Noah's Ark.

When Ken Ham first built the Creation Museum in 2004, I was a new evolutionist. I wasn't out to attack anyone. Through a few You Tube videos, I quickly learned what Ham and his associates were all about, and why the museum was causing so much controversy.

At first, I wanted to play nice. I thought that Ham's whole idea was silly, and that his views were inaccurate, but at the time I thought that at least he was a decent guy who was simply misinformed. I wasn't angry at him, I was just embarrassed for him and was concerned that such an outfit would be the laughing stock of the United states. At least Ken Ham was nice human being. RIGHT?

As time wore on, and I delved into researching more about the AIG organization, it started to become clear that I gave Mr. Ham too much credit for being a nice guy. In fact, looking back on it, I could smack myself for being so naive. Ken Ham wasn't out to make friends, or to have a friendly debate with anyone. He was on a holy crusade to destroy evolution, and secularism in general. To him, anything secular in nature is a threat to America's very foundations.

When I first started watching videos of Ken Ham online, I thought he was just making the debate out to be a scientific issue. As it turns out, it was never just about disagreement over the age of the earth- it was about a moral issue. This was taking things to a whole new level, and it was a level that was dismissive of any sort of rational thought or reason in order for Ham to arrive at the conclusions he does.

His bigoted stance on homosexuality has won Ham a slew of new enemies, especially since he blames being gay on evolution. If you think that's funny, he also tries and fails miserably (as many evangelicals have) to connect Hitler, Stalin, and communism to Darwin to evolution. He claims that if you don't start with the bible, then it's impossible to have any morality, and considers the acceptance of secular science as morally bankrupt and that it is corrupting the youth of America. The final "exhibit" in the creation museum before you leave, is that they make you walk through a room showing all of the world's biggest atrocities known to man, and blame school shootings on evolution.

Ken Ham teaches children that evolution makes people behave in ways that reduces us to nothing more than just mere animals, therefore evolution is corrupt. Like many evangelicals, his obsession with homosexuality is almost good comedy, when you consider that there are also homosexual animals. I wonder if Ken would blame them for being sinners.

It's clear cut, that Ham wants to make an enemy out of evolution, and wants to be a leader in programming children's brains for an evangelical crusade. I would be fine if all Ham did was have a museum based on his beliefs just for fun - like a theme park, but that's NOT what the Creation museum is.

The Creation Museum is in short - an indoctrination center for children, and it teaches them to be afraid of secularism and scientific facts. This is confirmed with the kind of books he sells in the Creation Museum gift shop. In addition to anti-evolution material, he has written other books such as "Why Your Kids Will Quit Church and What You Can Do to Stop It." Clearly, this isn't just about science!

Here's the thing: Ken Ham and his ilk know that more and more Christians are accepting secular science. They know that they are losing the battle. They know that they are living on borrowed time. The whole idea behind the institution that they have created, is to have one last ditch effort for evangelicals to brainwash their kids with an anti-scientific view of the world. Needles to say, Ham is getting scared. It's extremely sad to see a man waste so much time and energy on trying to prove himself right, and to dampen the fear that he may be wrong.

Ken Ham also violates the use of certain terminology as another strategic move, to take down evolution. He constantly babbles endlessly about using “Historical science” verses “Observational science,” and claims that these two things are separate. He claims that historical science is looking back on things that take place in the past, and that Observational science is looking at things going on in nature, happening in the present.

Like most creationists, Ham loves to use the word "presupposition." He attacks evolutionists by saying that both parties are looking at the same evidence, it's just that we're interpreting that evidence differently. Ham asserts then, that evolution is nothing more than making a presupposition about the past.

According to Ken’s view, the “Observational science” determines the view of the historical science, but here’s the big clincher - there is no such thing as the words “Historical science” vs “Observational science.” These terms are not used at all in the scientific community. They are terms that were created by creationists! To most real scientists, science is simply science.

There is no need to define methods of looking to the past, or about what we see now. It's all one and the same, if you are doing any real research. It would be like telling an athlete that there was a difference between "historical baseball" and "observational baseball." These terms are simply vacuous, and are meaningless to explain anything about the scientific method.

Let's take a look at what really makes AIG tick. These people even have their own news show - AIG news, so they can have more of a platform to pedal their lies about secularists. Ken Ham quotes:

"It is the anti-Christian worldview that is permeating our culture, and that's what we've always said - in regard to the LGBTQ movement they all say that all they want is the freedom to have their views - no they don't , they want total acceptance, they want to force it on everyone else, and they want to eliminate anyone who says this is what's right or wrong based on the bible - that's really what it's all about. It's not just allowing for a particular view, it's about forcing their view on EVERYONE."

Could you possibly get any more inaccurate? I suppose that's why so many homosexual youth who come from families that reject them, are 8 more times as likely to have attempted suicide as opposed to straight people.

I suppose that's why so many gays live in fear, and keep closeted about their identity. I suppose that's why thousands of homosexuals who have gone through "gay conversion therapy" suppress their desires, get married and have kids. All because they are trying FORCE their views on everyone. Right, Ken?

And he continues with his onslaught of verbal sewage:

"Once you abandon God's word, anything goes. If you read upon the Canaanites and some of those cultures, the sexual depravity - what they did to children. You start to realize why god judged them because they were so depraved."

Yep, on target Ken. Despite that, we won't talk about how it was okay for the Israelites to kill infants, stone people for disobeying the law, kidnap virgins for the sake of plunder, and kill each other for worshiping the wrong god. No please - let's not talk about that.

Another man on the board of AIG named Bodie Hodge (an engineer), has this to say about you if you belong to another religion:

"It has been quoted that love has no gender, race, or religion. You do realize that the god of the bible IS love. He is the absolute standard for love. If you think about other religions, should love even have a basis in some of these other religions? Like in atheistic, materialistic worldview - and other religions that are materialistic in their outlook everything is material but love isn't material - so by rights, love doesn't exist in those religions. They may appeal to it, but what they are really doing is borrowing from a Christian worldview."

You mean that someone who couldn't help being born into one of those fake religions, also has fake love? You mean that all of those poor people who were born before Judaism, were borrowing from a Christian worldview? Bodie is supposed to be an engineer. That means you're not supposed to be stupid.

Bodie Hodge goes on to talk about Liberal Christians:

"They're more than happy to fly the LGBT flag, but not the Christian flag - which shows the attack. The attack is on Christians. I want you to understand this, this is the battle and the culture. People are more than happy to have secular viewpoints, but as soon as something Christian pops up - they really want to have a go at that. They are completely intolerant."

Bodie, guess who else didn't fly the Christian flag? Early Christians, like Paul - you know the one who composed all of those sweet, juicy anti-gay bits in the epistles that you love so much? Yeah, him. And neither did any other Christian until 1897. I can reverse this argument right back on Bodie, that whenever the Christian flag is flown- that it's an attack on all other religions.

Good ol' Bodie doesn't stop there - oh no:

"They are taking sexual humanism, and imposing it in the school system. When people are promoting homosexuality, that is a religion called "sexual humanism."

AIG just loves the use of any word which has an "ism" Naturalism, humanism, Darwinism, Stalinism, Satanism, ect. These words all sound scary, and are used to make evolution sound like it's evil.

Where is the evidence that gays are "promoting" homosexuality in the schools? Except, let's not talk about Texas schools and how certain right wing groups are wanting to push teaching that Moses was a major influence on the Constitution, and that the roots of America's legal and political systems are found in the Bible. Nah, let's not talk about those things.

Ken Ham, evidently thinks he has a monopoly on dinosaurs:

"We're putting evolutionists on notice: We're taking the dinosaurs back... They're used to teach people that there's no God, and they're used to brainwash people. Evolutionists get very upset when we use dinosaurs."

This is of course, a lie the size of a mountain. Dinosaurs are used to teach people about dinosaurs - period. Not used against religion. And many people who teach that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago, are Christians. Ken Ham gets very upset when Christian evolutionists teach about dinosaurs.

Misleading Credentials

Ken Ham likes to brag that many of the creationists on his staff have PHd's in science from secular Universities like Harvard, Vanderbuilt, and Clemson. These include Nathaniel T. Jeanson, David Menton, Elizabeth Mitchell, Gabriela Haynes, Terry Mortens, Georgia Purdom, and Andrew A. Snelling. It's true that these people all hold scientific PH'ds, but to me that only goes to show one thing - that they should KNOW better.

Just because someone has a doctorate in a certain subject doesn't mean that their views are legit - only that they worked hard to get the degree. That's why I say these so called "scientists" for AIG should know better, because in order to get a PHd in anything, you have to go through years of rigorous study in order to earn it. These people should know evolution works - forwards and backwards. Their knowledge of the subject is no different than what Carl Sagan had, but they choose to ignore it, because in the end - it was the interpretation of their religion that was the most important.

Dr. Georgia Purdom, has been on Ken Ham's staff since the opening of the creation museum. She quotes:

"when it comes to things like evolution and creation, those happened in the past; they are not testable, they are not repeatable in that sense and so we can't deal with it in the same way that we deal with the science we do in the lab today..."

Another clap-trap argument, about Historical vs Observational science, once again. If Georgia Purdom really believes this, then I hope she never has to hire a detective. Because detectives rely on methods that do just that - look at the past using evidence that is testable, repeatable, and that can be shown in a lab. Some cases go back 20 or 30 years, or even hundreds of years.

There are archaeologists who are still trying to figure out how much of the exodus really happened, by looking at artifacts in a lab, and by using evidence that determined what happened in the past.

I'm certain if the Exodus was proven, then people like Georgia and Ken would be overjoyed to know that. So if Dr. Purdom really doesn't think you can't determine the past by looking at the present - then she needs to completely shun any kind of biblical archaeology that would prove her beliefs were true.

No, we don't know everything that happened, and that isn't the point. The point is that we have enough to work with in the present to make a determination about the past. In an interview with the BBC, Purdom admitted that she had to suppress her creationist views when she was getting her degree in molecular biology. It just goes to show, that she had an unshakable faith since the very beginning, and wasn't going to be swayed no matter what. One has to wonder which she had to suppress more - her creationist beliefs or the evidence for evolution?

Just when you think that Ken Ham couldn't possibly get any worse, he goes and challenges Bill Nye to a debate. It was one of the biggest debates that ever took place at the museum. Despite that Bill Nye isn't a scientist in the narrow sense, and wasn't the greatest debater, he still won by a landslide and that was a victory lap for evolution. I could think of about a hundred classic quotes from this debate, but the one quote that Ken Ham gave in the end summed up his entire worldview, and basically all you need to know about him.

At the end of the debate, Ken Ham was asked what would change his mind, and he said this:

"I'm a Christian, and as a Christian, I can't prove it to you, but God has definitely shown me very clearly through His word, and He has shown Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, that the Bible is the word of God. I admit that that is where I start from. As Christians we can say we know, and so, as far as the word of God is concerned... No, one is ever going to convince me that the word of God is not true."

Is it any surprise then that Ken Ham just wasted this entire debate, and people’s time by saying this? If nothing would change his mind, then what is the point of INVITING Bill Nye to the Creation Museum? Because he wishes Bill Nye would change HIS mind. And our beloved Ken has the nerve to paint atheism with quotes such as this:

"Atheism is a religion of death."

Never mind that Ken's entire religion is based on a guy dying for humanity, but in addition to saying that atheism was about death, he also quotes this from an article that he wrote in Creation magazine.

"After the 9/11 attack, I had someone say to me: 'I'm glad I wasn't in the World Trade Center - I would have died.' I replied, 'Well, don't worry, your turn is coming."

Your turn is coming? Only sociopaths talk like that. For someone who points the finger at secularists, and accuses us that our worldview is all about death, Ham sure loves to remind everyone about their impending doom.

It's people like Ken who are the charlatans for the common man. The average layman likes to go to bed at night, thinking that they have the right answer, and Ham fills this need like a drug addict needs a dealer. This is why I have made the point of reminding Christians that institutions like the one Ken runs is not for the purpose of winning souls or gaining new converts. It's to keep people Christian, who are already Christian.

