Greeting readers! I am not sure how many of you have survived the onslaught of my seven month hiatus but I am sure there are some out there who still frequent these pages of mine for knowledge and truth (It sure seems that way with all the “hate” mail, though I did get an interesting message that I am not sure where to place).

This day I would like to talk about Albert Einstein.

Many Christians today like to claim him as their own as do many Atheists, but let us examine his own words here.

Now we all know that Albert Einstein claimed to believe in Spinoza’s deity (Spinoza argued that deity and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect are only understood in part) but did he ever believe in the Christian or Jewish deities?

Well Albert Einstein, although Jewish, went through a brief childhood phase of devout Christianity.

In an autobiographical sketch written at age 67, he described his short-lived faith, planted in him by daily indoctrination at a Catholic school to which his parents had sent him:

"Thus I came -- despite the fact that I was the son of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents -- to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true.”

He continues to destroy the hopes of Christians everywhere by saying: “The consequence was a positively fanatic freethinking, coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies. It was a crushing impression.”

It seems he saw through many of the venomous parroting that the clergy did back in that day (many still do this today, unfortunately).

"Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions which were alive in any specific social environment -- an attitude which has never left me, even though later on, because of a better insight into the causal connections, it lost some of its original poignancy.”

One of the greatest thinkers of our time was not only put off after discovering what religion truly was but it left a rip in his being. A rip that many of our young today feel when they discover that the “truths” they are brought up to believe are nothing more than brightly painted myths.

"It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence which is dominated by wishes, hopes and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned like liberation....The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise, but it has proved itself as trustworthy, and I have never regretted having chosen it."

Commenting on Einstein's reminiscence, physicist Heinz Pagels wrote:

"What this passage reveals is a conversion from personal religion to the 'cosmic religion' of science, an experience which changed him for the rest of his life. Einstein saw that the universe is governed by laws that can be known by us but that are independent of our thoughts and feelings.

The existence of this cosmic code -- the laws of material reality as confirmed by experience -- is the bedrock faith that moves the natural scientist. The scientist sees in that code the eternal structure of reality, not as imposed by man or tradition but as written into the very substance of the universe. This recognition of the nature of the universe can come as a profound and moving experience to the young mind."

I agree with Pagels (though I would not call science a “religion”).

This also shows the dangers that are presented with the currently religious youth of today. What will happen once they discover that what they have been taught as “truth” is truly nothing more than brightly colored paper flapping in the wind, as a mere (and hopefully brief) distraction to finding real answers to the questions that plague those of us brave enough to think on them?

Will they lash out at the “religious right” for filling their heads with “sugar plum fairies” for so many years of their life?

Will they lash out at their parents for indoctrinating them or not talking to them seriously about these radical beliefs?

Or will they simply give up trusting completely, going through life bitter and angry?

I would hope that the youth turn to those who have either experienced these feelings of betrayal or (as in my case) freedom of their masks, for guidance.

Remember to never be afraid to ask questions. If one cannot answer your questions find someone who can. If you cannot find someone then seek the answers else where, but never stop questioning. Never stop searching.

For those who could not arrive to the conclusion themselves, no Einstein was not a Christian. He might have been a convert at a young age, but who is to know how serious it truely was? Einstein was also not an Atheist. He beleived in Spinoza's deity, which is not a deity in and of itself but more of like a force.

There are many absurdities in the story of Noah's ark and once we've proven that this, and other Christian mythologies, we will know that Jesus is imaginary, prayer is imaginary, Genesis and Revelation are imaginary, and, thus, their god is imaginary.

But there is one absurdity in the story of Noah's Ark that deserves special recognition, because it proves that thier god, in addition to being imaginary, is insane. That special absurdity is this:

The Christian god senselessly murdered millions of humans and billions of animals in the flood.

How do we know it was senseless? Because in Christian mythology, "god" is supposed to be "all-knowing." If thie god were to exist, this god would know what was coming when he created Adam and Eve. Therefore, god knew he would be murdering millions of people. Why didn't god simply speed up Jesus' arrival to avoid the atrocity that is the flood? Or why didn't god program Adam and Eve when he created them to completely circumvent the need for such a horrendous atrocity?

The idea that Christians would accept a mass-murdering lunatic as their object of worship shows just how deep religious delusion runs. By murdering nearly every human on the planet, this imaginary god is far more heinous than Hitler. No "loving" and "perfect" being can also be a mass-murderer bent of global genocide. Yet Christians willfully worship him. There is no better indicator that religion is delusion and that God is imaginary.

Noah's flood is not the only place where their god displays these ridiculous tendencies to mindlessly slaughter. Here are several other examples.

In the book of Exodus chapter 12 verse 28, thier god writes about one of his early massacres:

So the people of Israel did just as the LORD had commanded through Moses and Aaron. And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died.

Here the death of the children is accomplished by the hand of the Christian god.

In Isaiah chapter 13, god paints this word picture:

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.

What a lovely image.

In Jeremiah chapter 49, verse 20, god paints a similar picture:

Therefore hear the plan which the LORD has made against Edom and the purposes which he has formed against the inhabitants of Teman: Even the little ones of the flock shall be dragged away; surely their fold shall be appalled at their fate. At the sound of their fall the earth shall tremble; the sound of their cry shall be heard at the Red Sea.

In Hosea chapter 13, god paints a similar picture:

Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

In Numbers chapter 31, god paints a similar picture:

Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live? Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the LORD in the matter of Pe'or, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Here Moses, acting as an agent of god, specifies that thousands of male babies and children be killed, as well as thousands of women. The Bible states in verse 35 that the captured women numbered "thirty-two thousand persons in all, women who had not known man by lying with him." This was not a small attack. Tens of thousands men, women and children were massacred.

In Deuteronomy Chapter 3 we find this:

Next we turned and went up along the road toward Bashan, and Og king of Bashan with his whole army marched out to meet us in battle at Edrei. The LORD said to me, "Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed him over to you with his whole army and his land. Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon." So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children. But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.

They massacred all the men, women and children in 60 cities at their god's request.

Even in the "New Testament" we find the same sort of thing. In the book of Matthew, chapter 2, mixed into the Christmas story, the Bible describes an amazing massacre of thousands of babies:

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

Think about the thousands of families who were affected by this massacre. The Bible describes their suffering: they wept and could not be comforted. Of course they could not be comforted. If you are a parent, you know exactly how distraught you would feel if an agent of the government came to your door one morning and slaughtered your children.

Why would an all-loving god do this? The truth is thier god is imaginary, all of these stories are myths, and the people who believe and revel in these myths are... what? "Insane" is one word that comes to mind. Why would any normal, intelligent, ethical human being "worship" such a heinous, demented and despicable "god" as this? Insanity in the form of deep, deep delusion is the only possible explanation.

It is impossible for a "perfect" and "loving" being to also be heinous, demented and despicable. This impossibility tells us that the Christian god is imaginary as well as immoral.

