A few truths on Christmas:

1. Winter festivals have always been apart of the cultures of humanity, and the Christian Christmas is no different; Well, it is different since the Christians wiped out the older holidays that made up their winter festivals and replaced it with Christmas in hope of converting pagans to Christianity. Very under-handed indeed.

2. The deities Ishtar, Sol Invictus and Mithras all shared their “birthdays” on December 25^th and they all had various celebration due to this fact.

3. Saturnalia, a celebration to the Roman deity Saturn, was a feast that was held around the 17^th of December and lasted until the 23^rd or beyond.

4. The celebration of “The birthday of the unconquered sun god”, Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, was held on December 25^th   and celebrated the sun deities of different cultures. This was primarily celebrated in Rome.   

5. The winter Solstice was called Bruma, and was celebrated as the day that the “Sun god proved to be unconquered”, despite the shortening o the daylight hours.

6. Yule is the celebration where Yule logs were lit in honor of Thor, a Norse deity of thunder, with the belief that each spark from the fire would represent new born cattle for the following spring.

7. The Christmas tree:

The Christmas tree is often explained as a Christianization of the ancient pagan idea that the evergreen tree represents a celebration of the renewal of life. In Roman mosaics from what is today Tunisia, showing the mythic triumphant return from India of the Greek god of wine and male fertility, Dionysus (dubbed by some modern scholars as a life-death-rebirth deity), the god carries a tapering coniferous tree. Medieval legends, nevertheless, tended to concentrate more on the miraculous "flowering" of trees at Christmastime. A branch of flowering Glastonbury thorn is still sent annually for the Queen's Christmas table in the United Kingdom. Among early Germanic tribes the Yule tradition was celebrated by sacrificing male animals, and slaves, by suspending them on the branches of trees. According to Adam of Bremen, in Scandinavia the pagan kings sacrificed nine males of each species at the sacred groves every ninth year. According to one legend, Saint Boniface attempted to introduce the idea of trinity to the pagan tribes using the cone-shaped evergreen trees because of their triangular appearance.

The modern customs can trace its origins to 16th century Germany: Ingeborg Weber-Keller (Marburg professor of European ethnology) identified as the earliest reference a Bremen guild chronicle of 1570 which reports how a small fir was decorated with apples, nuts, dates, pretzels and paper flowers, and erected in the guild-house, for the benefit of the guild members' children, who collected the dainties on Christmas day. Another early reference is from Basel, where the Taylor apprentices carried around town a tree decorated with apples and cheese in 1597. During the 17th century, the custom entered family homes. One Strasbourg priest, Johann Konrad Dannerhauer, complains about the custom as distracting from the word of God. By the early 18th century, the custom had become common in towns of the upper Rhineland, but it had not yet spread to rural areas. Wax candles are attested from the late 18th century. The Christmas tree remained confined to the upper Rhineland for a relatively long time. It was regarded as a Protestant custom by the Catholic majority along the lower Rhine, and was spread there only by Prussian officials who were moved there in the wake of the Congress of Vienna in 1815. In the early 19th century, the custom became popular among the nobility and spread to royal courts as far as Russia. Princess Henrietta von Nassau-Weilburg introduced the Christmas tree to Vienna in 1816, and the custom spread across Austria in the following years. In France, the first Christmas tree was introduced in 1840 by the duchess of Orleans.

In Britain, the Christmas tree was introduced by King George III's German Queen Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, but did not spread much beyond the royal family until the royal family Christmas centered round Prince Albert at Osborne House was illustrated in English magazines, and copied in the United States at Christmas 1850 (illustration, left). Such patriotic prints of the British royal family at Christmas celebrations helped popularize the Christmas tree in Britain and among the anglophile American upper class.

 8. The Christmas Ham:

The Christmas Ham is an ancient traditional ingredient in the Scandinavian Christmas celebration (Yule) and remains as important as the Christmas tree.

Before the arrival of Christianity, a pig was sacrificed to the god Freyr at the Yule celebrations and eaten (look up Elven Blót). This tradition of butchering a pig at Christmas continued after the Christianization and survives as several dishes (sausages and bread dipped in pork fat) of which the Christmas ham is the most central.