If you are one of those people, may I remind you of something: Thousands of years ago ancient humans revered the sun and moon to be gods, and natural disasters to be demonic. Most, if not all diseases were considered to be evil, or from a demon. If Ken Ham would have lived back then, he would have been one of those people.

Today, he does not believe that the moon and stars are supernatural, or that sickness is from the devil. Those supernatural explanations were eventually replaced by natural ones.

We have seen this over and over again in the historical timeline. Every instance when a scientific explanation proves itself to be true, it is a natural explanation. There has never, EVER been a case in history where a natural explanation got replaced with a supernatural one. If you are a creationist, then this is the reality you must deal with, like it or not. Which is why we must take a look at the reasons that evolution is intellectually superior to creationism.

Please note, I'm not saying that secular people like me are intellectually superior to Christians. We know that is false. I'm simply talking about a method that has proven itself to work, in contrast to one that doesn't.

Just a presupposition? I think not.

First of all, take into consideration the volume of material that has been written on the subject of evolution. It could fill several of the worlds biggest libraries easily, and it would probably take several lifetimes to get through it all.

Creationism has nothing anywhere close to that. The amount of creationist literature is extremely poor in contrast, to the seemingly endless quantity of evolutionary sources.

We must also take a close look at what evolutionary material has passed the rigorous test of peer review. To pass peer review is exceedingly tough, and in some cases almost impossible.

Evolution has proven itself to be testable, and repeatable over and over again. The work can be duplicated in labs across the world. Creationism has been shown to fail on almost every level of peer review. It is true that peer review journals aren't always accurate, and sometimes a paper will pass the review process, only to be rejected later on.

The purpose of peer review isn't to publish a perfect theory however, or if it can hold up in the future. The purpose of peer review is simply a process to detect any sort of pseudoscience that may be involved. It weeds out the bad traffic, and in most cases can make predictions about the quality of the work.

Creationists will accuse the evolutionary world of holding a firm bias against them, because of their beliefs. This is completely an asinine accusation, because many evolutionary biologists are also religious and have beliefs. They just don't take those beliefs to the lab with them. The whole idea of science is to evaluate the natural world, and explain things in natural terms.

That which we cannot explain, is left on the table for further discussion. As a result of being rejected from getting peer review status, creationists have had to create their own peer review process, which really defeats the purpose of peer review!

This is why so many creation advocates in the media are using the slogan, "teach the controversy." They claim that we should be teaching kids both evolution and creationism and let them decide. The problem with that is, that you can't teach kids both, when one has been shown to be false. There is no evidence for creationism. Period.

There is no controversy at all among scientists. All walks of life have accepted evolution, no matter what religion or race it might be. Christians, Atheists, Jews, Hindus and Muslims have all embraced the idea of an old earth, and life flourishing over billions of years. That's why evolution is so powerful - it's all inclusive.

You can accept evolution no matter what other beliefs you might hold about the universe. I have never heard of an atheist creationist. But you will hear of both atheists, and religious people alike accepting evolution. Christian evolutionists such as Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Mary Schweitzer have come to the same results as atheists like Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and Lawrence Krauss. Both hold very different views about the origins of the universe, but both camps will agree on the way life flourishes.

The "pressupossition" argument that Ken Ham so often makes does not hold up very well, when you actually think about it. He is correct when he says we are looking at the evidence in very different ways, and interpreting that evidence, but if only one interpretation can show it has evidence, can be testable, pass peer review, and accepted by all walks of life then it should be the view that wins out.

The only evidence people like Ken can muster for creationism, is poking holes in the evidence for evolution, and calling it unreliable. There are things about evolution, that from time to time, we can be wrong about, or that we just don’t have an answer for yet. That doesn’t mean evolution didn’t occur - far from it.

Ken Ham asserts that he starts with the bible, and I start with evolution - therefore we both have different starting points to interpret the evidence. But as we can see, this is an underhanded tactic. We BOTH have to end up looking at nature for evidence. It's just that Ken will include an extra step in there - belief in the bible. He starts with the bible, then goes to nature, whereas I just simply go to nature.

I didn’t start with evolution, I started with the natural world and I let nature give me the answers. Nature led me to evolution. Ken will let the bible give him the answers in advance, and then goes to nature to seek out the answers he already believes in. This is why the scientific community can’t take him seriously. Assumptions often lead to false conclusions.

The NCBI site explains this idea well:

Contrary to popular opinion, neither the term nor the idea of biological evolution began with Charles Darwin and his foremost work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859). Many scholars from the ancient Greek philosophers on had inferred that similar species were descended from a common ancestor.

The word "evolution" first appeared in the English language in 1647 in a non-biological connection, and it became widely used in English for all sorts of progressions from simpler beginnings. The term Darwin most often used to refer to biological evolution was "descent with modification," which remains a good brief definition of the process today.

Although it was Darwin, above all others, who first marshaled convincing evidence for biological evolution, earlier scholars had recognized that organisms on Earth had changed systematically over long periods of time. For example, in 1799 an engineer named William Smith reported that, in undisrupted layers of rock, fossils occurred in a definite sequential order, with more modern- appearing ones closer to the top.

Because bottom layers of rock logically were laid down earlier and thus are older than top layers, the sequence of fossils also could be given a chronology from oldest to youngest. His findings were confirmed and extended in the 1830s by the paleontologist William Lonsdale, who recognized that fossil remains of organisms from lower strata were more primitive than the ones above. Today, many thousands of ancient rock deposits have been identified that show corresponding successions of fossil organisms.

The Evidence Speaks For Itself

Even from ancient times, we have been looking at nature and letting nature provide us with the answers that we need. Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution or natural selection.

Around the same time that Darwin was working on his research, another biologist appeared - claiming the same thing Darwin did about natural processes. Alfred Wallace, a scientist over in the Moucca Islands in Indonesia also discovered the process of natural selection.

Darwin commented that, "I never saw more of a remarkable coincidence." Once again, this just goes to show the explanatory power of evolution. Two different scientists, living in different parts of the world happened to stumble upon the same theory, at the same time in history. This was before computers, or advanced microscopes. They didn't make it up, or believe it out of thin air - the evidence drove them to formulate a theory that would explain it.

The reason why we accept the universe being 14 billion years old is because of starlight, and the way it travels. The light we see in our telescopes is actually billions of years old by the time it gets to us. Proxima Centuari for example, is our closest star other than the sun. It is about 4 light years away. This means that the light we see from it, left that star about four years ago, when if fist was emmited into outer space.

Even in our sun's case, the light traveling from the sun to get to us, takes about 8 minutes. The light that you constantly see from the sun, is always 8 minutes old.

The life cycle of a star is based on its mass. Massive stars burn faster than ones with lower mass. The mass also affects the brightness of a star, and a star with 10 times the mass of the sun will burn through it's fuel in a much shorter amount of time than one that's less massive. We can measure the age of the universe by early stars and the dense collections of stars known as globular clusters.

The oldest known clusters are around 11 and 14 billion years old. Estimates in brightness comes from pinpointing the distances to these clusters, and if a cluster is further away than what we measure, then the stars would be brighter and more massive. Thus they can be younger than calculated. Astronomers use these clusters to reconstruct the history of our galaxy, just as archaeologists use fossils to reconstruct the history of the earth.

In our geological strata, we have layers of prehistoric worlds just beneath our feet. It's pretty amazing when you think about it. We can find fossils in these geological layers, and what's fascinating is that you can almost always count on finding the same type of fossil in a certain kind of strata. These reconizable layers of sedimentary rock occur all over the world: Cambrian, Ordovician, Devonian, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Eocene, Oligocene, and Miocene.

Even before we had methods of dating fossils, and how long our planet had been here, geologists had known the order of the sedimentary layers for quite sometime. Older sediments usually lie beneath younger sediments. Even though there is no place on the earth where you can find a perfect picture of the strata from top to bottom, you can connect the missing pieces like a jigsaw puzzle, and reconstruct the layers - daisy chaining these rock layers all over the globe.

The age of any sedimentary layer, can be detected by observing the half-life of the decay rate of atoms. For example the Devonian layer ended about 360 million years ago. How do we know this? Because the Devonian layer sits right beneath the Carboniferous layer in most places in the world, and mammals never have appeared in the Devonian strata.

This means that we can date it to be very old, and we can use many different clocks and dating methods to make sure this is the case. The kinds of natural clocks we have available to us include: Carbon, Aluinum, Iodine, Samarium, Uranium, Potassium, Thorium, Rhenium, Rubidium, and Potassium Argon.

We have human chromosomes that correspond with our ape-like ancestors. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes, while all other extant members of Hominidae have 24 pairs. Our closest human relative is the chimpanzee, and it has a near-identical DNA sequence to the human chromosome 2, but they are found in two different chromosomes.

The same truth follows for the distant gorilla, and the orangutan. We also have physical evidence for common descent, and nice intermediate fossils such as homo halibus that lies between australopithecus and homo sapian

As for trees, we have an overabundance of good evidence that they go back quite far. We don't have an unbroken chain that we can look at like other fossils, and dendrochronology only takes us as far back as about 10,000 years.

However, if we had enough Petrified forests, we could date the nearest year over a very large time span - even hundreds of millions of years. We can be pretty sure of going back to prehistoric times with trees if we can find a way to overlap the evidence - much like the overlapping fibers inside of a rope.

To use the overlap principle in dendrochronology, you take the fingerprint patterns from the trees we already know to exist. Then from the modern trees, we identify a fingerprint from the old rings, and then seek that same print from the younger rings of trees which have been long dead. Then you look at the fingerprints of the old rings of that same dead tree, and then look for that same pattern of younger rings within in much older trees. You can daisy-chain your way all the way back theoretically over millions of years, if we had enough of an unbroken chain and enough petrified forests to do it.

These few facts about evolution are just the beginning in a very deep pool of evidence, that most scientists today have accepted without much of a second thought. Nevertheless, the creationists have come back with a slew of ready-made arguments against evolution. These anti-evolution arguments have been debunked over and over again, but they will always still keep popping up. I can't go over all of them because there are so many, but here are six of the main ones:

1.Evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics

The 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has to do with what kind of energy we're talking about. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed - the more of it is wasted. This is what scientists often label as entropy - the whole act of heat and energy being widely dispersed, and it doesn't have a plan for what it's going to do next. Some of that energy can harnessed, and some of it will escape or continue to be useless. Creationists claim that evolution contradicts this, but they are mistaken.

They say that the 2nd law violates evolution, because they misunderstandably think that the 2nd law cannot act within a closed system. It is a mistake of making a false dichotomy - either you have to have a closed system, or one that's completely open. This is false. As long as there is both a decrease in the local part of the universe, and an increase somewhere else, then the 2nd law has not been violated.

2. There are no transitional fossils

The popular whim in creationism is to accuse the fossil record of having too many gaps, and not enough intermediate fossils. They fool themselves into thinking that evolutionists are running out of explanations, and that we're too embarrassed by all of the gaps in the record. What they don't understand, and never even bother to think about is the fact that the evidence for evolution, didn't start with fossils. It started by different scientists observing nature. The fossils came later, and were a nice layer of icing to an already rich cake. Creationists also need to realize that there are insufficient gaps in crime cases all the time. Does that mean that detectives should just give up? I think not.

We are very fortunate to have any fossils at all, and instead of being the main ingredient - they are a nice bonus. People like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron often joke that evolution couldn't have taken place because why don't we see a "crocoduck" or a "fronkey?" In other words, they want to assume that evolution would look a certain way if it had happened, instead of really putting in the time to study how it works.

You have to remember that evolution is more like the branches of a tree- we are all connected, but we are not all of the same common ancestry. Everything splits off into two, and then those new ancestors split again, and again. We do find fossils for homo halibus that is an intermediate link between australopithecus and and homo sapian, as I've already mentioned.

The gap between the amphibian like-fish, panderichthys and aconthostega the fish-like amphibian was the fossil named Tiktaalik, discovered by Neil Shubin Edward Daeschler. So yes, the gaps do get filled in, but it doesn't matter anyway, because every single fossil that ever existed is in fact - a transitional fossil!