As I have said numerous times, I have found that the Christians have stolen almost all of their holidays.  The ones they couldn't steal, they contaminated with lies to turn people away from those “evil pagan ways”.  This stealing of holidays by Christians is seen in a number of pagan or “heathen” festivals. In line with the mother goddess and heavenly virgin theology, the Festival of Diana was ousted by the Festival of the Assumption of the Virgin in August. Like changes were the pagan Parilia in April which was replaced by the feast of St. George. The midsummer water festival in June was replaced by the festival of St. John the Baptist. Each of these replacements has similar themes to the pagan holiday they replace. The Feast of All Souls in November is the ancient heathen Feast of the Dead. The Nativity of Christ replaced that of the Sun, and the Festival of Easter is simply the feast of the Phrygian god Attis at the vernal equinox or the celebration of the Fertility Goddess Ostara.
First off, the word ‘Easter’ itself is of Pagan origin.  There are actually a couple accepted origins of the name.  The most common of these being ‘Eostre’ or ‘Ostara’. She is the great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people of Northern Europe.  Her name was derived from an ancient word for spring. She is the Goddess of Spring and dawn.  The lesser known accepted origin of Easter is the worship of Attis in Rome.  This celebration of the death and resurrection of the God Attis was held on the 24th and 25th of March.  Many religious historians believe that the death and resurrection legends were first associated with Attis, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. They were simply grafted onto stories of Jesus' life in order to make Christian theology more acceptable to Pagans. 
Easter was actually celebrated for hundreds of years before the birth of Christ.  It wasn't until at least 300 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the establishment of his church that the celebration of his resurrection began to be intermingled with the pagan practices of Easter.
As Christianity grew and spread throughout the world, it was common practice
to adopt, modify, convert or take over existing non-Christian festivals, sacred locations and even names, and assimilate them into the Christian theology.  Because Eostre was the
Goddess of Spring and her symbolism dealt with renewal and rebirth, the Christian belief of the resurrection fit nicely into this theme.  
And what of the date of Christ’s supposed resurrection?  Didn’t you ever wonder why
Good Friday is recognized as the day Jesus died and Sunday as the day he arose but yet had trouble explaining how he could thus be buried for three days and three nights? According to an ancient and widespread tradition, 25 March was celebrated as the death of Christ without regard to the state of the Moon. This is the same time that the resurrection of Attis was celebrated.  Easter was confined to a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection in direct contradiction of Scripture. Originally, it was on fixed dates in the cult of Attis.  The answer is simple: He didn't actually die on "Good Friday." When the established church wanted to appease the paganistic people in order to "convert" them to Christianity, they moved the dates accordingly. Jesus actually died on the day of Preparation of Passover Week, which that year occurred on Wednesday (John 19:14, 31-42). Thursday was the Sabbath of the Passover. Friday, Christ was still in the tomb. Saturday was the "regular" Sabbath. Jesus arose after the Saturday Sabbath was concluded, which was the first day of the week, the day we know as Sunday.  The word Easter was even inserted in the English KJV translation of the Bible to replace the word for Passover to further disguise the issue.  Most Christians interpret the four Gospels of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) as implying that Jesus Christ was executed and buried just before the beginning of Passover on Friday evening. A minority believe that the execution occurred on a Wednesday or Thursday.  
But, what about the bunny and eggs and all that Hot Cross bun stuff?  Well, I hate to let you Christians in on a little secret, but is all pagan!  That’s right. Let’s start with Hot Cross Buns.  At the feast of Eostre, an ox was sacrificed. The ox's horns became a symbol for the feast. They were carved into the ritual bread. Thus originated the "hot cross buns". The word "buns" is derived from the Saxon word "boun" which means "sacred ox." Later, the symbol of a symmetrical cross was used to decorate the buns; the cross represented the moon, the heavenly body associated with the Goddess, and its four
quarters.  Easter Bunny and Eggs?  The symbols of the Norse Goddess Ostara were the hare and the egg. Both represented fertility. From these, we have inherited the customs and symbols of the Easter egg and Easter rabbit. Dyed eggs also formed part of the rituals of the Babylonian mystery religions.
Eggs were sacred to many ancient civilizations and formed an integral part of
religious ceremonies in Egypt and the Orient. Dyed eggs were hung in Egyptian
temples, and the egg was regarded as the emblem of regenerative life proceeding from the mouth of the great Egyptian god.  According to Teutonic myth, the hare was once a bird that Eostre changed into a four-footed creature. Thus, it can also lay eggs. The hare is also the sacred companion and sacrificial victim of Eostre. The so-called 'Easter lily' has long been revered by pagans of various lands as a holy symbol associated with the reproductive organs. It was considered a phallic symbol!  The custom of the
Easter Sunrise Service can be traced back to the ancient Pagan custom of welcoming the sun God at the vernal equinox - when daytime is about to exceed the length of the nighttime. It was a time to celebrate the return of life and reproduction to animal and plant life as well.  
Pagans all over the world have long celebrated the coming of spring and the rebirth of the earth.  The Christians, in their attempt to lure people from the old religion, corrupted the old customs with their new ideas and in the process stole most of the old traditions which most people now think really are of Christian origin.  Anyone can tell you, that the majority of Christian tradition is pagan.  Now if you are one of the Christian types that
believe that Paganism is akin to Satanism, I think its time to throw out all those Easter decorations, don’t give your kids Easter baskets with candy and send them on egg hunts.  All these things are evil.

Christians have always argued for Jesus' virgin birth, but also argue he was descended from David. This overlooks the fact that if virgin born, Jesus' 'father' Joseph, albeit descended from David, would have had no connection with his conception, and his only human connection would have been through/by/with Mary; however she was of the Aaronic line (i.e. she was related to Elizabeth who was of Aaronic descent - Luke l:6, l:36). As Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, but David was of Judah, then Jesus, if virgin born, could therefore not be of Davidic descent and could not therefore be the messiah which demanded Davidic descent. Furthermore, this would contradict all the New Testament statements that Jesus was a descendent of David - Matthew 1:1, 12:23, 15:22, Mark l0:47, Romans l:3, Revelation 5:5.

It has been argued that Jesus could still be of the line of David and was born a virgin for Joseph was Jesus’ adoptive father. But Jesus didn't take on 'David's line' through Joseph being his 'adoptive father' as Rom l: 3 makes quite clear: "descended from David according to the flesh".

So here is the problem; Jesus was either of David's line - but that means he wasn't virgin born (i.e. Joseph having to have been responsible for his conception), or he was virgin born, but that precludes him being of the Davidic line (because only Mary was involved in his humanity and she was not of the Davidic line) - so he couldn't have been the Messiah/Christ as the New Testament teaches.  There is a lie here somewhere for you can’t have it both ways.

The virgin-birth story is only found in two of the twenty-seven New Testament writings, and in Luke, the style of writing indicates the part that relates the story, was written after the following 22 chapters by a different author, and added on to the beginning of Luke afterwards. Furthermore the Catholic Jerusalem Bible admits that Matthew most likely had its virgin birth story added to it also. In fact Luke conflicts sharply with Matthew, e.g. Luke has the birth in the time of the governor Quirinius (Luke 2:2, 3-7), whilst Matthew has it in the time of Herod, but the rule of these two never coincided or overlapped. The Christian "explanation" for this involving the Ramsay inscription regarding Quirinius as dummvir, is futile.

Both Luke and Matthew have other major differences, e.g. Matthew says the family fled from Judea immediately to Egypt after the birth (2:4-l4) to avoid Herod and stayed there until he was dead and even on returning, they avoided Judea in the south. However according to Luke, after the birth, the family calmly went to Jerusalem in Judea and then up to Galilee (2:21-22, 39). It is worthwhile noting that the only census known about (Luke has the journey to Bethlehem because of this) as one in 6 CE. Long after Herod died, and indeed long after Christians claim Jesus lived.