Among commoners, the Christmas ham was usually saved for the summer, whereas more wealthy people ate it at Christmas.

Actually I don't believe I need to go on, you should get the picture.

So to everyone out there who is not Christian, celebrate your holidays and reclaim them! To those who are Christian, think what this holiday truly means and were it truly comes from. It did not originate with your religion nor does it have anything to do with your myth deity-man Jesus.

Christmas is the product of forced conversion, theft, and lies; perfect for any family!

Happy holidays.

This argument against christianity assumes that the god-myth Jesus was a real man (not a holy/godly figure in any sense). I do not believe such a person ever existed but for this argument let us assume that he did.

10. It is Absurd: This may seem like a re-statement of what this list sets out to show. However, this is misleading. When ever someone comes to you with an extravagant claim the most common reason you may discount the claim is because, to put it curtly, you find it absurd. The reason why the majority of people don't believe in Scientology, reincarnation, Mormonism, Greek gods, etc. is not because they have extensively researched the historicity and veracity of the claims, it is because they don't believe such things happened or could happen in the world. In other words, common sense tells us that when someone claims the absurd almost anything is more likely to be the case ( i.e. they are lying, they are delusional, they are relying on misinformation) then for the absurdity to be real. Men do not miraculously heal the sick, raise the dead, cure the blind, and rise from the grave. The claims of Christianity are prima facie absurd. The burden of proof is on them to prove otherwise.

9. Jesus Has Not Returned: This, also, may seem a soft point. However, for 2000 years—80 generations—a substantial number of every single generation of Christians has whole-heartedly believed that Jesus' return was imminent, meaning that he would return during or shortly there-after their lifetimes. This often included exact dates that, when they came to pass, did not cause the believers to toss their erroneous ideologies aside. This perennial incorrectness goes back to the beginning. One can only understand the earliest Christians—the generation immediately following Jesus' death—as a group who were expecting Jesus to return at any moment ( I Thess 4:15-17). Why did they believe this? They believe simply because, on more than one occasion, Jesus unequivocally said so (Mark 9:1, Matthew 26:64, Mark 13:30). Christians have proven to be resolutely imperturbable and incorrigible to their "saviors" continued failures.

8. God Doesn't Care: Most people believe in some form of god. When asked why they believe in god, the most common answer is taken from the argument from design: the universe is too ordered and beautiful to have arisen without intelligence behind it. Whether or not this is true, this claim has little to do with Christianity. Christianity claims that their god not only created the world but also takes an active part in its management, in our moral choices, and in our fates. In other words; He cares. It is this conception of god that bends credulity to the breaking point. God as essence—that is a "first cause" god or a "higher power" god—is a far less difficult concept than god as being. First of all, according to centuries old Christian dogma, god is immutable. In other words He is a static, non-changing "being" that cannot create new beliefs, make inferences, or adjust desires. Secondly the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent "being" having desires borders on the nonsensical. If all things are known—all that ever was, is, or will be—what would be the point of desiring anything? This is not just a simple word game. Christians consistently claim that god "wants" us to believe in him and follow his commandments. However, they also claim that he knows whether we will do so or not. So, what is the point of Him wanting anything? A god as essence is palatable. A god as being is not only ridiculous but impossible.

7. Other Religions: For most of Christian history the problems caused by other religions were not pressing, if they were considered at all. In the enclosed world of medieval times—when most people would never travel more than 10 miles from their place of birth—people of non-Christian faiths seemed almost phantasms. However, in the modern world the pots have been poured together and the faiths now intermingle on a daily basis. This, of course, brings religious problems to the forefront. But it also should force Christians (and other faiths) to make a few realizations: first, that faiths are conveyed primarily genealogically—from parents to children—as opposed to through dialectical, later-life conversion. We can never reasonably expect everyone to become Christian. This is not because Christianity is right or wrong, but because faiths carry their own momentum that is not derived from the truth or falsity of the beliefs. Secondly, that people of other faiths can live saintly lives of intense moral rectitude that rivals any Christian saint. And third, that people are exceptionally good at perpetuating, believing in, and dying for faiths that are manifestly false (as Christians believe). In other words, as Christians must unhesitatingly accept, people are very good at making up fantastic stories about events and figures in the past and then believing in them with fervor. If Christianity was the only belief system in the world that made extravagant claims, and if its claims resembled none others in the world, then we would have more reason to believe it to be true. However, this is obviously not so. In fact, often the claims of Christianity are hopelessly derivative. Healing and resurrecting god-men have been the objects of stories for millennia (these god-men were particularly common in the Hellenized world of post-Maccabean Palestine. i.e. Apollonius of Tyana). Also, in addition to sharing many strong features with Mithraism and Zoroastrianism, many early Christians found much distaste with the idea of the virgin birth, finding it too pagan. Plutarch writes in Convivial Disputations," The fact of the intercourse of a male god with a mortal woman is conceded by all."