3. Fossil graveyards are evidence for a flood

This is probably the creationist's favorite argument against evolution, simply because at first glance - it appears to have evolutionists trapped. There are certain places on earth where you can find a jumble of fossils all lumped together as though they came from out of nowhere. Many of these "fossil graveyards" can be found on tops of mountains where you see fish, whale, and animal fossils are buried rapidly in a short amount of time. This, the creationist says - is surefire evidence for a flood.

It couldn't possibly be anything different. And looking at the jumble of fossils, it clearly looks like they have cleverly outsmarted evolution. It looks like they have a case. The creationists think that they have us evolution guys cornered at this point, and assume that this sort of damming evidence is going to make us nervous.

It doesn't.

Here's why: There have been marine fossils found on the top of mount Everest. That indeed looks bizarre - but here's the strange thing. Grand Canyon expert Bill Ludlow says:

"Not only were marine fossils found on the top of mount Everest, they were found througout the entire mountain in different places and even the sediment on the top of mount Everest is low grade metamorphic rock, that has been altered by heat and pressure. You can't account for that, if you think they were just deposited there by a worldwide flood."

Very interesting, don't you think?

The evidence for fossil graveyards continues to up it's game. In France they uncovered a huge fossil graveyard, with hundreds of thousands of marine creatures including amphibians, insects, spiders, milipedes, scorpians, and reptiles. More than 100,000 fossil specimens, representing more than 400 species, have been recovered from a shale layer associated with coal beds, in the Mazon Creek area near Chicago.

This particular graveyard location also includes fish, ferns, insects, scorpians, tetropods, buried with jellyfish, mollusks, and crustacians. And in Florrisant Colorado, a wide variety of plant species, and underwater sea creatures were found buried together. Three hundred whales porpoises, turtles, seals, fish, sloths, and penguins were buried togather near Ocucaje, Peru in South America. In addition to that - in 2010 there were whale fossils found in the desert of Chili when construction crews were expanding the Pan American Highway. Also buried with the whales, were dolphins and sloths.

These sites are found are over the world, but most of them are about 80 to 300 miles from the ocean - and that should tell you something. Some places where you find these graveyards further inland, happens to be next to a large lake, or reservoir. Here is the thing you have to realize: This planet we're on, is a constant evolving and moving machine. The continents are constantly moving, and at one time were together, and went through several stages of bumping into each other, before they arrived at the stage they are at now.

At the same time that was happening, we have good evidence of plate techtonics creating mountains and shoving land masses upward, which means millions of years ago, certain continents would have been under water - including places like France.

The whale graveyard that they found in the middle of the desert in Chili was investigated by scientists, and found that at one time, the area had been an underwater estuary for aquatic sloths, whales, and dolphins. It has since been discovered that these sea creatures died because of a toxic algae bloom - hence, making it appear like they died in the middle of the desert from a worldwide flood. Should it be any surprise then, that we see abnormal fossil beds in certain parts of the world? Should this make us nervous? No, not at all. .

4. The grand canyon was formed in a matter of days

There are a number of situations where rushing water carved out canyons around the world in a matter of days. What damage can water do when it flows rapidly? Back in 2002, 30 inches of rain in one week flooded the town of Guadalupe river, TX. The spillway overflowed, and caused a gigantic canyon. As a result of other floods and the quick formation of canyons happening in different places in the world, creationists claim that it doesn’t take millions of years to form a canyon - and I actually agree. Given the right conditions, canyons can form, virtually overnight

Is this true of the Grand Canyon? Creationists claim that evolutionists believe that since the canyon is 18 miles wide, and more than a mile deep that there is no way a river could have carved it out. Since the Colorado river enters the canyon 2800 feet above sea level, and exits the canyon 1800 feet above sea level, and the top is 7000 feet above sea level then according to most creationists - that would mean that the Colorado river would have been flowing upward to carve out the canyon. This, they say - is impossible, but if you know geology, you know this isn't what happened.

Most Geologists know that that entire plateau was lifted several thousand feet, over millions of years, accelerating the downcutting and errosion. An event called the Laramide Orogeny caused this uplift when two techtonic plates crashed together. This was happening long before the river formed, about 50 million years ago. The grand Canyon as we know it, only formed about six million years ago.

5. The proteins found in dinosaurs are proof of a young earth

Creationists thought that this one was pure gold for them. Many of Ken Ham's ilk love to talk about how, "they found muscle tissue in dinosaurs," but what many creationists don't know, is that the scientist who discovered and reported these findings was an evolutionist! Dr. Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina state University, had made the discovery and made headlines in the science world, when she started looking at the bones and noticed soft tissue inside of them.

Schweitzer also has done work confirming her hypothesis about what preserves the tissue over millions of years. Her conclusion is that iron deposits are responsible for preserving these proteins inside dinosaur bones.

Georgia Purdom at the creation museum challenged her on this - saying that since tissue was found inside of dinosaur bones, then they could not have survived millions of years. So she accused Schweitzer and her team, of trying to find ways of figuring out how to explain how iron could preserve the tissue over a huge span of time. Yet, this is false. It took about a decade of Schweitzer working tirelessly, and in that time - at least four other scientists in the world were able to confirm that Schweitzer was correct. It pays off, whenever you don't rush the research.

6. The geologic column doesn't exist

Very misunderstood, when this is often quoted. The geologic column is a bit confusing at first, so let me get right to it. Basically, the concept is very simple. Creationists of all stripes say that the geologic column can only be found in textbooks, and that there is no where on earth where it can be literally found, or there is no where on earth where it's complete.

That is true - there is no where on earth where it is one hundred percent consistent, but it's not completely made up! Again, we have another false dichotomy - thinking that it's either a complete hoax, or it exists one hundred percent of the time, in all places. The truth is, the Geologic Column is neither one of those things. It takes the data that is consistent with the sedimentary layers that we do have, and creates a way to explain it in the form of a diagram.

There are tons of layers out there. On a planet that has been through millions of years of earthquakes, landslides, floods, and volcanism it’s a wonder that we have any consistent layers at all - but the layers, do matter. The main rock layers are consistent with the fossils that are inside of them, all over the planet. Creationists simply want a perfect replica of a drawing of what they see in a textbook. That’s not realistic, but when you go with the data that we actually do have - then the geologic column makes perfect sense.

Noah's Ark For the Win..............

In 2014 Darren Aronofsky made the big blockbuster film called "Noah." This movie offended a lot of Christians. Many of the scenes in it, evidently did not go along with the actual story in the bible. People were uncomfortable that Noah is portrayed as more of a environmentalist, and that the people weren't being punished because of their sin. There also many other scenes that deviated heavily from the biblical Noah story. Here is what Ken Ham has to say about it:

"I am going to come right out and say it: this movie is disgusting and evil—paganism! Do you really want your family to see a pagan movie that portrays Noah as a psychopath who says that if his daughter-in-law’s baby is a girl then he will kill her as soon as she’s born? And when two girls are born, bloodstained Noah brings a knife down to the head of one of the babies to kill her— and at the last minute doesn’t do it."

Okay, so Aronofsky simply just swapped out the Abraham myth, and put it in the Noah story. How is that any less appalling than what Abraham did, or what the Israelites did? How is that any less horrifying than Moses commanding his people to kill their family? And if Ken wants to accuse Darren Aronofsky of the movie being guilty of "paganism" then he's exactly right, because guess which story the biblical flood copied from?

The Epic of Gigamesh - which was the original flood tale to begin with. Written about a thousand years before Genesis, the Gilgamesh Epic has too many stark parallels to be just coincidence. If Christians are going to get all out if sorts about the biblical story being changed for a film, then they need to be reminded that the Noah story in the bible was also changed and updated from the original pagan myth. Let's be honest about the fact that Noah preaching to the people and warning them about a coming flood, was never in the Genesis account - another add-on coming from one verse in the New Testament. But I digress.

Ken Ham's "Ark Encounter" was an impressive feat when it first opened in 2016. It is 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 feet high. Building an ark from scratch would come as no surprise, considering that it's not historical, so instead of finding a real one on the side of a mountain, they had to build a fake one in a parking lot. And where did the funding come from, you ask?

Well, that sparked a wee bit of public outcry. Ken Ham thought it would be a great idea to use taxpayer money to fund his gigantic toy, so he got incentives from the city, state and county in order to move forward with the construction. According to some groups, this was a violation of church and state.

Ken's self-inflated attempts to defend the biblical flood are pretty staggering. He knows that most bible literalists already believe anyway, and will easily be fooled with his constant showcasing the PHd credentials of the "experts" he hires. These people will continue to point out all of the "flaws" in evolution, while ignoring the vast array of contradictions in their own creationist views.

One of the most erroneous arguments for the flood, is about the way the geological layers formed. The layers that we do have, took millions of years to form. How then could they have been laid down in a single flood, if the layers all over the planet literally number in the hundreds of thousands?

They solve this dilemma by saying that the animals were all competing for the shrinking high ground, but there is a problem they are overlooking: Plant fossils. Fossilized plants show the same type of order as animal fossils, and they certainly couldn't swim or compete to flee rising floodwaters. There are layers within coal, that show sedimentation being laid down very slowly over time instead of a single event. The Carboniferous limestone strata, which has the remains of marine shells, require long periods of clean water, and let's not forget about the white cliffs of Dover. A flood would have mixed silt and sand to give us grey cliffs, instead of white.

The global flood, had it occurred, would have destroyed many geological formations. We don't have very many rock piles in columns on the ocean floor. Ocean speeds vary between 40 and 8- meters a second. Rocks piles or pillars are unable to survive currents this fast, and oceanic currents at regular speeds would have wiped out some of the more fragile specimens that are still in existence.

Yet, the Creation Museum won't be the least bothered by these contesting arguments. Most creationists who like to scream "fossil graveyard" whenever they want to show evidence of a flood, won't back down when trying to make evolutionists uncomfortable with these huge smattering of fossils found around the globe. Creationist organizations keep pounding home their message that scientists give insufficient explanations for these fossil graveyards, and that we can't give them a straight answer.

Lacking Explanations for Extraordinary Claims

As I have already explained above, I think we do have a sufficient explanation for fossil graveyards. But let’s say we didn’t. So what? That’s science. Science can’t explain everything to your satisfaction - deal with it. Sometimes we’re right, and other times we’re wrong, and other times we say, “I don’t know the answer yet.” I am not obligated to give you a satisfactory answer, but if creationists think that my answers are insufficient for fossil graveyards, then guess who has “insufficient” answers for post-flood survival?

That's right, creationists. How did the animals that got off the ark, and Noah's family of 8 survive after the waters went down? Now, we get into some really gritty territory. This is the one ingredient, that in my opinion - totally kills any flood arguments. I agree that it would have been possible, to have at least some version of a worldwide flood.

Such a thing could have occurred, although very unlikely, but if it happened, then you wouldn't be reading the words that I'm typing right now, because we would have a dead planet. Spoiler alert: There is no good argument for post-flood survival. Like the argument for hell, it never gets off the ground because there is nothing to intellectually defend.

The first question that must be asked is how in the heck did the other animals get to the other continents, and survive if there were only two of each kind? AIG has an answer for this - they say that the animals floated across the ocean on pieces of wood. As one former Christian on You Tube attested, "When I heard this, I knew creationism was complete crap."

I agree of course. Glad he figured things out. The other explanation that AIG likes to use is land bridges. Since the Bearing Straight was probably visible at that time, they claim that the animals could have spread all around the world and went across these land bridges. Still, we have thousands of islands, big and small and we can find insects and different species on them. Where were the land bridges that connect all of these islands?

Then, there is the argument for Pangia. This is the assumption that all of the continents were together 4000 years ago, before they separated. This super continent was called "Pangea." Pangea, did in fact exist at one point, but it was hundreds of millions of years ago, before the continents started moving apart. And if Pangea did exist only 4000 years ago, then how did the continents draw apart after so short a time? The earth would have burnt up as a result of all of the friction that was created the continents moving so fast.