The only reason that Matthew's author seems to have the virgin-birth story is because he misunderstood an O.T statement (Isaiah 7:l4) that he read as messianic (which it isn't) and referring to a virgin birth (which it doesn't). With regard to Isa 7:l4, it is simply the story of Isaiah saying to king Ahaz of Judah that by the time that a young girl had conceived and her baby was born, the present threat from Syria would be over - 7:l4-17. There is NOTHING messianic about it at all.

As, in this, the child was to be called Emmanuel which means 'God with us', but the name 'Jesus' (actually, this is Greek for the Hebrew Jehoshua) means 'Yahweh is salvation', Jesus was therefore not called by the name Emmanuel and did not fulfill this 'prophesy'; however Matthew's author misunderstood this. As Isaiah 8:3-4 says how Isaiah went immediately and impregnated his wife, and the prophesy is again made saying that before the child could even talk, Syria would by smashed by Assyria, it appears the Isaiah 7:l4 prophesy relates to Isaiah's own wife/child and does not have any messianic connotations.

In reality there is nothing miraculous in Isaiah's saying; he is only saying a woman (or in the Greek - a virgin) would conceive. It doesn't take too much to realize what has to happen for a virgin to conceive a child. He doesn't say that a girl who would give birth to the child would still be a virgin after conception. The author of Matthew was using the Septuagint 'LXX' - the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible compiled in the second century BC for the Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora – i.e. living outside Palestine. It is generally accepted that some parts are very good, but in others it is faulty, e.g. Daniel is such a poor translation in the LXX, the Jews wouldn't even use it.

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:l4 for the woman/'virgin' is "almah" and does NOT mean a virgin, but a young woman; it is in the LXX that it is rendered 'virgin' and there is the additional fact that in the Greek the root doesn't even necessarily mean a girl who has not had sex, but 'denotes fullness or the like - fully developed". The word actually used here has nothing to do with the virgin state.

As the Gospel writers used the LXX, they could not have been Palestinian Jews (i.e. the apostles as stated in the Gospels) or they would have obviously used the Hebrew text and not made such errors.

Matthew's author couldn't have been the apostle of that name as he wasn't a Palestinian Jew (nor either an eyewitness as he had to use Mark as a source to write his Gospel). He also makes other errors, e.g. in 27: 9-l0 he says he is quoting Jeremiah but in fact he's quoting Zechariah ll: l2-l3. It is very apparent that the Gospel writers were NOT Palestinian Jews, but either Jewish Christians of the Diaspora or Gentile-Christians. In the case of Mark's author there has to be doubt whether he had even set foot in Palestine in view of the historical, chronological, geographical and theological errors he makes about first century Palestine.

But this is where it continues to be manifestly absurd. Jesus was supposedly a true Jew - a direct descendent of Abraham through David (Matthew 1), the Jewish Messiah, the Son of David (Matthew 21:9), the 'lion of the tribe of Judah' (Rev 5:5) and yet whenever he quoted the Old Testament, according to the Gospels that is, he quoted the GREEK LXX version! Furthermore, in some cases the Hebrew original of the LXX text he is quoting would not support the argument he is making, i.e. because of the LXX's inaccuracies. In Mark 7: l-23 Jesus does this; although it would seem the LXX would support the point Jesus is making to the Pharisees, the Hebrew original in fact would not.

So we are asked to believe that Jesus - a true Hebrew Jew - chose to use the Greek translation of the Old Test. and furthermore, was unaware of the fact that he was using a passage that in reality was faulty and in the original would say something completely different, and be quite inappropriate for his argument, but according to the Gospels, he floored his orthodox Jewish opponents with this - a mistranslation of their own scriptures - and they did not challenge this! The same applies with James (supposedly Jesus' brother and leader of the Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem) in Acts 15 - he uses the LXX to support his argument, although the Hebrew original says something quite different and would not support his argument, and yet all the Jews in the audience didn't comment on this!!! Obviously as the writers of the Gospels & Acts were not Palestinian Hebrew-speaking Jews, they had to use the LXX but didn't realize the errors they were making.

Therefore, the bad news is that firstly the virgin birth is disproved by the Bible itself, and secondly, there is no written eyewitness testimony for Jesus' supposed life.

The situation is adequately summed up by Professor Fuller, Professor of New Testament, Union Theological Seminary, and New York. (A Critical Introduction to the New Testament):

"Of the 27 books of the New Testament only the authentic Pauline epistles are, strictly speaking, the testimony of an apostolic witness. And even Paul...was not a witness of the historical Jesus.

Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing...there is not a single book in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus..." (Page 197).

The Bible presents an interesting picture of their god, i.e. a god who never changes (Malachi 3:6) but actually does frequently change his mind and even regrets what he's done or "repents" (Genesis 6:6,7, Exodus 32:l4, l Samuel l5:35, 2 Samuel 24:l6, l Chronicles 21:l5, Jeremiah l8:8,l0, 26:3,l3,l9, 42:l0, Ezekiel 24:l4, Joel 2:l3, Amos 7:3). Although it is to be noted that Numbers 23:l9 and l Samuel 15:2 say that god never repents.

It states god is "spirit", i.e. non-physical (John 4:24) and yet he is always called 'him' or 'he' as if he had a male body, and then it states that although spirit, he has feet (Psalm l8:9), arms (Jeremiah 27:5), wings (Psalm 36:7), hands (Job 27:ll), eyes (Deuteronomy 8:3), a mouth (Isaiah l:20), ears (2 Chronicles 6:40), nostrils (Exodus l5:8) and legs (Genesis 3:8). He also uses a razor - Isaiah 7:20. He also occasionally roars (Joel 3:l6) and sometimes he even whistles (Isaiah 5:26). Although he has never been seen (John l:l8), he has actually been seen (Isa 6:l), and he even revealed his rear to Moses (Exodus 33:21-22).

The presence of evil

Christians argue that it is through Adam's sin that evil exists and furthermore it is because of his transgression that all humans must die; this is clearly taught by Paul in Rom 5:12,17,18 and is the central theology of Christianity; however, this wholly contradicts 2 Kings 14:6, Ezekiel 18:20, Jeremiah 31:30 that state a person will NOT suffer for an ancestor's wrongdoing (yet this contradicts other biblical verses that clearly state one DOES suffer for an ancestors wrongdoing).

If the god of the Bible is truly a god, then there is a dilemma; for god to be god, he has to be omnipotent, responsible for the creation of everything; this includes evil; if he did not create evil, then he was not wholly creative, and therefore cannot be god. In fact the Bible does actually say god commits evil, e.g. Exodus 32:l4, 2 Sam 24:l6, 1 Chron 21:l5, Jer l8:8, 26:3,l3,l9, Jonah 3:l0. Furthermore he sends lying spirits (l Kings 22:23, 2 Chronicles l8:22) and deliberately deceives people (2 Thessalonians 2:ll). And not only this, he admits to being responsible for the creation of evil and misery - Isaiah 45:7, and that he has deliberately made people so he can destroy them - Proverbs l6:4.