6. There is No Soul: The inexcusable flippancy of the term "soul" abounds. And, although most people believe in it and freely use the term, they have no idea what it means. The evidence for physicalism—that the mind is the brain—has become nothing less than overwhelming. This evidence exists not only in the highest levels of research—where scientists can now point to, and manipulate, the exact location in our grey matter where essential characteristics lie—but it exists in the everyday lives of millions of people who take psychotropic drugs on a daily basis. These users will tell you drugs such as Prozac, lithium, Paxil and Ritalin don't just give them a slight pick-me-up; they make them an entirely different person. Some of them must wonder if their "soul" is depressed or happy, anxiety filled or laid-back. Only by ignoring 200 years of medical progress can we believe that we simply inhabit our bodies—dropping by on the way to something better. It isn't "I have a brain," it's "I am a brain."

5. Evil: The tried and true returns. If you are a Christian you are probably rolling your eyes because you've heard it time and again. Why don't we atheists understand that: [A] God works in mysterious ways, [B] God gave us free will which allows us to commit evil and good, [C] the world is in a fallen state, and [D] Satan represents a real presence in the world? No, we don't understand because: [A] clearly God doesn't work in ways that are too mysterious for you to be unhesitant in calling something "He" did "good" and asking him to do "good" things in the world on your behalf. You can either use moral qualifiers to describe God's actions or you cannot; you can't have it both ways. [B] Not only does this point not jibe with argument "A" (if God works in mysterious ways we couldn't claim that free will is a "good") it is difficult to see how, if free will is good, the using of free will to take away another's free will ( i.e. murder) is not intensely problematic in God's eyes. Hitler used his free will to take away the free will of 10 million others. Thus, if, in 1919, God flipped the "painter" switch in Hitler's mind, the result would have greatly added to the net amount of freedom in the world. [C] This is a non-starter if the Old Testament is not accurate but, even if it is, a God who holds great-great-great… grandchildren responsible for their ancestor's actions does not pass even the bare minimum test of human morality. Without a defined concept of desert, morality is a completely empty concept. It seems God is playing fast and loose on this count. [D] If this objection is forwarded seriously, then it is little more than ditheism (dual theism). Otherwise, in the Christian universe the only power Satan has is that which God lets him have. If you believe in the traditional Christian conception of God you must believe that, ultimately, everything is His fault. Everything! This is a world where rocks fall out of the sky onto innocent people and babies can be eaten by dingoes.

4. The Bible is Not Consistent: Many, if not most, Christians would say that the Bible is inerrant. Well, they are wrong. Saying so doesn't require an appeal to history, science, and/or archaeology; it only requires a demonstration that the Bible is incoherent—that is, it contains claims that cannot be true simultaneously. In such instances either one claim is false or they are both false—there is no other possibility. If you wish to throw rationality out the window and claim that a contradiction is possible, then you can just take your ball and go home; you are now playing a game that you can ask no one else to play with you. One example of many: Matthew (1:1-16) claims that there are 27 generations between David and Jesus, Luke (3:23-38) claims 41 generations. These cannot be reconciled. The Bible is not inerrant.