It's up to creationists to explain that, not me.

AIG wants to make it look like that after the flood, a miraculous explosion of new species cropped up. This allows them to steer around the impossible scenario of having to explain how animals with different diets survived, and how polar bears and penguins could have lived on the ark for almost a year, outside of their environment.

This allows them to dodge the question of how microscopic insects, that can't be seen with the naked eye, survived. How did the other animals on the ark get by after the flood with no food chain? The herbivores would of had nothing to eat, and most would have starved. The carnivores would have had to eat the herbivores in order to survive.

Creationists try to explain this by claiming that the carnivores ate corpses, fungi, and even vegetables (yeah, right). Animals don't eat corpses that are more than a month old. These corpses of the evil people who didn't listen to Noah, would have been long drowned for a year if the animals were to eat them, and most likely buried under layers of sediment.

Fungi is not very common in the middle east, and most carnivores would not ever eat vegetables! And most animals would have died, just by the lack of fresh water. The flood would have salinated the soil, therefore having a high concentration of salt. Most animals could not drink salt water.

And even more damming, is the impossible scenario of plant survival.

Creationists often ignore this factor, because unless god worked out some sort of miracle for the plants, everything would have been wiped out. With the massive turbulence and excessive sediment, the depth of that kind of water would have blocked out most of the sunlight and this certainly doesn't work if you want any kind of plant survival.

Instead of doing proper research, the creationists come back with the assumption that there were a few seeds that would have survived, and this would have taken care of the plant problem. That considered, even if there were seeds that sprouted after the flood, you have to work out that the soil has to be just the right condition for certain plants to form. Like animals, plants also have to adapt to their environment and different soil types. After a gigantic flood, how could the soil ever be the same again? There would have been so much overlap of silt and sediment, that the conditions for any kind of vegetation regrowth would have been laughable.

With so much lack of plant and animal survival, this would also mean that the humans would not have survived. No food chain, no plants - just a dead, wet planet of nothing but disordered land masses. It's been said by some Christians, that god supernaturally intervened and recreated some of the animals on different continents. If that's the case, then what was the point of bringing any of the animals on the ark to begin with? No matter which way you slice it, the flood account fails on multiple levels.

I think the verdict is pretty clear. The deficiencies in these whimsical answers, are beyond the scope of reason. It is impossible to explain away the fallacies for any kind of post-flood survival. The gaping holes pile on each other so fast, that these faulty explanations suffocate before the creationist has time to cover the tracks.

After reading these arguments, one must ask themselves - who has the bigger problem? The guy who can't explain fossil graveyards, or the guy who has to explain how 8 humans survived on a dead planet with no viable food chain or plant life?

The irony of the creation museum is that it claims to base all of their teachings on the bible, yet the evidence that they use to present their case has absolutely nothing to do with the bible. All of the wild extrapolations that they make on their website to explain the aftermath of the flood, is not found anywhere in the bible. So, they have to invent solutions outside the bible, where there aren't any available.

The title “Answers in Genesis” is an oxymoron. Because, all of the answers Ken Ham comes up with are NOT found in Genesis. They are answers that that Ham and company have pulled out of their own wazoo.

Flood Legends are Evidence for a Flood?

These creationist arguments for a flood, go beyond biological events. They say that every culture has a flood myth, so that somehow makes Noah's flood more legit. There are on record, over 400 flood myths and legends recorded. You can find these all over the map including the Hawaiian legend Nu-U who built a great canoe to save animals from a great flood.

The Hualapai Indians had an oral legend about an old man, who was saved from a flood on top of a mountain and a dove sent him a message from the creator to drive a rams horn into the earth. The old man obeyed, and the waters were drained. The ancient Chinese story of Fuhi says that he escaped a flood with his family, and they were the only one's left on earth. After the great flood, they repopulated the world. So far, so good - right?

Alas - you have other flood stories that have nothing to do with the ark story. A story from central Africa in Cameroon describes a girl who had contact with a goat, that warned her of a coming flood. The flood came and destroyed her entire village - nothing about a boat or an ark. Then there is the African Pygmy flood story about a boy who cuts open a tree trunk with water, and the water comes out and floods the world. No boat, no surviving family. In another African flood tale, you have a girl who knocks over a jar of water and it drowns the earth. The story that comes from ancient China about the goddess Nu Kua, says that she defeated a chief who got mad at being defeated by a woman. In his anger, he tore a hole in the sky and a flood poured out of it. Nu Kua patched up th hole with her goddess-like qualities.

These variations in the flood myths are actually used by creationists to make their case. These varied flood stories have: a favored family 88% of the time, a flood because of wickedness 60% of the time, a global flood 95% of the time, animals that were saved 67% of the time, survivors that landed on a mountain 50% of the time, birds being sent out 30% of the time, and a rainbow is mentioned only 7% of the time.

It's because of these overlapping similarities, that creation organizations love to flaunt the flood story, because they think their religion has it right.

Of course, the Noah's Ark story wasn't the original flood story. As I have mentioned at least twice now, the Sumerian legends of Atrahasis and Gilgamesh epics came long before the bible and have many stark similarities to it. The biblical narrative is only one of the borrowers in this great chain of flood stories - not the originator.

When you point this out, then conservative theologians will say something like - the Genesis account didn't elaborate on the Sumerian myth because it was a simpler, condensed, version. Well, so what? Couldn't we find more condensed versions of the flood myths out of the 400 that exist? I bet we could.

It’s also interesting to know, that conservative theologians will find as many similarities to the Noah story as they can muster, in the hundreds of flood myths that came after it. But when comparing the Gilgmesh epic to Genesis, suddenly they switch gears, and start talking about the differences. This is a double standard, and one that is laughable. Why don’t they talk about the differences in the Chinese version of the flood? All of the major flood stories of the world share both similarities and differences, but to admit this would be a catastrophe for their faith.

Creationists will tell you that it's impossible to tell who copied from who. We all know that Gilgamesh was written down first - almost a thousand years before, but they keep insisting, that we just ultimately don't know if both stories were around at the same time they were passed around orally. I would really like to know if they would make the same excuse for any other myths that were passed down. Let's do a little test.

What other myths can we find in history, where virtually all cultures adopt a certain concept? It's very easy, as it turns out. Dragons. The origins of these mythical creatures are unknown, but we can be pretty sure that they did not originate with the bible (although the bible mentions them). They are especially associated with European folklore and ancient Chinese and Japanese folklore. These myths, paintings, and sculptures can be found in Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, Japan, Europe, Greece, Africa, South America, and even Austraila. Dragon stories vary much more than flood stories, of course. Yet, there are many similarities between the dragons of different cultures.

For example, dragons in ancient China didn't breath fire, or fly. Instead, they were long, slender, serpentine like creatures that had elegant scales and they were known more as water dragons, or dragons that summoned rain, during a drought. The dragons of western Europe had wings so they could fly, breathed fire, and they often lived lairs in mountains or caves.

Greek dragons were a combination of different types, some breathed fire, some didn't, some were water dragons more like the Chinese, and then sometimes they had certain types with three or more heads. If a person tried to cut off it's head, then two or more would just grow back in it's place. Then some dragons would have immortal heads, that remained alive after it's head was cut off. According to Apollodorus, the sun god Helios had a chariot, drawn by "winged dragons", which he gave to his granddaughter.

You can see there are similarities in ancient mythical creatures, and flood stories.

What you have to keep in mind, this: It doesn't matter one iota whether there was a flood or not. What matters is that humans didn't just appear in different parts of the world, out of thin air. Our ancestors all came from Africa, and even creationists admit that we all came from one place - not several different places. That means that early legends would have spread, the people took these stories with them, and different details of the story emerged over time. That explains all the different variations of the flood story. The Noah story is simply number 3 in the chain of flood myths. It's not original, and even if it was, it still doesn't make it true. For the flood to be true, you need more than just stories.

If there was no flood in the bible, then would Christians go out of their way to find evidence for one? Would they still go out of their way to align all of the flood myths of the world and make a big deal about it? My guess would be no. Because if the bible didn't mention the flood, they would look at the flood myths by other cultures as just that - a myth. In retrospect, the reason why the whole flood debate even exists in the first place, is because the bible has to be literally true for some people - otherwise no one would bother to defend it. In their minds, it's bible first - science second. The bible MUST come first.

This same attitude is also echoed by proponents of Intelligent Design. I used to think that the Intelligent Design movement was much better. I know differently now.

The ID movement is basically just old earth creationism, packaged in a neat way to make it look more scientific. They have the age of the earth right, but they get most of the science wrong. Guys like Hugh Ross, Michael Behe, Jonanthan Wells, William Dembski, and David Berlinski are all part of a boys club that deny the process of natural selection.

The whole idea behind "irredcucible complexity" has shown to false, simply because in science, you can only make predictions as far as your limited knowledge will allow. To say that something is "irreducibly" complex is like saying that you know a certain athlete couldn't possibly get any stronger. This is simply wishful thinking at it's highest level. This theory was actually dunked at the Dover trial, and Michael Behe got owned when he failed to explain how the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex. This was an important trial, because had ID got it's way - you and I would be sending our kids to school everyday to learn things in the science classroom that are not scientific.

What They Don’t Want you to Know

As of 2014, Ken Ham's operation has taken pot shots at just about every level, being called the anti-Museum, a fake museum, Fred and Wilma Flinstone Museum, and a "creationist disneyland." Ham deserves all of the backlash that he gets, because as of late - there have been former AIG members who once worked at the creation museum and have spoken out about bullying, abuse, long hours, being overworked, underpaid, and discriminatory hiring practices.

Ariella Duran, who worked there for two years made a lengthy blog post online going into all of the details on what goes on behind closed doors at AIG. She was asked to work in every department because the turnover rate was so huge, and was working up to 80 hour work weeks with low pay, and meager benefits. In addition to that, the staff were insensitive toward her needs, and when she started crying and told Ken Ham she needed a break he kindly kept laughing, and kept shrugging it off.

In addition to those scenes, Duran was the victim of sexism, intimidation and verbal bullying. No matter how many complaints the creation museum gets about employee treatment, she said Ken Ham will not change anything. Another anonymous person online basically confirmed the experience that Duran had:

"Hypocrisy runs amok. Total disconnect between regular staff and upper management. Sin actually is known and tolerated among the staff even though they signed a statement of faith. Overworked and underpaid is a major theme. Staff are taken for granted in a major way. There is no room for growth. Want to make a decent living and have a family? Don't work here unless you happen to get in senior management."

No big surprise, right?

That may be because the application you have to sign in order to get in the fold is a bit daunting. They ask you to include a salvation testimony, a creation belief statement, and a confirmation of the AIG statement of faith, which in addition to that - you have to agree that homosexual marriage isn't legit, and that transgender people don't really exist.

If you're a Jew who still believes in six-day-creation, then you're still out. You have to be Christian. Not only Christian - THEIR kind of Christian. With these kind of discriminatory practices in place, it' not a wonder why they are going downhill. All because Ken Ham thinks that accepting a universe that is older than the age of glue, will cause a person to do bad things.

There are other Christians who have worked for Ken Ham who have said they have had a good experience. I can only imagine it is, if you're part of the echo chamber. If being forced to eat a crap sandwich, served to you on a crap platter is your thing - then I'm sure it's great. Thumbs up, and good for you. After all, one of the hallmarks of being a religious prick is telling your employees that they are working for a "ministry" so you don't have to pay them good wages.

Losing the War to Reality

Unlike most Christian apologists, I can't just wave away Ken as some ignorant man, with a mental disease. Ken Ham is pure evil. I went from thinking he was a nice ignorant guy, to thinking that he was a not nice intolerant guy, to finally admitting that his hatred, bigotry, abuse, and brainwashing tactics are carefully engineered, and crafted at dangerous cult-mongering levels.

AIG is a cult because they do the one thing that all cults are guilty of doing - creating a problem that doesn't exist, so that it will eventually exist. No one would really care that much or oppose AIG, if they weren't parading their beliefs around as though they were scientific, and making a mockery of real scientists and their hard-won knowledge. They accuse the world of hating them in order to get the world's attention, so that the world will actually hate them - rejoicing in a reality that was a prior fantasy.