He condemns killing (Exodus 20:l3) but orders it (Exodus 32:27); he encourages wisdom (Proverbs 4:7) but condemns it (l Corinthians l:l9); he protects the righteous (Proverbs 12:21) but does not (Hebrews ll:36-37); he cuts off the wicked (Proverbs l0:27) but does not (Job 21:7-9); he commands respect for parents (Exodus 20:l2) but encourages hatred for them (Luke l6:9); he blesses peace (Matthew 5:9) but brings war (Matthew l0:34, Revelation l9:ll).

It continues by saying god will keep the earth (Ecclesiastes l:4), but will destroy it (2 Peter 3:l0); is invisible and unseen (John l:l8, l Timothy 6:l5-l6) but has been seen (Amos 9:l, Deuteronomy 5:24); he lives in dazzling light (l Timothy 6:l5-l6), but lives in darkness (l Kings 8:l2).

From the statements above it is clear that the writers of the bible had no idea of who their god was and they could not agree as to the attributes that their god should have. All of this points to THERE IS NO GOD!

The Christian life

One example of Christian teaching not being derived from the Bible is how Christians say a great deal of the Bible gives instructions regarding a happy married/family life. In reality, this is not so at all.

As far as "Jesus' teaching about the 'sanctity' of marriage" or even family life, the Gospels say very little on this. Jesus' teaching regarding divorce arises in Matthew l9:3-l2 and Mark l0:2-12; Luke and John omit this passage. In Mark, Jesus speaks to his Jewish audience about a woman divorcing her husband - l0:12 - however no such thing was possible in Palestine ! Here the author of Mark betrays the fact that (i)he was not an eyewitness to the events he writes of (ii)that he was not a first century Palestinian Jew (who obviously would not make such an error) i.e. Christians maintain the author of Mark is the same John Mark mentioned in Acts 12:12. However it is clear just from this that he was a Gentile, writing for a Gentile (Rome ?) audience.

He makes numerous errors in his Gospel about Palestinian life, geography, customs and theology( the other Gospel writers freely adapted their material to emphasis the point they were trying to make. i.e. their narratives are not reliable accounts, but rather editorial compositions/redactions with no basis in historical fact).

Mark also allows no reason for divorce - l0:l2, but the author of Matt does have Jesus saying one reason was acceptable for divorce (ie. unfaithfulness) - ie. l9:9. Presumably by the time Matthew was written, Christians (particularly Gentiles) were finding Jesus' instruction in Mark impossible to follow, so Matthew's author introduced an escape clause. Matt's author omits the statement about women divorcing their husbands as he clearly realized what an error this was (he actually tidies up other errors in Mark). In 1st century Palestine, adultery was not a crime against the woman, but a crime against her husband. Mark is therefore wrong in l0:ll and Matt (in l9:9) therefore corrects this and omits the 'against her'.

The statement that Christian life is the basis of a happy fulfilled family life, is certainly not based on Jesus' supposed teaching. In fact Jesus says very little on this subject. One of the occasions he does refer or rather, allude to family life is when he lists some of the Ten Commandments to the man asking about acquiring eternal life, and repeats the commandment of honoring parents. This appears in Matthew l9:l6-22 where the enquirer is a young man (l9:20) and in Luke l8:l8-23, but here he is a ruler. In Mark (l0:l7-22) he is clearly not 'young' as he recalls his youth in l0:20. This is a typical example of how the Gospels do not agree with each other.

In Mark, Jesus lists off some of the Decalogue (l0 Commandments) including 'Honor your parents', but he also lists 'Do not defraud' (l0:l9) as one of the Commandments. However, this is not one of the Ten Commandments. (These are found in Exodus 20:l-l7, Deuteronomy 5:6-21). Note how Matt (l9:l8) and Luke (l8:20), correct this error in Mark (they correct others also elsewhere in Mark). This again is an example of how Mark's author was not a Jew (who would at least know the l0 Commandments).

Furthermore, it clearly has Jesus saying things that could not have been said, and how the speech cannot be authentic; furthermore, it shows how Matt and Luke's authors freely changed Mark where they saw a mistake; their compositions cannot be reliable accounts either.

There is also the factor that it is somewhat inappropriate for Jesus to preach about the honoring of parents when he also advocates, for example, hating one's family (Luke l4:26), that his purpose was to break up families (Matthew l0:34-36, Luke 12:51-53), not even burying them when they die (Matthew 8:21-22) and deserting one's own family (resulting in a reward) (Luke l8:29-30).

Jesus' teachings

Although Christians maintain Jesus' teaching was very new and revolutionary (e.g. Matt 19:3ff), this is just not so. Most of it is borrowed from the Old Testament and contemporary faiths. In this case, he is simply repeating the strict divorce ruling of Rabbi Shammai. The famous 'Golden Rule' of Jesus in Matt 7:l2 (Do to others as you would wish them to do to you) is also far from unique; this is found in various teachings predating Christianity and even found in its negative form in the Old Testament Apocrypha - Tobit 4:l5. Much of Matthew's 'Sermon on the Mount' (not found in Mark, nor John and broken into pieces and scattered through his Gospel by Luke's author) contains a good deal borrowed from pre-Christian religion, e.g. Matt 5:9 is found in the pre-Christian Book of the Secrets of Enoch (52:ll) and Matthew 5:34-37 is also found there (49:l). In chap. 42 of this pre-Christian book, there are beatitudes which resemble the Gospel ones both in number and form.

In summary, there is nothing unique about Jesus' teachings, the record of his life is historically doubtful through the dishonesty and incompetence of the first Christian evangelists and leaders, and the claims made about Jesus by present-day Christians are false.  Today’s Christians just make up even more fanciful stories to keep followers flowing and they abuse their power to manipulate the weak minded and weak willed into following their false religion.

This is a story that was sent to me from a reader. I like the point to it and it sums up my reasons for all this quite nicely. I especially like how they gave me the resources for their work!!

Vietnam War Hero.

Suppose I told you there was a soldier in the Vietnam War named "Hero Savior" who miraculously calmed storms, healed wounds, conjured food and water out of thin air, and then was blown up by artillery, but appeared again whole and alive three days later, giving instructions to his buddies before flying up into outer space right before their very eyes. Would you believe me? Certainly not. You would ask me to prove it.

So I would give you all the evidence I have. But all I have are some vague war letters by a guy who never really met Hero Savior in person, and a handful of stories written over thirty years later by some guys named Bill, Bob, Carl, and Joe. I don't know for sure who these guys are. I don't even know their last names. There are only unconfirmed rumors that they were or knew some of the war buddies of Hero Savior. They might have written earlier than we think, or later, but no one really knows. No one can find any earlier documentation to confirm their stories, either, or their service during the war, or even find these guys to interview them. So we don't know if they really are who others claim, and we're not even sure these are the guys who actually wrote the stories. You see, the undated pamphlets circulating under their names don't say "by Bill" or "by Bob," but "as told by Bill" and "as told by Bob." Besides all that, we also can't find any record of a Hero Savior serving in the war. He might have been a native guide whose name never made it into official records, but still, none of the historians of the war ever mention him, or his amazing deeds, or even the reports of them that surely would have spread far and wide.