3. Christianity is not the Religion that Jesus Preached: The story of Christianity is the story of the beliefs that Jesus professed developing into the religion that professes Jesus. To put it another way: dogma. It is pure folly to believe that Simon Peter, Thomas, Mary Magdalene etc. All followed Jesus because, when he died, they would be able to absolve their sins by believing in him. This later theological construction was created by believers who were searching for a meaning to the seemingly pointless execution of their leader and teacher. Those who originally followed Jesus did so because of his life—because he was an exemplary teacher who radically reinterpreted the Law in favor of inclusion rather than exclusion. Those who now follow Jesus do so because of his death. They turn a man's poignant teachings—his life's work—into a secondary and near meaningless preface to the panacea of his death. We primarily have Paul and John the evangelist (two people who did not know Jesus in his life) to thank for this inexcusable dumbing-down of Jesus' life. With Paul and John's help, what Christianity would become is embodied in the Nicene Creed. Take a look at it. Dogmatic fiat has expurgated everything the man stood for.

2. The Gospels are not Historically Reliable: We need not demonstrate Biblical errors solely through appeals to internal consistency. Doing so only tells us that something in the "word of God" is awry—but not necessarily which word is wrong. In order to perform Biblical analysis that actually broadens our view of what is true and false in the "good" book we need to bring in external sources. From these external sources we learn that the Bible makes claims that cannot stand up to even the most cursory historical examination. In the Gospel of Luke the story is told of a census enacted by the governor Quirinius (Luke 2:1-7). The census, according to Luke, required everyone to return to their ancestral homes to be counted. Thus Joseph, being in the line of David, travels from Nazareth to Bethlehem where—after unadvisedly traveling ninety miles with a woman in the final days of pregnancy—Mary gives birth. The Romans, being meticulous record keepers, did take censuses. However, because of this meticulous record keeping, we know that the only census conducted during Quirinius' governorship took place in C.E. 6-7—a time over ten years after Herod was king of Judea (Luke claims they are contemporaries). However, aside from this fact we can use common sense to realize that the story is totally unbelievable. Luke invents an empire-wide migration for a simple tax registration: millions of people traveling hundreds or thousands of miles to go to their ancestral home of a millennium past (David predates Joseph by approx. 1000 years) in order to sign a simple form. Imagine this happening today. Imagine the cataclysmic disruption of societies resulting from the masses of people crossing boarders and oceans in order to sign a form. This, of course, supposes you could even find your ancestral home of a millennium past. No, something is wrong here and it isn't that the Romans liked to periodically enact sadistically cumbersome legislation. No, I think our evangelist needs to go back to history class. But wait…