I heard Penn Jillette once say something, that I thought was extremely thought provoking. If all knowledge was erased in people's memories, and we had no more books -science would be rediscovered again, and the same laws would be discovered. Religion would be completely different. That couldn't be any more true, and I couldn't have said it better.

If Christianity totally disappeared in people's minds, and the bible disappeared along with every Christian book ever written - then religious people would not have any choice but to make up a new god, but science? It would still be here, because even though our knowledge of it would be gone - the physical laws would remain. If we rediscovered them again, we might have different names for them, but we would react to those same physical laws, the same way we do now. This is what makes secular thinking so powerful.

I'm not out to destroy Christianity. It's doing a fine job of that all on it's own - with people like Ken Ham contributing to it's demise. Mr. Ham is creating more atheists than he realizes, and at the same time is causing Christianity to move in a more liberal direction. Christianity is changing, the same way it always has - because one denomination decides to split off from another, or a new doctrine gets invented or thrown out, or a new type of theology emerges. If Ken Ham wants proof for evolution, then he need not look further than the history of his own religion.

Upton Sinclair once said that, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon not understanding it."

That sums up Ken Ham perfectly.

In conclusion, the Creation Museum is a byproduct of a grown man's tantrum, because he knows his bigoted, bronze age views are on life support. Spewing anti-intellectual garbage and ant-scientific nonsense at children isn't going to win you any points with the scientific community, even with most Christians. The reason why the creation "museum" even exists, is because Ken Ham just doesn't like the universe the way that it is.

CHAPTER 9

THE PROBLEM WITH LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY.......

"So because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth." - Revelation 3:16

I must admit, I have a bit of a soft spot for liberal Christians. They certainly don't pose any threat to society, and they practice open mindedness along with care, love, and acceptance. Many of them don't believe in a literal hell - or at least not the fiery, male domineering version.

They support gay rights, separation of church and state, the arts, and modern science. They also oppose and challenge the status quo of the Christian right, and many times take great pride in doing so. To these people, the Old Testament is more or less irrelevant, and in some cases obsolete. They choose to focus on the teachings of Christ, and make that the center of their theology. I support liberal Christians. They are of course, my favorite type of Christian.

However........

I wish I could stop there with no complaints, and I wish that was all she wrote. Yet, all too often there is a pattern that comes with the territory of being a liberal Christian, and it’s a pattern that’s starting to have a bad smell to it. I was a liberal Christian myself for years, before totally leaving Christianity altogether. If it’s such an open-minded path to Christianity, why did I give up on it? The answer is really quite simple:

Liberal Christianity has no borders.

A belief system with no borders, is one that over time becomes confusing, and often leads to dangerous setbacks. This is going to take some explaining. How could something that appears so open-minded be dangerous? Obviously, I don’t think it;s the same kind of dangerous system as the fundamentalist camp. No, not that kind of dangerous, but a different kind. It’s kind of like comparing smoking to vaping. One can definitely kill you - the other won’t kill you, but in the long run may cause you some harm, if not serious concerns.

First of all, the term "Liberal Christian" is dubious. No one knows how to really define it and that might be the appeal of it, after all. If we can't really pin down what a liberal Christian is, then anyone can be one, which in reality seems to be useless. There are Christian atheists, agnostic Christians, progressive Christians, mystic Christians, and Gnostic Christians.

All of these would fall under the banner of liberal Christianity. Of course many of these people don't even believe in the resurrection, but they swear they are Christian. Okay, fine. But there are also many who do accept the resurrection, and still call themselves liberal Christians. It seems to me, that the spectrum is so broad that it accepts just about any type of worldview as Christian, as long as you connect to Jesus in some way.

As great as this sounds, it becomes nebulous very quickly. The number one question that always haunted my mind was, “How far do I go?” How am I supposed to navigate the bible, if I don’t believe in half of it? Where does the literal truth of the bible begin if the Garden of Eden was a metaphor? Was Jesus fully divine, half divine, or barely divine? What defines divine? How can I tell if I’m still a Christian?

These kinds of thoughts would constantly harass me throughout the day, and it kept me up at night. In short, I found that liberal Christianity was much more of a slippery path, and ironically was MUCH harder than the Christianity I was raised with. Having this kind of anxiety isn't good for your emotional well-being. When I was growing up as an indoctrinated Christian, I never bothered to question anything. I knew there were some things that didn't feel right, but I never used to think about religion at all. I just went to church with my family, and assumed it was all true. Those times were much easier, and I just never thought about any of it.

When I started to question, I became more "progressive" in my faith, and at first I thought it was a great thing. I soon found out differently. Because I started to get more offended when I read the bible. Passages jumped out at me, that sounded too harsh or judgmental. Certain verses became appalling, even stuff that Jesus would quote. I would think - "did I just read that right?"

After double checking, not only did I read it right, I began to discover more verses like them. The Old Testament Yahweh became more of a nightmare. Jesus became more of a puzzle. Was he more for the Jews or did he care for the Gentiles at all? Did Jesus really think that hell was a good idea? Did Paul really believe all of that crazy stuff about women being silent in church?

Too many questions, and not enough answers. But the one thing that really burned in my gut that became unbearable, was the way I viewed conservative Christians. This is the very thing that makes liberal Christianity so blind, in my opinion. You start thinking that you are better than those awful right-wing, fundamentalist, scumbags.

Now I know that not every liberal Christian thinks this way, but the fact is - it's very tempting to do so. I started thinking that I had the REAL Christianity, and that my views were more in alignment with the loving, tolerant teachings of Jesus. I used to think that.

Until I went back, and re-read the New Testament.

As it turns out, Jesus wasn’t the liberal I had hoped for. In fact, in a lot of places, I found that I started to not only disagree with him, but I recoiled at many things he uttered. Like I mentioned earlier, Jesus was a myriad of different ideas, but his message on hell was not soft, and if anything was in complete agreement with what most evangelical churches teach.

He also had a harsh stance on divorce, and sexual relationships before getting married. And no, he didn't mention homosexuality, but Paul makes it extremely clear that homosexuality is a sin, and if Jesus really made a bodily appearance to Paul and appointed him as an apostle, then Jesus would not have had a problem with what Paul taught.

If god is real, then he evidently doesn't have an issue with the bible condemning homosexuality, or else it looks like he would have forced Paul's hand to write something different. Like it or not, these things are written in the New Testament. Ignoring them will not make them go away, and it won't make evangelicals go away either. Choose your poison. Pick whichever Jesus you like. It doesn't matter as long as you can find your favorite Jesus in somewhere in scripture.

This realization was what finally led me out of Christianity. Finally being able to see that the problem was actually the bible, instead of Christian conservatives pretty much turned the whole thing on it's head. If you're a liberal Christian, then I've got news for you: Fundamentalist Christians can be just as loving as you.

Yes, I said it.

You might disagree with their views, but they are not hateful people. There are hateful fundamentalists and loving fundamentalists. Both read scripture more literally, and simply put into practice what they read. Both liberal and fundamentalist also read scripture and interpret it, so what's the difference between liberal and conservative Christians?

I'll tell you the difference:

1.Conservative Christians embrace the good stuff, as well as the bad stuff.

2. Liberal Christians pretend that the bad stuff doesn't exist.

You can’t say it’s not in there. That’s why your conservative brothers and sisters in Christ have every right to believe as they do. They are just reading what’s in the bible. They are not committing any crimes, and since there is no instructional manual with the bible to determine how to interpret things, then everything is up for grabs.

The one element that is consistent is love, because Jesus preached love. If you don't act loving, then you're not a real Christian, but telling people they are going to hell if they are not saved, is NOT a loving teaching. How do you reconcile that? The fact is, you can't.

You are stuck dealing with a paradox that conservatives don’t really see as a problem. Go right ahead. Support gay rights, no hell, and unconditional love for everyone. You just might be one of the greatest secular humanists the world has ever seen.

Here are some of the liberal Christians that are active in their arena, that I have some issues with. Again, let me stress that I support these people in most of their endeavors, but I think they are intellectually dishonest about what they actually believe, and they create more excuses to keep calling themselves Christian, when they may not really be at all.

Nadia Bolz Weber

Nadia Bolz Weber is a female former pastor from Denver. She’s more of a Christian speaker now, but she started the church known as “Sinners and Saints.” Evidently, she's okay with porn, or at least does not shame it. She has been quoted as saying that there is nothing wrong with porn as long as it's "ethically sourced." I'm still trying to process what that means, but it seems as though she's talking about the kind of porn that doesn't involve human trafficking.

Don't forget that this is the same woman who had female members of her church melt their purity rings into a vagina. It's an interesting exercise and a humorous one if you're into that sort of thing, but she was protesting the purity culture for what it is - fear mongering and controlling. I can't blame her of course, but the bible supports sexual purity - something she completely ignores.

She says the god of eternal punishment is, "not the god I know." Oh, yes. There are a million different versions of the Christian god, and the one that you know just so happens to fit with your theology. That kind of picking-and -choosing convenience is just too tempting isn't it?

Well, miss Nadia it seems, is naturally okay with these sort of redactions. With a charm, wit, and a body that is a canvas for her tattoos, she makes no hesitation to use swear words from the pulpit so she can make her church members feel like they're cool. Nadia wants to feel cool too, and this she accomplishes by combining both the new and old church traditions.

She has the punk rock look, and yet there doesn’t seem to be any modern worship band - they sing hymns acapella. This is because of her traditional Lutheran background, and she claims she is still orthodox Lutheran.

Her quote about traditional church is very puzzling:

“The reaction that is the most exhausting is from people who for some reason feel guilty or like they have to justify to me why they don’t go to church when in all honesty, I seriously don’t care. One of the more interesting things folks will say to me is: ‘I’m not religious or anything, I just hope that being a good person is enough. ‘To which I always want to say....enough for what?....avoiding the punishment of burning in the eternal fires of some kind of imaginary hell?”

Evidently, she doesn't actually believe in hell. Kudos to that, but why call yourself orthodox Lutheran if you seriously "don't care" whether people go to church or not? The whole idea of becoming a pastor is so that you can be a part of bringing people into the church, not being indifferent toward people who don't go.

At least half of her congregation is lesbian, drag queen, or bisexual and it's a place where even pagans can go to worship if they so choose. Nadia's message is that everybody is broken in some way, so she wanted to start a church based on people's brokenness, so people could help each other out.

I am all for this...................but why do you need religion to do it? Why not just admit to practicing good humanism with your close friends on Sundays? Because, basically in a nutshell - that's what she's doing.

Rob Bell

To be a universalist, or not a univeralist - that is the question.

If there ever was a pastor to cause controversy over the word "universalist" then you can't get any better than Rob Bell. There was a huge stir in the evangelical sphere as to whether or not he was one. Turns out he isn't........at least that's what he claims, but let's take a closer look at what he actually said on premere.tv

"Given enough time god will win everybody over......what a beautiful thought. But to stake a claim as if that's going to happen, how would anybody know that?”

Then he continues:

"From my worldview, I see lot's of people choosing hell. I think it's incredibly important that we hold onto hell. And if you're asking me, I see lots of people resisting god's love right now........resisting Christ. And my assumption is that they are free to resist when they die. Choices have very real consequences, and we can build ahead of steam in a direction away from god. So I see lots of people looking clearly like they're choosing hell now, their consequences are spreading hell to others and I'll kind of assume that they'll continue on in that direction."

Then he goes on to assume that "nobody really knows."

It seems that Mr. Bell can't decide whether he believes in hell or not. I find this a bit jolting. He wants so bad to be a universalist, and yet is too afraid to remove his other foot out of the evangelical swamp in order to move forward. In his book he looks at hell as several different options, never deciding, or landing on one particular marker.

It looks like Mr. Bell wants to wear two different hats so he can continue to be ambiguous in order to keep both liberal and conservative audiences satisfied. Instead of moving the goalpost, he wants to pretend it isn't even there to begin with. This very way of thinking is disingenuous at best, and leads to some confusing outcomes. He also seems to be into viewing Christianity as more of a mysticism, or a spiritualist way of thinking. Nothing directly wrong with that, but the last time I looked, that's not quite the bible's message.