Besides the dubious evidence of these late, uncorroborated, un-sourced, and suspicious stories, the best thing I can give you is that war correspondence I mentioned, some letters by an army sergeant actually from the war, who claims he was a skeptic who changed his mind. But he never met or saw Hero in life, and never mentions any of the miracles that Bob, Bill, Carl, and Joe talk about. In fact, the only thing this sergeant ever mentions is "seeing" Hero after his death, though not "in flesh and blood," but in a "revelation." That's it.

This sergeant also claims the spirit of Hero Savior now enables him and some others to "speak in tongues" and "prophecy" and heal some illnesses, but none of this has been confirmed or observed by anyone else on record, and none of it sounds any different than what thousands of other cults and gurus have claimed. So, too, for some unconfirmed reports that some of these believers, even this army sergeant, endured persecution or even died for believing they "saw Hero in a revelation"--a fact no more incredible than the Buddhists who set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam War, certain they would be reincarnated, or the hundreds of people who voluntarily killed themselves at Jonestown, certain their leader was sent by God.

Okay. I've given you all that evidence. Would you believe me then? I would hope not. No one trusts documents that come decades after the fact by unknown authors, and hardly anyone believes the hundreds of gurus today who claim to see and speak to the spirits of the dead, heal, and predict the future. Every reasonable person expects and requires extensive corroboration by contemporary documents and confirmed eyewitness accounts. Everyone would expect here at least as much evidence as I'd need to prove I owned a nuclear missile, yet the standard required is actually that of proving I own an interstellar spacecraft--for these are clearly very extraordinary claims, and as we saw above, such claims require extraordinary evidence, as much as would be needed, for example, to convince the United Nations that I had an interstellar spacecraft on my lawn. Yet what we have for this Hero Savior doesn't even count as ordinary evidence, much less the extraordinary evidence we really need.

To complete the analogy, many other things would rightly bother us. Little is remarkable about the stories told of Hero Savior, for similar stories apparently have been told of numerous Vietnamese sorcerers and heroes throughout history--and no one believes them, so why should we make an exception for Hero? The documents we have from Bob, Bill, Carl, and Joe have also been tampered with--we've found some cases of forgery and editing in each of their stories by parties unknown, and we aren't sure we've caught it all. Apparently, their stories were used by several different cults to support their causes, and these cults all squabble over the exact details of the right cause, and so tell different stories or interpret the stories differently to serve their own particular agenda. And the earliest version, the one told by Bob, which both Bill and Joe clearly copied, added to, and edited (which Carl might have done, too, perhaps by borrowing loosely from Joe), appears to have been almost entirely constructed out of passages from an ancient Vietnamese poem, arranged and altered to tell a story full of symbolic and moral meaning. These and many other problems plague the evidence, leaving it even more suspect than normal.

This Hero Savior analogy entirely parallels the situation for Jesus. Every reason we would have not to believe these Hero Savior stories applies to the stories of Jesus with all the same force. So if you agree there would be no good reason to believe these Hero Savior stories, you must also agree there is insufficient reason to believe the Jesus Christ stories. Hence I am not a Christian because the evidence is not good enough. For it is no better than the evidence proposed for Hero Savior, and that falls far short of the burden that would have to be met to confirm the very extraordinary claims surrounding him.

For documentation supporting the Hero Savior analogy (as applied to the resurrection of Jesus), see: • Bruce Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament (4th ed., 2005) and The Canon of the New Testament (1997). • Bart Ehrman, The New Testament (3rd ed., 2003), The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (1996), and Lost Christianities (2003). • Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (1998). • Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament (2000). •Charles H. Talbert, What is a Gospel? (1977). See also the Secular Web library on the Resurrection. 
Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus (1995), The Resurrection of Christ (2004), and What Really Happened to Jesus (1996). • Bob Price, Deconstructing Jesus (2000) and The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (2003). • G. A. Wells, The Jesus Legend (1996) and The Jesus Myth (1998). • Earl Doherty, Challenging the Verdict and The Jesus Puzzle (1999).

Want to Convert Me?

Here is another set of questions I think the Christians should answer, if they ever expect me to be a Christian again.

The Hierophant's Proselytizer Questionnaire

Presented to: Christians

By: the Hierophant’s at squirrelsisland.com

Under no circumstances will "The LORD works in mysterious ways" or other arguments in that vein be acceptable. If a question does not apply to your particular sect, explain why.

Thank you!
Ellaister

0. If necessary, use this space to explain any unique beliefs your sect has about the nature of your god, heaven, hell, the Bible, the Holy Spirit/Ghost, Satan, etc.

1. Explain why your god's only son had to die so we can go to magic happy land when we croak.

2. Did everyone who died before Jesus died go to Hell? Justify your answer.

3. If a Catholic, justify the Inquisition and other persecutions of "heretics" throughout the centuries, concentrating on why the Pelagianists, the Priscillianists, and the Manichaeans were persecuted; if a Protestant, justify the witch trials and the way that Protestants constantly hunted down native Americans until there were so few that the government could simply take their land; if a member of an Eastern Orthodox church, justify the persecutions of the Old Believers after the reforms of the seventeenth century.

4. Explain why your sect (whether Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox) pursued, tortured, and killed people who were not Christian.

5. Explain why your sect (whether Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox) pursued, tortured, and killed people who were not members of your particular sect.

6. Explain why I should believe that your god is all-good when the only real information we have about him is the Bible, which clearly describes him as both good and evil. (See Isaiah 30:32, Luke 14:26, Numbers 31:17-18, Matthew 10:34, Amos 3:6, Deuteronomy 18:8, Deuteronomy 20:16, Exodus 20:5, Exodus 32:27, Isaiah 45:7, Psalms 52:5, Luke 22:36, and Jeremiah 18:11 for a small sample of Biblical passages which describe Jehovah as having an evil morality at times).

7. Explain why, when racism is clearly wrong, Jesus was clearly a racist (see Mark 7:25-29). NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe the idea that racism is morally acceptable.

8. Explain why, when discrimination against women is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports the oppression of women. Answering this question entails refuting 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2:11-15. NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that discrimination against women solely on the basis of sex is morally acceptable.

9. Explain why, when slavery is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports slavery. Answering this question entails refuting 1 Peter 2:18. NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that slavery is an acceptable way to run a society.

10. Explain why children should submit to their parents' decisions even when those decisions are clearly evil. Answering this question entails refuting Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Proverbs 13:24, and Hebrews 12:7-8.

11. Explain why, if your god loves us all, more than half of us are going to Hell after we die. Specifically, refute or explain the following words of Christ, as presented in the New Testament: "Many are called but few are chosen," and "Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto salvation, and few there be that find it." If your god loves all of us, couldn't he find a better way?

12. Explain what type of offense could possibly justify eternal, unbearable torture in Hell; if your sect does not believe in Hell, then refute every passage in the Old and New Testaments which describes Hell (such as 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 and Revelation 20:15). Do not exceed 100 words.

13. Explain how your god can be both just and merciful, when these terms apparently contradict each other.

14. Explain why possession by demons and/or other evil spirits was common during the time of Jesus, but hardly mentioned in the Old Testament, and apparently has been explained completely away today by things such as epilepsy and schizophrenia.

15. Explain why, if the personality resides in the soul, things like drugs and brain damage can affect someone's personality.

16. If heaven is a place where everyone is perfectly happy, then explain how I could be happy in heaven if I had loved ones in Hell.