1. The Gospels are not History: This may seem like a paltry excuse for the number one spot on a list that makes such a grandiose claim. This reason, however, is the lynch pin. The historicity of the Gospels represents the most crucial element of Christianity—for either its truth or falsity. Christianity claims a specific historical relationship between God and man. If that relationship is historically inaccurate then Christianity is wrong. Or, as Paul memorably put it, "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." (1 Cor. 15:14).
As we've seen the Bible is often contradictory and the Gospels are not historically accurate. However, the Christian mistake is compounded by believing that the Gospels are even history—that is that they were written or designed to accurately portray historical truths. The evangelists did not intend their writings to be taken as historical truths. If they could see modern Christianity they would be shocked at the millions of Christians interpreting their writings as historically authoritative. Please don't misinterpret what I am saying. I am not saying the Gospels were entirely made up. I am saying that they were primarily written as myths that forego historical truths (but use many of them) in favor of conveying larger, theological truths that the evangelists believed about Jesus of Nazareth.
The evangelists poured through the Old Testament and found "prophecies" that predicted Jesus' life. After all, there had to be grander reasons why their great teacher had been executed like a common criminal. In the pages of Jewish scripture they found those reasons. They then consciously wrote their gospels in order to retroactively fulfill prophecy. That this happens at all is beyond dispute. Sometimes, while stumbling over themselves to "fulfill" prophecy, they get it horribly wrong: Mark ( 1:1-3), using shoddy sources, begins his gospel with "prophecy" that mistakenly conflates two Old Testament versus; Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1. Matthew (1:20-23) uses a mistranslated Old Testament, in which the Hebrew almah, (meaning "young woman") was changed to the Greek parthenos (meaning a physical virgin), as a justification for the immaculate conception. Matthew ( 21:1-7) so wants to fulfill a "prophecy" from another shoddy source that has combined Isaiah 62:11 and Zachariah 9:9, that he misinterprets the passage—which only speaks of one animal (with subsequent qualifiers)—and has Jesus ride into Jerusalem, in some bizarre act of balance, on two animals. (The other gospel writers are quick to correct this grievous error.) Thus, we begin to see that not only is it a manifest absurdity to believe the Gospels are history; it becomes tenuous to believe they are even accurate.
Each evangelist had his own interpretation. The theology of the evangelists—and specifically their Christology (the nature of Christ)—developed into more grandiose claims as Jesus' life moved further into the past. If you wish to discover this for yourself, I advise you to successively read the Gospel of Mark (almost universally agreed to be the earliest Gospel written between C.E. 65-70) and the Gospel of John (agreed to be the latest Gospel written between C.E. 90-100) in a single sitting. Ask yourself this question; are they telling the same story? In Mark's Gospel, Jesus largely speaks in parables and evasive third-person proclamations about someone called "the Son of Man." In John's Gospel, Jesus tells no parables and spends most of the time talking about himself, his godly status, and what the future will bring.
So, here is a brief object lesson in the development of the concept of Jesus as God. We will only look at the beginning and the end; Jesus' birth and death. First the birth narratives; In Mark there are none. Jesus is chosen at his baptism. Matthew and Luke (written c. 80-90) go back to his birth and tell incompatible stories of Jesus' miraculous birth to a virgin. They further cement and establish the status of Jesus. John, feeling the others weren't good enough, decides to go back to the beginning of time (John 1:1 "In the beginning was the word…") to establish the nature of Jesus. The later gospels create theological concepts that were not present in the earliest sources.
Likewise, the death of Jesus changes dramatically throughout the Gospels. The changes (of which there are many more than these) can be summed up in the three different accounts of the last words of Jesus: Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46 "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me." Luke 23:46 "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." John 19:30 "It is finished." The development of Christianity is encapsulated in the move from the utterance of pain, ignorance, non-acceptance, and suffering seen in Mark and Matthew to the statement of acceptance, foreknowledge, and peace that is seen in John. These are incompatible interpretations of Jesus. The character in the gospels may have the same name but it is not the same man hanging on the cross (if such a man existed).
The Gospels are guides to belief written by believers. This is a horribly unreliable way to learn accurate information. When you already believe "The Truth," distortions that you consciously engage in - that you see as promoting "The Truth" - are not seen as lies, but rather, as efficacious ways of getting "The Truth" to the hearts of readers. We don't know why the evangelists believed as they did, but in the gospels they don't give us the reasons they believe, they give us reasons to believe; an entirely different matter. But we do KNOW they invented things. We KNOW that the theological conception of Jesus changed as the believers grew more distant from his life. What Christians believe most fervently (i.e. Jesus being God, appearing after he died, and dying for the sins of the world) are concepts that were developed later. They are concepts that did not exist in the earliest generations of Christian belief. They certainly did not exist when Jesus was alive.
Early Christians invented myths to overcome the "stumbling-block" (1 Cor. 1:23) of the cross. Paul knew that, for the Jews and Gentile Greeks, the execution of Jesus represented a major problem. The "king of the Jews" was not supposed to be an executed lowly peasant. The "savior of mankind" was not a common criminal. Over time, theological concepts developed that explained this hang-up. Thus, an executed traitor was turned into a victorious Messiah.
Conclusion: These are some of the reasons that people like me don't believe. Faith, or lack of it, has nothing to do with it. While none of these reasons are entirely convincing by itself, when taken together they create a strong case for the falsity of Christianity—if not an open-and-shut case. If you are a Christian and you are reading this (which I highly doubt) and if you cannot respond to each of these objections with evidence and coherent argumentation—as opposed to with faith and shouting—then you need to start shopping for a new religion.

Recently I was sent a link to a Hebraic Christian web-site that had a “challenge” for all those who were Atheists (questions are in blue my answers are in black):

The questions that The Refiner's Fire, would like to pose are as follows:

• Why is it that atheists celebrate Christmas and Easter since both of these holidays are to honor Yeshua (Jesus)? Why are most Americans (including the atheists) going into debt to buy "Christmas" presents? Why not totally ignore this holiday by going to work and carrying on, as usual? Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to join in the festivities when you clearly abhor their very reason for being?