In short, Rob Bell is the kind of pastor who has compromised his honesty for Christian hipsterism.

Mike McArgue

Mike McArgue is all about science. In fact, he's so much about it, that he's been nicknamed "science Mike." He claims to have grown up evangelical and then he turned atheist for awhile, then came back to a more moderate form of Christianity.

He became an atheist after reading the bible the whole way through(no surprise there) and stayed in that position for about two years until he claims he saw a brilliant white light on the beach - bringing him back to a belief in god, or at least somewhat.

Mr. McArgue explains that he tries to find Jesus through science instead of depending solely on scripture. I'm all for the science, but how can he be a skeptic if he thinks the light that he saw on the beach was god? Moreover, why don't all of us have that same experience, so that we can believe in his god? It would make things a lot easier.

When it comes to hell, he reduces it to metaphors. He can't come out and say that hell is a place where people go who don't believe, so he tries to point out that there are many words that are used to describe hell. That's true, but it doesn't help things, if you ask me. Just because there are contradictory terms like "fire" and "outer darkness" doesn't mean they can't all be true. If god can be three persons at once, then he could surely have hell be several different things at once.

It doesn't follow that the different terms for hell are contradictory, or can't all be of use. There are many different Christians who make this argument, and it's becoming clear that they are using these different terms for hell as an avoidance tool. If they can come up with something that doesn't make hell sound so bad, then they can avoid the argument altogether. This is pretty much what McArgue is doing here.

Still, Mike McArgue is probably the most mysterious “re-dedicated” Christian that I’ve come across. I’m still trying to figure out why he even bothered to come back to the Christian faith, after he had his experience on the beach. He claims that he didn’t believe in the Christian god again right away, after two years of being an atheist. He says astronomy led him back to faith in Jesus.

Did he start feeling guilty? Did he think that the light that he saw was in fact Jesus, like Paul on Damascus road? It makes me wonder if he didn't secretly believe in Christianity all along, and was trying to suppress it, but of course, I could say that about a lot of people. Many people have crazy experiences. But now that Mike is back inside of Christianity, he seems to have a lot of wavering viewpoints. What were his motives?

I guess we'll never know.

Donald Miller

If you are into embracing more of a west-coast type of "hippy Christianity", then Donald Miller is your guy. His famous book "Blue Like Jazz" was a bestseller, and eventually got made into a movie. It's basically an account at what it's like to be a Christian going to one of the most secular and liberal colleges in the country - Reed University in Portland, Oregon.

I like the guy, I really do. But as always, I sense a hipster type of mentality beneath the veneer. He constantly tries to act cool by letting us know that some of his best Christian friends don't go to church, and he likes to remind us about how his cutting-edge pastor friends use swear words. He wants us to feel like he's the chief executive of the liberal Jesus movement - how he's associated with people who cook breakfast for homeless people, and how he hangs out with hippies in the woods and goes to universalist churches.

I really couldn't care less about who Miller is associated with. If he wants to spend his all of his time with cussing pastors who smoke weed, and live in the woods with counter-culture Unitarians, then god bless the man. It's none of my business. What I'm really interested in is what he actually believes, and why he believes it.

As is usually the case with more liberal types, it's complicated - but not so complicated that you don't know where Miller is coming from. He's definitely all about putting himself in situations that make him feel uncomfortable. Going to Reed University is no picnic for a Christian. He had people stereotype him from the get-go, and had to deal with a bit of verbal bullying. From what I remember, someone even interrupted his bible study by putting the carcass of a dead animal in his room - or so the story goes.

The number one scene in his book that was the most memorable had to be when him and his Christian friends decided to build a "confess your sins" booth at a college fair. The plan was that from the outside, it looked like a normal confessional booth - but when you walked up to them, they would start confessing their own sins to YOU.

They also apologized for the crusades, the inquisition, and the horrible atrocities that were committed by Christians throughout the centuries. It was supposed to be a revolutionary way of ministering to to people, and evidently according to Miller - it worked. By the end of the night, there were people telling their friends, and giving them hugs.

Sure, it sounds brilliant. I'm sure it felt great for Donald Miller and his friends to be apologizing for what the crusades did, and the inquisition did, but here's the hard truth - they never once apologized for the indoctrination of of children, or the teachings about eternal punishment, or original sin. The crusades had nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, but eternal damnation does.

They never once apologized for the old testament slaughter that their god commanded. Why not? They may have apologized for the way Christians treat homosexuals, but they never once apologized for the way the bible CONDEMNS homosexuals. Why not dig deeper? Why didn't they?

They do what so many liberal Christians love to do - apologize for bad the bad things that are committed by other Christians, but they can't apologize for the bible. Why? Because the root of the problem is always the hardest thing to face. Donald Miller and his friends may think that they have come up with an ingenious idea.

Unfortunately for Miller, this hurts them more than helps them, and many skeptics like me will be able to see through it - even though it's a tactic that's meant for good. It just doesn't address the heart of the issue, and to me, this is actually more damaging than what most churches teach.

John Shelby Spong

John Shelby Spong has been an Episcopal church priest for more than 30 years. He really isn't a Christian at all by Orthodox standards, as he does not believe in the resurrection, but it was by coming into contact with his videos, and reading his book that made me realize that defining Christianity was an endlessly complicated task. He constantly talks about god, but which god he still believes in is a bit confusing. Does he still believe in some version of Yahweh? Is he more of a deist? I don't recall him ever making this clear.

What he does make clear, is that he believes Jesus was not about religion. Of course, many pastors say that, but they don't really mean it. Well, Spong actually means what he says, in this case. He does not believe that Jesus was about eternal damnation, or condemning people who didn't have faith, and he certainly doesn't believe that the bible is god's word.

He wants people to think of the church as a beacon of light for the poor, gays and lesbians, atheists and free thinkers. To Spong, the church should be a vehicle to help people in their communities get along, and build their character.

However, Spong is known for some quite controversial views. For example, he has a theory that Paul was a homosexual. That struck me funny, and I almost burst out laughing when I read it:

"If homosexuality was his condition, then he knew well that by the law, he stood condemned. His body was a body in which death reigned. He lived under that death sentence. What Paul knew himself to be, the people to whom he belonged and the law to which he adhered called abominable, and Paul felt it to be beyond redemption. Is it not possible, even probable that this was the inner source of his deep self-negativity, his inner turmoil, his self-rejection, and his superhuman zeal for a perfection for which he never could achieve?"

These theological assertions that Spong manages to hash out, easily makes him a tiny minority in Christian circles. Most of his ideas are far beyond the usual teachings of the church, and are sometimes so advanced that it's a wonder the evangelical right doesn't declare a witch hunt on the man. The main idea that Spong likes to keep pushing fourth, is that biblical literalism is not a great way to view the bible.

He goes on to say:

“My purpose in this volume is first to rescue the bible from the exclusive hands of those who demand that it be literal truth and second to open that sacred story to levels of insight and beauty that in my experience, literalism has never produced.”

No doubt that he does. But the words “my experience” are operative words, for it is after all, his interpretation of the bible that drives Spong to do what he does best - pretend that the bible really doesn’t mean what it says. When he talks about how conservative Christians view the bible, he makes it clear in his own words that - “I love this book no less than they.”

He's right of course. Except for the fact that he has a different kind of love for the bible. As much as I respect the man, and his knowledge I would love to ask him what would happen to him, if he was living 200 years ago. Would he still hold the same views? He is in fact, extremely fortunate to be living in the 21st century where he can more or less be free to preach such things.

Peter Enns

It's all about stories. At least, that's the way theologian Peter Enns sums up the bible. For him, the bible doesn't have to be historical to be believed. He makes the claim the bible isn't all about archaeology, or getting the facts straight, it's more about the deeper meaning of the stories that are in it. He does in fact, believe in the resurrection, but this is what makes him so startling as a scholar. He is an evangelical in one sense yet a liberal philosopher on the other, and he doesn't seem to be bothered by the compromise. Yet compromise he does - and sometimes unrealistically so.

In his book, "The Bible Tells me So," he often portrays the Old Testament narratives as stories the Israelites made up because they wanted their god to be a certain way. I couldn't agree more myself, but suddenly he jettisons all of that when it comes to Jesus. He does make much of the same claims about the gospels - that they were narratives built around the real events, but not as much as the Old Testament.

He really believes that Jesus rose form the dead - in bodily form. Peter Enns does what so many theologians do: They think it's totally okay to for the Old Testament to be non-historical, but they wimp out, and do not apply the same skepticism for the New Testament. It's always the same song and dance - when it comes to Jesus, all bets are off.

Yet, he will still declare that, the bible is the "word of god." The question is - what parts? If you're going to be that bold in your assertion that the story of Jacob and Esau is only metaphor - written for political reasons, then what's to stop you from going a step further? What's keeping you from admitting that the gospel writers may have had political motivations for writing their stories about Jesus of Nazareth? In his book Mr. Enns keeps stressing that "God likes stories."

Yeah.......but what if we as a human race don't want stories? What if we would rather have facts? Any ancient civilization could have claimed that their gods "like stories." That just sounds too easy, doesn't it?

Soon, Peter might just be writing a few stories of his own. Because his books have not just caused great controversy in evangelical communities, he also go into a heap of trouble at Westminster Seminary where he taught - and eventually got fired over one of his books.

The faculty and staff were basically putting him on trial for his outlandish views on the bible, and even though he had supporters, he also had enemies. There were churches telling the seminary that if they sent their students to go to school there, then they didn't want them taking any classes from Enns. That was pretty much the last straw.........you could just smell it.

Whenever an institution as it's reputation at stake, you can bet that they will waste no time in weeding out whatever is making them look bad. Sounds like something from right out of a movie like Dead Poet's Society. In my opinion, Peter's next book should be about his suspension, and his firing. He should write a book about the ridiculousness of these faith statements that professors have to sign, in order to teach at a religious institution. You can only teach what is inside the boundaries of that confession of faith that such a school holds you to.

I digress..........Hopefully Dr. Enns will go even further and admit that the New Testament is just as flawed as the old, and write independently so he won't have to worry about signing anymore statements of faith. Thank god.........

A Less-Than-Enthusiastic Conclusion

To wrap it up, Liberal Christianity is both honest and dishonest at the same time. Honest because it acknowledges that there are problems with scripture that can't stand up to criticism, and dishonest by pretending that being moderate is somehow going to make Christianity look better. If moderates consider their brand of Christianity to be the right one, then consider this:

Most people who convert to Christianity do not start out liberal. Most new Christ followers start out orthodox. The more moderate form of the Christian faith is really for people who've been in Christianity for a long time, and are fed up with evangelical culture.

The number one hallmark of moderate Christianity, is to combat the religious right by saying "That's not the Jesus I know." This is simply translation for "that's not the Jesus I'm comfortable with." You cling to your version of Jesus, and they like cling to theirs.

You cannot prove which one is right, and as long as evangelical's use love to preach about original sin, you cannot say they are bigoted people. They are preaching what is actually in the bible. At that point, you either have to admit that the bible is bigoted, or you have to ignore those particular passages.

In summery, liberal Christianity is confusing, and harmful in the sense that it isn't honest about it's position. We non-theists can see right through it: Moderate religion is an attempt to put on the mask of humility, while slagging conservative evangelical views that come directly from Jesus. This isn't being liberal, it's erroneous and conceded.

It keeps people walking both sides of the fence, eventually leading to hating oneself over fear of hell and holding on for dear life, while knowing deep down, you may not believe any more than an atheist. I'm not angry at liberal Christians, because I used to be one and I still think that moderate religion is still the best way to move forward if Christianity is going to continue. I know the feeling. But I am no longer going to put on kid gloves, and pretend that your version of god is somehow more authentic than your evangelical neighbors.

CHAPTER 10

CONCLUSION........

"When I became a man, I put away childish things." - 1 Corinthians 13:11

The past ten years have been quite a journey for me.