17. What is Heaven like?

18. What is Hell like?

19. Explain why original sin exists. Why should I be eternally tortured for something that a pair of naked fruit-munching simpletons did in a garden over six thousand years ago? If you believe that children are born stained because they were conceived sexually, explain why I would be punished for something my parents did by your merciful and just god. If this does not apply to your sect, explain why.

20. Explain why getting dunked in or sprinkled with water will prevent me from being eternally tortured for the actions of the naked fruit-munching simpletons mentioned in #19.

21. If your god did not want Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, why did he put the tree in the garden of Eden (and at the center, no less)? Was it for shade? If so, why use something so dangerous as a shade tree? If the purpose of the tree was to tempt Adam and Eve, explain why it's OK for your god to engage in a practice that our modern-day courts of law refer to as "entrapment."

22. Explain why sex, potentially one of the most wonderful, beautiful things in human nature, is considered "bad" by your particular sect. If your sect does not consider sex to be "bad," then refute Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7 (particularly verses 1 and 9), Galatians 5:17, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, James 1:14-15, Matthew 24:38, Luke 17:27, and Revelation 14:4.

23. Explain why, if Jesus was perfect, he thought that the end of the world was coming soon, when it has clearly not come yet. See Matthew 16:27-28.

24. Explain why some people (James, Peter, Paul, Thomas, etc.) should get convincing physical proof of miracles, while the rest of us are supposed to take these happenings on faith.

25. Why are the stories of the resurrection inconsistent?

26. If you are a Protestant or a member of an Eastern Orthodox church, explain why you are still using the Catholic Bible, which was formalized by a vote among (supposedly divinely inspired) cardinals and bishops in the fourth century CE, when you disagree with the idea that the Pope, who is higher in the Catholic hierarchy, is divinely inspired; if a Catholic, explain why your church accepts the canonical Bible while rejecting the Apocrypha (do not use the "divinely inspired" argument: Because I am not religious, I will not be able to accept it).

27. If your god is kind and gentle, why do some animals have to eat meat?

28. If your god is kind and gentle, why did he create parasites?

29. If your god wants us to worship him through our own free will, why does he threaten us with Hell? If you have someone threatening you with a punishment, it isn't free will.

30. Why would your god deliberately cause sinners to sin (cf. Romans 9:15-23 and numerous parts of the book of Exodus where Jehovah says, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart."). Are these sinners still responsible for the sins which your god forces them, against their will, to commit? Justify your answer.

31. If Jesus did have to die, why did someone (specifically, Judas) have to be damned in order accomplish the death and resurrection of Jesus? Jesus was at least a volunteer for the cross; I doubt that your god asked Judas if he was willing to go to Hell so that the resurrection could be accomplished.

32. If Judas was willing to go to Hell for humanity (see #31), didn't he make more of a sacrifice than Jesus, who spent only three hours in pain? Shouldn't we then be worshipping Judas?

33. Why should we accept the words of the gospel writers as truth when they are known to be liars? (See Romans 3:7).

34. Do you believe that your god is anti-homosexual? If so, explain why he would create homosexuals in the first place. If not, refute or explain away Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27.

35. Explain why prayer is OK, but spell casting is not, when both amount to the same thing: requesting that a superior supernatural force to intercede in a way that would be impossible according to the normally accepted laws of physics.

36. According to the Gospels, from the Christian standpoint, Jesus was the most important person to ever live. From the Roman standpoint, Jesus was a huge pain in the ass because of his political activities. Explain why nothing was written about his life for over thirty years after his death, and nothing except the Gospels was written until the third century CE.

37. Explain why you believe a person whose life is so poorly documented (see #36) was even ever born.

38. Define the word "Christ," including references to the pagan origins and meaning of the word.

39. Explain why Jesus, who was anti-Gentile (see Mark 7:25-29) and anti-sex (see Luke 14:26 and Matthew 19:12), would want to be anointed with oil in a pagan sexual rite after his death (see your definition for #38).

40. In light of Matthew 10:34, explain why Jesus is called the Prince of Peace.

41. The name "Jesus" has been anglicized. What was the original (Hebrew) name of Jesus? Where did you get this information? This is a bonus question.

42. Why is it that the life of Jesus was so similar to the lives of pagan Christ’s, particularly Herakles, Dionysius, and Asklepios?

43. If your god requires that people believe in him and follow his orders through their own free will, why do Christians push their views on public policy?

44. Explain why being a good Christian requires you to push your beliefs on others. If you do not believe that you have to push your views on others (no matter how much this annoys them), explain why you do not believe this despite the fact that the New Testament seems to suggest that you must do this to get to Heaven (for instance, in Matthew 28:19-20).

45. Explain why spreading the "truth of Christ" requires you to spread lies about other religions, such as the idea that so-called "white witches" worship the Christian devil. (Incidentally, they don't, and this rumor has been persistently spread by Christians since the second century CE).

46. At no point in the four Gospels did Jesus claim to be the son of your god. (He said "son of man" quite frequently, and at one point referred to himself as "a son of god," but that was a common Hebrew expression at the time. Someone who was "a son of god" was a Jew. This reflected the Israelites' belief that they were the chosen people of your god. See Job 1:6). Why, then, do you believe that Jesus was divine? If you don't believe that Jesus was divine, then why do you call yourself a Christian?

47. Given the fact that Jesus did not say anything original (the Golden Rule and the "turn the other cheek" idea were stolen from Buddhism; and the Beatitudes were common in the Jewish devotional literature at the time), why do you see Jesus as such a great thinker/philosopher/ethicist?

48. When Jesus said, "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also," why do you suppose that most Christians fight for their rights? To put it another way, why don't we, as a country of 85% Christians, let the government abuse us?

49. Why are so many Christian holidays on the same day as Pagan holidays? Couldn't the early Church fathers have converted pagans only by appealing to their reason and/or faith if Christianity is the true religion?

50. Explain how your god can be "just and merciful" in light of Exodus 20:5.

51. Do you believe that the Old Testament should be accepted as part of Christian theology? If so, explain how you can worship such a cruel, sadistic asshole (see Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 20:16, Proverbs 20:30, Amos 3:6, Deuteronomy 13:8, Psalms 3:7, Psalms 52:5, etc.); if not, explain how you can believe that Jesus is the promised savior sent by your god without the messianic prophecies and the ruling rights of the line of David, both of which are in the Old Testament in books such as Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel, Psalms, etc. (as opposed to, say, believing that Jesus was an irritating nut wandering around saying things that people didn't like much).

52. Explain why your "just and merciful" god sent bears to kill forty-two children who called his prophet Elisha "baldhead." (See 2 Kings 2:23-24).

53. If prostitution is wrong, why are there so many examples of it in Genesis? (For instance, Gen 19:8, where Lot offers his daughters to a mob so that his guests can avoid gang rape).

54. What is the sin that people committed that is so incredibly bad that your god had to become flesh and die to correct?

55. Are all members of other faiths bad? Are they all damned to Hell? Justify your answer with quotes from the Bible.

56. Are all atheists/agnostics/humanists bad? Are they all damned to Hell? Justify your answer with quotes from the Bible.