My answer: The answer to this is quiet simple, it no longer means what  the Christians who stole the holiday from the older holidays (Saturnalia, Natalis Solis Invicti, and Yule) wanted it to mean. All this holiday means to most of the people is a time for family to get together, gifts to be exchanged, and time to be shared by those you care about.
I have never celebrated this holiday in the Christian sense and neither has my Christian mother, who feels that it is not a Christian holiday due to its pagan origins but a good holiday for family.
Did you know that in Japan the holiday is celebrated but only by families and couples and there are no days off, although they do get a "winter vacation" period to be with family and to take a break from work.
Anyone who works regularly knows that you can use all the breaks and vacations you can get.

·          Why is it that atheists participate in Halloween, a pagan "holiday" that glorifies ghosts, witches, goblins, and grotesque creatures - and whose origins are steeped in the blood of human sacrifices?

My answer: I would like to know where human sacrifice occurs in the ancient holidays of Samhain, the Norse Elven Blót, or All Saints Day (in which our modern version of Halloween derives)? The Catholic Church put in place the celebration of All Saints Day in an attempt to stamp out the Pagan holidays that took place on that same day but there are no solid accounts of human ritual sacrifices or even animal sacrifices taking place during Samhain or Elven Blót for these two rituals were held in the utmost secrecy, so how would you know?
As to why do people participate in it? It is fun. Who doesn't want free candy or to dress up? It no longer carries its original meanings with it (much like Christmas) and now it is mainly a time for children to play dress up and receive treats. What is wrong with that? If you have a problem with it then you should truly do as the Jehovah Witnesses do and not celebrate any holidays (including anniversaries and birthdays).

• Most of the Western World takes their "day of rest" on Saturdays and Sundays. As atheists, you should know that Saturday - the seventh day - is when Yahweh, our Creator - commanded us to rest!

My answer: For this one I would like to answer in the following way:  The early industrial period in Europe saw a six-day work week with only Sunday off, but some workers had no days off at all. Only the labor and workers rights movements and campaigns by trade unionists in the nineteenth century saw a five day work week introduced as Saturday became a day of rest and relaxation. This movement began in England.
As you can see this is hardly a "Christian" matter at all. If you really want to get technical, why is Saturday named for the Roman god Saturn and why does the Jewish/Christian Sabbath fall on a day that is named for a "pagan" god?
I take these days off (when I can) for I need some days off from work. No one wants to be stuck at work all the time (although while on a US Navy Ship you don't get days off while at sea). I work most weekends put when I can get a day off I will not argue and I will take it much like a sick day.

I then asked my own questions:

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

2.       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.

3.       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."

4.       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).

5.       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.

6.       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.

7.       If Judas was willing to go to Hell for humanity (see #6), didn't he make more of a sacrifice than Jesus, who spent only three hours in pain? Shouldn't we then be worshiping Judas?

8.       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.

9.       Why is it that the life of Jesus was so similar to the lives of pagan Christ’s, particularly Herakles, Dionysius, and Asklepios, whose stories are much older than that of your saviors?

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

Apparently (by “miracle” or sheer convenience) These exact questions have been asked “numerous” times by Atheists and the answer were on the web-site. Below is the question (blue print), their “answer” (maroon print), then my rebuttal (black print):

"1. Do you people even know what an atheist is? An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, simple as that!

Their response: Most atheists are people who not only don't believe in God; they are people who don't like being told what to do, period. They view God as someone who is trying to infringe on their "right" to do whatever they wish - and they figure that, if they dimply "don't believe" that makes their belief true."
 
That is an interesting take on things. What would you say to atheists in the military? Being in the military means being told what to do 24/7, with usually no questions asked.
I would like to see the statistics that lead you to believe that "Most atheists are people who do not believe in god; they are people who don't like being told what to do, period." I am mainly speaking about in the statement in bold.
 
"2. Explain how your god can be both just and merciful, when these terms apparently contradict each other?

Their response: Pretend you have a small child who is about to step onto a freeway full of oncoming traffic. When you realize your kid is going to die in a few seconds, the first thing you do is to yell, "Johnny, STOP!" and then jerk him up by the scruff of his neck and set him back onto the sidewalk for a good scolding or even a slap on the rear end in order to make the seriousness of this situation "sink in". Then you hug him because you want him to know you love him....