Anyone who reads this might ask themselves, why I would even go to the trouble of writing such a screed. Why even waste your time with a subject that you no longer believe in? Indeed. My answer to that, is really quite easy. When I came out as a non-believer, I felt the need to get all of the frustration off my chest by talking about it. It's therapy for me, to immerse myself in it, for however long I needed to be immersed. It's healthy to let your opinion be heard, whether it's in a blog for only a few friends, or making huge waves over the internet.

A former Christian on You Tube named James Muholland laid out the process of deconverting in a way that stuck with me. He described deconversion from one’s faith as the equivalent to walking away from a mountain. At first the mountain keeps looming over you, and it’s hard to ignore. You keep going, putting one foot in front of the other. Then one day, the mountain fades away into the distance and disappears behind you, as you continue to move forward.

Suddenly, you find yourself in a world where you are totally on you own. It's exciting, scary, and overwhelming all at the same time. You have mixed vibes. But at least you know you're moving on to something new. You are starting over again. You get another chance at a second life.

I grew up Christian, like so many others. And like so many others, I secretly doubted. I just want Christians to see - if only a for a moment, a glimpse of the kind of chaos that goes through the mind of someone who is transitioning towards non-belief. I want my religious friends to realize that there are indeed GOOD, solid reasons why people walk away from faith.

I want them to know that it wasn't a decision, or a choice, but an unexpected turn of events, that led me down a certain path. Even though that path has been scary at times- I ended up in a great place. There is hope WITHOUT Jesus.

There is life after religion. You don't have to feel guilty about giving up faith, or be scared of it - even though it's hard to do.

Like so many Christians, I was taught that if I didn't have faith in Jesus, then my life would be meaningless, and would come to a dead end. My story has a happy ending - I found something on the other side of religion. There was hope after all. Life does not come to an end when you give up faith - it's in fact the opposite - life explodes.

The universe becomes yours to explore on your own terms, without any interference from a deity who's whole existence depends on you worshiping him, so don't be afraid. When you give up religion, life goes on, the world will still be here, and it's not going anywhere. No god is going to strike you down with lightning. I no longer fear, or worry about this life, or whatever comes after. I feel more at peace than I've ever been.

If rejecting faith is such a bad thing, then why the peace? I'm still waiting for an evangelical to explain that.

If you're a Christian who happens to be reading this, then you might be thinking that I'm just focusing all of my energies on the bad stuff in the bible, and the flawed side of religion. My response to that is yes - I definitely am. I am focusing on the bad things because all too often, all that most people talk about is the good in bible - and what it's done for their lives.

The good teachings in the bible have already been explained.I want the bad side to be exposed because the majority of people in the world still assume the bible is mostly moral - and this is what leads to so many problems. Most Christians can't stand being challenged. They hate anything that has to do with questions, or even suggesting that something in the bible could actually be harmful.

The bible has ruined just as many lives, marriages and friendships, as it has saved. It has cured bigotry, and at the same time - created more of it. It has made evil people become good, and caused good people to become evil. It has given knowledge and it has suppressed knowledge.

If you are a new Christian and feel peace and happiness, then I'm at least glad that you have found something that has worked for you. Except, the downside of that is, there is another person somewhere in the world who's life was ruined by Christianity. If you want to tell me how god has changed your life for the better then you are at best, guilty of selective reasoning. Christianity might have saved your life, but it completely destroyed someone else's.

This is the paradox that all Christians must live with. The bible is neither good nor bad - it is a melting pot of both, and both good and bad teachings come from Jesus himself. Then Christians wonder why us non-believers are so confused.

Who’s playing god?

The universe is a mind- boggling, vast entity. We have trouble even grasping the billions of galaxies and possibilities that are out there, let alone anything before it. We are but an insignificant speck of dust, in an otherwise vast ocean of the unknown. Are you really going to tell me that all the answers come from a single book on a tiny planet, despite what other civilizations, or uncharted worlds lie beyond it? Are you really going to tell me that despite being limited in our knowledge, that humans living in an ancient time period had access to the ultimate truth?

Christians like to talk about the "authority" of the bible. The fact that anyone would let an ancient book have control over their life, is just downright creepy. To let the authors of it's pages decide for you what is true and what's not, is to me, the ultimate form of mental self-flagellation.

Whether you believe the bible is true or not, on the other side of those pages is a person who lived in a different time that was no smarter than you, no more moral than you, and certainly had no more answers than you do. They did not have any supernatural powers, and did not have a direct line to god anymore than anyone else. The people who wrote the bible could not provide any proof that their claims were real, and they were no more special than people living today.

If god gave people the freewill to “accept” or “reject” him, then he didn’t give people the freewill to choose whether or not his book makes any sense. At the end of the day, either something makes sense to you, or it doesn’t. You don’t get to decide.

It's always funny when Christians say things like, "the bible has stood the test of time!" And they're right. The bible HAS stood the test of time, but so has the Quran. So has the Bagavad Gida. Many religious ideas and cultures have stood the test of time. Does that mean that they have withstood the test of criticism? Many stories in the bible are definitely influenced by other myths, but even if Christianity was completely original on all levels it wouldn't matter. It doesn't matter how well-preserved the original text is. What matters is asking yourself: Is it historical?

Is it logical? Is it factual? If you can say no to those things, then you should be able to walk away from it totally guilt-free.

I have shown in strict detail why I think the bible fails historically, logically, and culturally. Even if the bible was proven to be true beyond doubt, the fact that it still has logical flaws, and causes believers to indoctrinate their children with dangerous ideas, goes to show the depths of just how abysmal a holy book can stoop.

How does it just so happen that one entity in the universe gets to make the rules for everyone else? Who was so lucky enough to win the lottery that they get to be in charge of the cosmos without any accountability? People of faith like to argue that without god, humans make the rules. Who do we appeal to?

Who can truly know what is right or wrong without a higher being? The problem with this view, is that it puts god in the exact position that Christians are arguing against. Humans making their own rules are viewed as disastrous, but a god can make his own rules and foist them on humans.

Where did god get his authority, and morality? Obviously, from himself. The “rules” established by the god of the bible have caused just as much havoc and frustration among people, as when humans makes rules. Since so many Christians are divided on biblical issues, and so many acrimonious arguments have taken place in the church - then how is that any better than arguing over rules made by us?

In summery, any human could make such rules for our planet. It's just that in the bible's case, that human is god.

This is why an authoritative version of god, makes no sense. In the end, there are very few aspects of morality that humans across the globe can unanimously agree on. Our cosmos may have very well come from a higher mind. I'm not opposed to that. It's just that our place in the universe, really calls for a different type of creator. Not one based on myths and legends, but something far more abstract, almost as it were a part of ourselves. I think the key word here, is "information". We have been given a certain amount of information to to solve a mystery. Another way of putting it; we have been given "the keys to the city."

We have taken the information that is written into our DNA, and it has provided us with something to work with. There are certain buttons that we push. That gives rise to future generations pushing more buttons, which leads us through a maze of trial and error to figure out what is right and wrong. To me, this is so much more consistent with reason, as opposed to a god who makes blatant rules for our planet.

Our view of morality continues to change the more we live, and that is why it’s so complex. Morality is something that should be part of the ongoing discussion among ourselves. That is how we get answers. We are always changing, and refining what it means to be moral. There are certain things we know to be right and wrong, that are now fixed. It is part of the puzzle that we have solved, and it is a result of the information that has been ingrained in us.

A huge problem is the fact that in America - most people think you either are an atheist or a Christian, that it's impossible to be anything else. You either believe in Jesus, or no god at all. But I think there is a middle path, that departs from both extremes which is what most people don't bother to explore. Religion goes too far right in claiming that a certain type of god exists, and atheism goes too far left by claiming that god doesn't exist, or is unlikely.

The truth in most cases, is somewhere in the middle. Could it be that the truth behind the origins of our universe, might be more complex than any of us would like to believe? Could there be a creator who is simply unknowable and mysterious? For my money, this explanation works the best.

Our civilization could be the result of some gigantic mathematical equation, or a laboratory where we are part of a cosmic experiment. Maybe we are simply a result of other universes, that have existed in the past. Maybe at one time there was a single higher mind we could call god, and little by little - whoever it was, actually became the universe itself. Perhaps we are just a small universe in a chain of numerous multiverses, and whoever created it, has no idea that we even exist. All of these ideas are fun to play with, and can provide fascinating possibilities, but here lies the reality that we must face:

Nobody knows why we're here.

This very thought to most people, is simply terrifying. It's all understandable on some level. We are mere mortals. We want to be comforted with some belief that there is an all-powerful and all-loving creator who is looking out for us. The idea of not knowing what's out there can be unbearable to most, which is why we have belief systems.

Religion gives a person a degree of comfort; an illusory sense of "knowing" when they really don't. I can understand that our pre-historic ancestors struggled with the idea of death, and yearning to know the mystery behind our existence. Maybe it's time that we start letting go of our ancestors insecurities. We must admit that we just don't know where the universe ultimately came from. It's okay to admit that. There is freedom in that.

If there is an "all-powerful" god that really exists - then that god could have easily been you or I. Still, the bible makes it clear that it wasn't us, it was someone else who got lucky enough to be god, and that someone appears to be a person who would rather take a vacation while humans deliver his message for him. It's like trying to figure out if your biological father is still alive.

You found out that all of the letters he wrote you ended up being forgeries by other humans. You feel mocked. You feel cheated. In the end, the only conclusion that you are forced to come to is that your biological father is either dead, or never existed in the first place.

For me, that's the bible in a nutshell.

Drawing a Fine Line

The types of Christians who make ridiculous allegations against non-believers, are also the same ones to say "No evidence will ever be good enough for you." These pitiful, not to mention lackadaisical sentiments are way too common, and suffocates any kind of curiosity to listen to what evidence I actually WOULD accept.

The question that Christians might have for me is, what would make me believe again? What evidence would I accept that the biblical god is real? It's very simple.

Bypass the bible and forget religion.

Speak to humanity all at once, either in our heads or by some kind of audible force. An all-powerful god could find a way to do it. The old testament makes claims of god speaking to people from out of the atmosphere in a more or less audible voice - so he should still be able to activate those methods, if he's real. Then god could explain everything, and why things are the way they are.

When I die -and if the biblical god exists, then all he would have to do is have a conversation with me. "Hey, there - I know you're a little confused. Let me clear this whole thing up for you."

If Jesus had a conversation with me right after I died, and explained why he had to die on a cross, why he doesn't heal everyone, why god allows suffering, why I deserve hell, why he allowed to have his own book contradict itself and cause Christians to say stupid things, why god slaughtered so many women and children, why he allowed demons to torture people in their own homes, why he didn't get rid of Lucifer when he fell, why he "designed" humans with cells that become cancerous, and why he only stuck around for three years when he was on earth........and connected all the dots for me so everything would make sense - I just might accept him at that point.

I don't think something like that would be too much to ask. Seriously. I would be willing to sit down with any god who wanted to talk to me - as long as he didn't resort to the same evangelical cop outs -

"There are things you just don't understand" ect, ect. It would clear up a lot of loose ends, but what are the odds of that happening?

Don't forget, that I have set certain markers for what I would accept historically as well. As I mentioned earlier, if only ONE manuscript was uncovered from a secular source dating from the time that Jesus lived describing his miracles and resurrection, then that would be pretty mind-blowing. It wouldn't make me a follower of Jesus, but it would prove that the gospel sources are not just all from inside the bible, and it would make me reconsider my position.

The bible could have proven itself with every story that was in it. Imagine, if every narrative in scripture had some sort of instruction for archaeologists. For example, in the Garden of Eden there was supposedly an angel guarding the gate after Adam’s fall. If the bible told people the exact location of Eden, then everyone could go there and still see the angel for themselves, and if they tried to enter, they would get zapped by a brilliant white light from heaven.

Or what about if we could still go to the Red Sea, and witness it being parted down the middle when people prayed to Yahweh? What if the book of Exodus instructed people to go into the Sinai desert and tap a rock to get water after they prayed - and it would come true? What if we could uncover the chariots of the Egyptian armies beneath the Red Sea?