57. What was your motive in proselytizing to me?

58. Where is Heaven?

59. Where is Hell?

60. Why don't animals go to heaven or hell when they die? What makes us so special?

61. Why does Satan try to get peoples' souls?

62. Once Satan has someone's soul, what does he do with it?

63. Is your god perfect? Justify your answer.

64. Where does our soul stay while we are alive?

65. Explain how you can believe in Satan when your faith is directly descended from the Jewish faith, when the Jews did not even believe in Satan until they absorbed the Egyptian god Set while they were captives in Egypt.

66. Why do evil people often prosper? Justify your answer.

67. Why do good people so often fail to prosper? Justify your answer.

68. When the end of the world comes, will your god raise our actual bodies, or just our souls? Explain.

69. Explain why your god lets airplanes with sinless infants on board crash.

70. What is sin, exactly?

71. If Jesus is perfect, then justify the parable of the fig tree (Matthew 21:17-19, Mark 11:14-20).

72. Explain why Christians have harassed "white witches" for almost two thousand years now, when the central rule of the “white witches” ethical system is "an it harm no one, do what thou wilt."

73. Explain why Christians (yes, that includes all branches of Christianity) have spread the lie that Jews put Jesus to death when, in actuality, it was the Romans who put Jesus to death. (For a good example of New Testament anti-semetism, see 1 Thessalonians 2:15).

74. Explain why your god created humans as imperfect, then set his standards so high that no one could possibly live up to them, then punishes us for not living up to his standards. Doesn't this also constitute "entrapment?"

75. If we are created in your god's image and likeness (Gen 1:27), how can we also be imperfect?

76. Why was it OK for the ancient Israelites to sacrifice animals to their god, while it is wrong for modern religions to sacrifice animals to their gods? Justify your answer.

77. Why would your god confuse people? (See 1 Sam 7:10 and Gen 11:9). Isn't life confusing enough already?

78. Why would your god cause blindness, deafness, and dumbness? (See Ex 4:11)

79. Why would your god want to damn people by making them believe false things? (See 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12).

80. Should the book of Revelation be taken literally? Explain your answer.

81. Would it be good for men to castrate themselves? Justify your answer, taking Matthew 19:12 into account.

82. What exactly is faith?

83. All of the various Christian sects ignore parts of the Bible, usually because those parts of the Bible are inconvenient. Explain which parts of the Bible your sect ignores, and explain why it is OK to ignore those parts of the Bible.

84. Why did your god allow Satan to do evil things to Job (Job 2:7 etc.)? Wouldn't your god better spend his time punishing unbelievers?

85. If Jesus and his father are one (John 10:30), then why does Jesus have to pray (i.e. Matthew 26:39)?

86. Explain your belief in heaven in light of Job 7:9 and Ecclesiastes 9:5.

87. Christ giving himself up on the cross was a great gesture, true, but wouldn't it have been more sensible for him to continue spreading his message until he died a natural death? Answer this question in light of your answer to question #1.

88. What is your interpretation of the temptation of Christ by Satan in the desert (Matthew 4:5-8, Luke 4:5-9)?

89. In view of Matthew 6:5-6, shouldn't prayer in public schools be discouraged? Support your answer with scripture quotes.

90. Do you feel that the last words of Christ were significant? If so, why do the four gospels attribute three different sentences to Christ as his last? (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"; Luke 23:46: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"; John 19:30: "It is finished").

91. Matthew and Mark say that the last words of Christ were, in Hebrew, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" This has traditionally been translated as, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" However, a more accurate translation would be, "My El, My El, why has thou forsaken me?" El is the name of a specific pagan god. Why would Jesus call out to a pagan god at the moment of his death?

92. A commonly recited litany in many forms of Christianity is "The LORD is my shepherd." (Psalm 23:1). Given the fact that the only reasons that people raise sheep are to rob them of their clothes and to kill them for meat, and the fact that sheep will often follow the shepherd to their destruction, do you think that this is any appropriate image for your god? Justify your answer.

93. Why is the theory of the big bang any more (or less) likely that the idea that your god created the universe? Justify your answer. NOTE: I admit that science has not explained where the original super-condensed particle came from, but no one has ever explained where your god came from, either.

94. If your god is everywhere at the same time, and hell is the absence of (or separation from) your god, how can he be omnipresent?

95. In the Genesis story, your god tells Adam and Eve that the day they eat from the tree of knowledge they will surely die (Gen 2:17). The devil tells them that they will not die, but that their eyes would be opened and they would know the difference between good and evil (Gen 3:5). Wasn't Satan telling the truth here? Is your god a liar? Justify your answer in light of Jeremiah 20:7 and Ezekiel 14:9.

96. If Lucifer is not as powerful as your god, then he cannot possibly be omnipresent. How could he possibly get as many followers as you seem to think he has?

97. The Bible constantly describes your god as male. In view of the fact that your god supposedly created everything, and creation is very much a female function, isn't this at least a little bit absurd? Justify your answer.

98. In light of the Trinity, angels, the Virgin Mary, etc., isn't Christianity polytheistic? If the Trinity is three who are one, why the three names? Justify your answer.

99. Have you read the entire Bible? If not, how can you be devoted enough to try and convert me to a religion that you don't know that much about? Isn't knowing as much as possible about something necessary to understanding it? Isn't understanding something necessary to being completely devoted to it?

100. Why is 2 Kings 19 exactly identical to Isaiah 37?

101. Is Jesus's three days in Hell really an ultimate sacrifice, when more than half of humanity going to spend eternity there (see question #11)?

102. If your sect considers the King James Bible to be the official and/or authoritative translation, justify this in light of the fact that when King James commissioned his translation to be poetic rather than accurate. How can you possibly use an inaccurate translation as your reference for what is/is not the word of your god? If your sect does not use the King James Bible, what translation do they use? Justify the use of that particular translation.

103. Assume that I do not believe that Jesus died for my sins, or that if he did, that necessarily means I will go to your heaven. Name one thing that Jesus ever did for me.

104. Before Mary was knocked up by the Holy Spirit/Ghost, she was never asked for her consent. (She was warned; see Luke 1:31). Mary was also asleep when your god knocked her up; this strongly suggests that he didn't want her to protest. Does this mean that Mary was raped by your god? Do you think rape is wrong? Explain.

105. According to Luke, Mary knew that she was pregnant with the Messiah. Living in the times she lived in, she must have known the scripture; therefore, she must have known that he would have to suffer horribly during his life. Was it moral for Mary to carry her baby to term, or would it have been more humane for her to have an abortion? Explain.

106. If it was foretold that Jesus was to be crucified, and if he knew this, and if he was the son of your god, why did he do everything he could to avoid being crucified? (See, for instance, Matthew 26:39).

107. If the Holy Spirit/Ghost is the father of Jesus (Luke 1:35), then why is the central figure of your trinity called God the Father?

108. Mary and Jehovah were never joined in wedlock. Does it bother you that Jesus is technically a bastard?

109. The original Hebrew word for the Holy Ghost/Spirit includes the idea that the Holy Spirit/Ghost is female in gender. Isn't this rather silly when you consider the fact that the Holy Ghost/Spirit is actually the father of Jesus (Luke 1:35)?

110. Matthew 28:11-15 contains an account of a conspiracy between the Jews and the Roman soldiers to spread the story that the disciples stole the body of Christ. How could Matthew have known about this, since no Jews or Romans would have admitted to it? If it was such a transparent conspiracy that an outsider could have seen it, why didn't the other three gospels mention it? Why didn't the Roman soldiers get into trouble?

111. Jews believe that people are basically good people and can work to overcome their sinful tendencies. Most Christian sects, following the teaching of Psalm 51:5, 1 Kings 8:46, Ezekiel 18:4, Isaiah 59:2, and Psalm 143:2, believe that people are completely debased and hopelessly lost in sin, and that only your god can lift us out of this state if he decides to bestow his gift of grace on us? Isn't this an incredibly negative view of people? Isn't Judaism a more mature faith just for this reason?

112. How do you, as an individual, feel about Psalm 51:5?

113. What does your sect teach about Psalm 51:5 (and 1 Kings 8:46, etc.), predestination, and similar matters?

114. Don't you think that the idea that no matter what we do, we can never be good and righteous without help from your god (Isaiah 64:6) fosters an unnatural and unhealthy dependency on him?

115. Revelation 22:16 says that Jesus is the "offspring of David." Mary was not descended from David, but Joseph was. Doesn't this mean that Jesus wasn't the son of your god at all, but the (mortal and not divine) son of Joseph?

116. What would the correct thing to do be if your god gave you a command that was harmful and/or destructive to you? A common argument, which comes from Paul, states that because clay pots don't complain about what the potter does with them, people shouldn't complain about what their maker (supposedly, your god) does with them, but this completely ignores the vitally important argument that clay pots have no sense of self-awareness and cannot think or feel love, pain, anger, etc. If you want to make this argument, you have to deal with this difference.

117. What (or who) does your sect believe the number 666 represents? Justify your answer.

118. If your god is "just and merciful," why would he take Solomon's kingdom away from Solomon's son while not punishing Solomon, when it was Solomon himself who committed the sin of idolatry? What did Solomon's son do to deserve punishment? (See 1 Kings 11:12).

119. Why is Solomon commonly considered to be the paragon of wisdom by many Christians, when he constantly sinned against your god (1 Kings 11:4-10, etc.)? Personally, if I had a god talking to me, I'd do what he said.

120. Don't you think that an anti-sex position (see question #22) is a rather silly position for your sect to take when the biblical book "Song of Solomon" is a piece of erotic poetry? (For instance, in Song of Solomon 8:2, the bridegroom proposes to "drink of spiced wine of the juice of the pomegranate." The pomegranate was a symbol of the female genitalia, and the "spiced wine" represented menstrual blood).

121. Does it bother you that the cross, supposedly a Christian symbol, was actually stolen from the Egyptians? Why or why not? (The Egyptian cross, the ankh, was a male-female symbol similar in concept to the yin-yang. When the Christians stole the ankh from the Egyptians, they removed the female symbol, or yoni, leaving only the masculine symbol-- a subtle way of reinforcing the idea that women are lesser beings).

122. How do you explain that Christians are twice as likely to have sadomasochistic tendencies as non-christians?

123. What is the incredibly important doctrinal difference that requires the fighting between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland?

124. Even if your god did create the universe, why does he want to be worshipped? Is your god an egomaniac?

125. What are your beliefs concerning Wicca? How much do you know about Wicca?

126. What do you think the word "Satanist" means?

127. How do you explain the fact that the word "blood" occurs over 400 times in the Bible? Isn't this a rather savage way to write a book that is supposed to be at the center of an ethical system?

128. Throughout the Bible, your god commands his followers to wage merciless war on unbelievers (Luke 22:36, Deuteronomy 13:8, Exodus 20:23-25, Deuteronomy 20:16, Matthew 10:34, Numbers 31:17-18, etc). If you are one of his followers, why aren't you out waging merciless war on unbelievers?

129. Numbers 23:21 says that your god "has not seen wickedness in Israel." If this is so, explain why your god burned Israelites for complaining (Num 11:1), sent a plague against them for eating the meat he had given them (Num 11:33), why he burned people for using incense (Num 16:35), why he sent a plague against the Israelites who accused Moses of wrongdoing (Num 16:44-49), and why he sent fiery snakes among the Israelites (Num 21:5). Is your god a liar, or was it just more convenient for him to lie at that particular place and time, or what?

130. What was it that was so bad about eating an apple that death had to result from that act?

131. What was it about humanity's torturing and killing of your god's only son that made your god so happy that he again promised eternal life to everyone who believed in him.

132. How do you explain that Matthew and Luke give different genealogies for Jesus?

133. Matthew says that the prophecy given in Matthew 27:9 was given by Jeremiah. How do you explain that this prophecy was not given by Jeremiah at all, but by Zechariah (in Zech 11:12)?

134. Matthew says (in Matt 2:21) that Jesus dealt in Nazareth so that he could fulfill a prophecy stating that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. Where is this prophecy in the Old Testament?

135. Matthew says that on the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, Jesus was riding on an ass and a colt (Matt 21:7). How do you explain that the original prophecy (Zech 9:9) stated that Jesus would be riding on only one ass, and the other gospel writers place Jesus only on one ass (Mark 11:7, Luke 19:35, and John 12:15)?

136. In Matthew 1:23, Matthew has the angel say that Jesus would be born of a virgin. However, the prophecy that Matthew is referring to, Isaiah 7:14, uses the Hebrew word almah, which simply means a young woman. It has nothing to do with sexual purity; the Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah. How do you explain this?

137. Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Where is the fulfillment of this prophecy in the New Testament?

138. Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Why does no one (not even his parents) call him Immanuel at any point in the New Testament?

139. How many inconsistencies in the Bible, other than those mentioned in this paper, do you know of? Cite chapter and verse for as many as you have room for.

140. If even the contemplation of sinning is a sin (i.e. "sinning in your heart"; see, for example, Matthew 5:28) and if Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert (Matthew 4:5-8, Luke 4:5-9), how can you say that Jesus was without sin?

141. Does your sect believe that the existence of your god can be established through a formal proof? Why or why not?

142. Pick a famous argument for the existence of your god, then criticize that argument. (Assume I mean for you to use the academic definition of criticize).

143. Pick an argument against the existence of your god. If it is not a famous argument, copy it down here. Criticize this argument. (Assume I mean for you to use the academic definition of the word criticize).

144. What does your sect think of the government? Read Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 13. Now what do you think of the government? If necessary, reconcile the two views.

145. What is your definition of the word Christian?

146. Why do you think it is that the ancient Greeks, who had a very liberal sexual morality, had many fewer sex crimes (compared to the population) than the United States, which is 85% Christian?

147. If someone accepts Jesus, and is "saved," but then turns away from Jesus, is that person still saved?

148. Where did your god come from?

149. What are the requirements for being saved? Some sects says that faith alone is enough; others say that faith without works is dead. The Bible supports both these viewpoints. What does your sect think?

150. If I decide I like the answers to the above questions, where can I get in touch with you? (Give name, address, phone and email if available).

151. What is the name of your sect?

152. How is your sect organized?

153. How can I get in touch with a priest (minister, etc.) of your sect?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return your answers to these questions to:

Name: Ellaister

Email: wolfs_baine@hotmail.com

=====================================

This document (c) 1997 by the Heirophant. It may be reproduced in any non-profit form without permission by the author; however, for-profit reproduction requires *written* permission