If every story in the bible predicted exact artifacts you could find, and everything lined up perfectly with the events and dates, then that would prove that the biblical scriptures had true power. What do we get instead?

We get a smattering of archaeological sites with dubious results, often with historians, Eygptologists, and Assryologists who are often on one side of the debate or the other. In addition to the evidence being so scant for the bible, we also find evidence AGAINST the bible as well, as I have already covered.

Don't tell me that no evidence will suffice. Those are my requests, if the bible is to be proven true. Would you still have skeptics even after all of that? Yes, you would, but as I've always said, they would look ridiculous, and they would have to strain so much harder to disprove it.

Christians often ask questions to try to make me have second thoughts: Do you really want to take a chance and stand before god if you're wrong? Or they quote the famous line:

"I would rather believe in a God and find out that there isn't one, than not believe and find out that there is."

There is a big fallacy with this one, I don’t have a problem with being wrong. When I die, and I find out that the Christian god exists, then so be it. As I mentioned above, what would be so terrible about sitting down with god and having him explain everything? What I have a problem with, is being eternally punished for being wrong. That’s the big difference. My question to Christians would be, what is so bad about not believing in god and then finding out that he exists? Why would that be an issue?

It's obviously because, that not believing could get you in trouble. When believers repeat this, they don't mean that they will be slightly embarrassed for meeting a god that they didn't think existed. Oh no. They mean that they would rather believe than not believe, out of fear. That's why this "Pascals's Wager" style of semantics does not work with free thinkers. Otherwise, there wouldn't be anything wrong with us unbelievers meeting a God when we die. There would be nothing to worry about. If there was no hell in the bible, Pascal's Wager wouldn't even have been thought of.

Christians will often say, "Unbelievers just want to be their own god." No. Wrong again. I don't want to be a god at all. I simply want to be my own person.

There was once a person who quoted, "when you give up religion, you will be meeting your real self for the very first time." That line is so good, that I just had to steal it. I couldn't have said it better, and I couldn't agree more.

The Fallacy of Faith

If there is anything that history has taught us consistently, it is that whatever the majority believes, usually turns out to be wrong. There are just too many screw-ups we can look back on and see for ourselves that the status quo, ain't always the way to go. No matter how many times the world has blindly been misguided into accepting things that sound good, there is always that one little pesky piece of evidence that gets in the way of people's comfort. Truth - whether it's simple or complex, will always show up in places that you least expect it to, and often does so in harsh and inconvenient ways.

The problem with the bible is not that it has flaws. The problem goes much deeper. It is an ancient book written by men that lived in a culture that used allegory, symbolism, and passages littered with multiple layers of meaning. It is those multiple meanings, and dubious passages that cause so much endless interpretation, distortion, confusion and damage. The Christian religion has finally backfired on itself. It started out as any religion does, to change the world for the better. It was supposed to be the one belief system that was radical, controversial, and was going to be god seeking man instead of man seeking god.

Yet 2000 years later, where have we arrived? We have a worldwide culture of big brother, that has arrived in the same place as all other religions. If god was really seeking man, then why would you need any form of scripture, or a church? It needs to be asked - what would you do if you were god, and wanted nothing more than for people to know that you existed? If you really wanted people to believe in you that badly, would you really use a system where humans do all of the talking?

Whenever you have a religion revealed by man as god's word, then god's silence just gets filled in by people. It is people who are making the decisions about how god thinks, acts, and makes judgments, including the people who wrote the bible. The question remains: Why would god give dozens of different voices to his message, if he wanted it to be so clear?

If you happen to be a Christian who is reading this, perhaps you can't wait to blow holes in all of my arguments. I have no doubt that you could, but that is exactly what I am getting at here. You could come back with a wheelbarrow of counter arguments that are well researched, and thought out.

Someone else could come along and totally blow apart your arguments as well. The whole religion/god debate is an endless rabbit hole for which there is no bottom, or ultimate conclusion. It's all wrapped up in peoples rhetoric, semantics, dubious facts, and verbal intimidation.

No matter what brand of manifesto you read, whether it's for Christianity or against it, you will always be reading the wrong book. That's because someone has already written a book to refute the one you just got finished with. There will always be someone else waiting to bulldoze your ideas.

The argument has exhausted itself beyond insipid means, and has contributed nothing more to society but an endless culture war. It’s high time we start looking elsewhere to find truth, in the midst of a debate that has done itself in. It’s getting ridiculous. We’re finishing each other’s sentences now.

There should be only one book that anyone would have to read in order to get answers, and that's the bible. Why are we still debating it? Why are there less answers and more questions than ever? The ever-growing number of books written in order to explain god's word is to me, a very distinctive foreshadowing for the end of an era.

Every year, the apologetics ministry(business) keeps growing yet more people are becoming non-religious. Are young people's questions really getting answered? Or it could be that the younger generation just doesn't care about religion anymore? In either case, the apologetics war seems to be losing and for a good reason. Christian arguments are behind the times. We've moved on. They no longer have the fuel it takes to satisfy the needs of a youth who are indifferent to the faith of older generations.

I am going to stress this one last time before I end my diatribe, and that is I am FED UP with Christians telling me that I didn't read enough, or that I didn't care enough about the truth. If that were the case I never would have bothered to look into the subject in the first place, and after reading several dozen books on the aspects of religion, god, and Christian history I'm spent. If that's not enough for you, then that's tough. I am worn out after more than a decade of thinking, reading, listening to hundreds of hours of debate, and fact-checking. I've been over and over it.

What more do you want from me?

You tell me how much more information I should be consuming. What's it going to take to get you to see that I've put in the homework? How many more books must be read?

The Greatest Triumph - Religion’s Defeat

Religion provides just enough mystery to keep you believing, with just the right amount of fear to keep you from doubting. That is the very basic ingredient of all cult systems, and the reason why certain beliefs have survived for so long.

The fear of possibly being wrong, creates one's motivation to keep them running back to the fold. That's the genius of religion. It's long overdue that we as humans start standing up to this kind of mind control. People need to start demanding evidence for hell, instead of fearing it. People need to stop feeling guilty for being sinners, instead of asking for forgiveness. Because in the end, all religions are basically saying the same thing: There is something wrong with being human, and so you need to be corrected. That is what keeps getting us into trouble - by thinking that we can somehow overcome being flawed.

Being human is something to celebrate. It is nothing to be ashamed of. Yes, we are flawed. Yes, we can be bigoted, arrogant , ignorant, mean and stupid. There is a ton of injustice, but looking at ourselves in the mirror should inspire us to become better, more compassionate, and find creative ways to make the world a better place to thrive and live life. We don't need to be "fixed", under some law that we have already broken the minute we're born. We simply need to fix the things that hold us back from becoming better. And those things are different for everyone.

There are modern day evangelists out there, and preachers on street corners who are still bent on the old-school tone of the fire-and-brimstone gospel. Such a display of hard core tactics to convert people, is often steeped over and over again in a false message of “love.” These people who shout and wave their bible around on college campuses, and urban areas, keep retelling that classic line again and again - “We LOVE you. We don’t want to see you go to hell.” If you are one of those people, then I’ve got news for you:

I love you too.

I love you, because like me, you are human, and just like any other human, you have flaws in your intelligence. The bible is driving that flaw deeper and deeper into your brain. We both have things that we would like to preach to each other. I'm sure there are arguments that we would both love to slag each other with. When you really get down to it - which one of us wants to "convert" the other?

You are trying to get me to cross over and accept Christ, because you are worried about my soul. But guess what? I don’t worry about your soul, because I don’t have any proof that you even have a soul. You might want me to give up my secularism, but I’m not trying to influence you to give up your belief. There are certainly hard core atheists out there who would like to see you became apostate, but the point is - secularism has no authority that tells us we should deconvert Christians.

That's the difference between you and me.

If you believe the bible, then you are placing your trust in a book of divine authority, that specifically instructs Christians to spread the good news and save sinners. Secularism has no such book, therefore most of us don't really care that you have deeply held religious beliefs. I simply want to encourage you to keep your certainty on a tighter leash.

Are you 100% CERTAIN there is a hell? How can you be so sure? Less certainty means there is more room to think, and the more room there is to think and question, then the more room there is for a brighter and better future for humanity. I'm not trying to save Christians from their belief. There is no secular hell, and no secular bible. All that I ask, is for believers to rethink their faith, not give it up. But if you do decide to give it up, I will applaud that as well.

Some people ask me how I can have hope without a heaven. The answer is more simple than you think. For one, just the relief of living life without religion can give one the ultimate hope. It gives you a clean slate, and a new lease on life. Knowing that you don't have to believe in a holy book anymore, frees your mind to think however you choose, and can give you new ways of looking at the universe that you never otherwise imagined. The things that used to control you, now look mundane, and foolish.

That's just the beginning. Life is a journey from one end to the other. You find whatever gives you hope, and grab onto it. Everyone has different hobbies or interests, and when we develop our skills and put them out into the world, we give it meaning. The hope is found in this life, in order to get through it, not after it. While it's possible that there is an afterlife, I simply do not know. The universe may not have a purpose in and of itself, but we can find a purpose within in it.

I think there is more good in the world than bad if we just look beyond the horizon. It could be something as simple as a butterfly on the end of a dog’s nose, or a child taking it’s first steps. One of these days, millions of years from now when humans are extinct, the planet will still be here.

It will still have seasons, starry nights, and Friday afternoons. There will still be clouds and blue sky. And even though we will be gone, at least I can realize that while I was here, I contributed to the ongoing cycle of life. I lived the best life I could. I was part of this earth, and was a part of it's story, and history.

These are small things that add up to a universe that can provide unlimited resources of wonder and awe. Some people say this comes from a god. They could be right, but it's a god who is still a great distance from us, and has not presented itself as an all-powerful creator. I can live with that.

Whatever or whoever brought the universe into existence, is not powerful enough to stop our suffering, but there is enough there to work with. Enough to have hope that this life is something to be treasured. There may be an afterlife, or there may not. I am okay with not knowing. It makes me live each day to the fullest possible, and it reminds me not to take this existence for granted.

I have heard it said that becoming non-religious is a journey of a thousand steps, and it's true. It's like walking away from the mountain. When you embark on the path of the unknown it can be a little frightening, but that is what makes it so exciting. The mountain is behind me now, the sun has set, and the stars have come out - inviting me on a new journey.

As the great Carl Sagan once said, "I don't know where I'm headed, but I know I'm on my way."

End of Rant

A final thought:

Over the years, I've read dozens of books, in addition to having scoured hundreds of websites, watching debates, writing things down, highlighting and fact-checking. In case you think I'm some poser who cliff-noted his way through this venture by watching atheist You Tube videos, then below I have included a list of authors that I've read over the years. I don't have enough time(or patience) to list the titles of the books that I've studied by these authors, or their credentials. Google them if you must. I have read a variety of viewpoints across a spectrum. However, I must add that the majority of these writers are not atheists.

I have finally come to the place in my life where I can no longer read any more books on theology. I am burnt out, and have moved on to other interests. This blog is my swansong on the topic. Anyone who thinks that they can change my mind by handing me the latest hottest, apologetics book - sorry, but it ain't gonna happen. I am done with the subject. Moving forward now.... time to live life.

AUTHORS: Bart Ehrman, Marcus Borg, NT Wright, Justo Gonzolaz, Andrew Hill & John Walton, Robert Price, William Lane Craig, Richard Bauchaum, Craig Evans, Richard Carrier, Gerd Luddaman, Daniel Wallace, Candida Moss, Timothy Paul Jones, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, David Mills, David Fitzgerald, Lee Strobal, Paul Copan, Thom Stark, Alaister McGrath, CS Lewis, David Jonah Conner, Micheal Kerrigan, Peter Enns, John Shelby Spong, William Hone, Andrew Seidel, William G Dever, Isreal Finklestien, Kenneth Kitchen, Donald Miller, Rob Bell, James D. Tabor.

1 note · View note