God continuously tried to warn Man about the dangers of "good and evil" - yet man insisted on exploring his options....."

I will ignore the fact that you did not answer the question at all in this story and focus on your story in general.
So, according to this story of yours, if you see the child attempting to cross into the busy freeway again you will let him because he was warned and it is his choice to do so? You find this merciful and just?
 
"3. 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?

Their response: When it comes right down to it, we're ALL a bunch of "simpletons" because, without Torah to guide us, we would have no blueprint for moral living. (Torah consists of the first five books of the Bible wherein God laid down some rules - without which we would all perish. The state of the world today amply evidences what happens when MAN runs amok....) So, what has changed since the Garden of Eden? Has Man gotten any wiser yet? If so, how come he's STILL disobeying God and killing his fellow Man, and raping, murdering, slandering, etc?"
 
You did not answer the question.
You also state (several times) that the state the world is in today is the direct cause of humanity steering away from Christianity. I wonder, do you believe it was better back in the Christian Rome, England, etc? Did the times look any better? Was the standard of living better? Were there less wars?
 
"4. 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?

Their response: Where did you get the idea that children are stained because they were born sexually? That notion is certainly NOT in the Bible....God gave us sex for marriage, pleasure, intimacy and procreation (Genesis 2:24) - and along with that He also gave us some restrictions because he knew Man would end up defiling sex:

Hebrews 13: 4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous".

For your information, the Hebraic Faith is not a "sect" - it is living according to God's commands."
 
The first question you actually answered! We are not talking about the "Hebraic faith" for it would fall under Judaism not Christianity. There are many different sects of Christianity, all that hold different beliefs. This question was geared to ask what you believe regarding this rule, one way or the other.
It is an original sin question for there are some sects of Christianity that believe that the child is not born sinless for having sex is a sin.
 
"5. 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"?

Their response: You'll have to ask God why He put the Tree in the center of the Garden. He's God; He can do whatever He wants. Can you answer why George Washington chopped down the cherry tree? Or why Hitler hated Jews? Or why the Mayan civilization simply disappeared off the face of the earth? Unless you were there to actually ask questions and to see with your own eyes, you can't answer "yes" to any of those questions. And no one can answer for God....The thing is, He said "don't do", and the proper response would have been to refrain from doing whatever He said. HE is, after all, the One who created us; not the other way around.

As far as your "entrapment" theory, that's a little far-fetched. If you read the warning, or are told not to climb the fence around an electrical sub-station because, once inside, you'll run the risk of being electrocuted, do you consider that "entrapment"? Or will you use your God-given brain to stay away? If you're warned and you choose to ignore that warning and you end up dying, that's plain stupidity on your part; not "entrapment". Adam and Eve were stupid for disobeying something their Creator - one who even "walked with them in the cool of the Garden" - warned them against."
 
As to George Washington some historians believe Weems invented or greatly embellished the dialog, while others build Weems credibility by citing the facts that he did interview older people who knew young Washington, but the point is it is not known whether this story is fact or fiction. Read Mein Kampf  if you are confused as to why Hitler hated the Jewish people and felt they had to be exterminated. That question has already been answered years ago. As for the Mayans, there are two different categories of theories: the Non-ecological theories and the Ecological theories. You may look up these theories yourself and attempt to decipher the truth yourself if you wish. Science and Archeology will give us an answer eventually.
As for entrapment, in jurisprudence, entrapment is a legal defense by which a defendant may argue that he or she should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts.
By the Christian god placing the tree in an easily accessible area, he entrapped Adam and Eve. That is entrapment, so now you can answer whether placing the tree in and easily accessible area for the sole purpose of tempting them to disobey him (for you bible states that he did know, for he knows all) was ok or not.
 
 
"6. 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)?

Their response: If you read any part of our website, you'd know we are Messianic, not Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox, nor even Protestant. Therefore, your question is rendered moot....As do most atheists who write to The Refiner's Fire, you've obviously copied and pasted questions someone else has written. This proves you haven't exercised your "atheistic" right to THINK for yourself; much less, READ the Bible so you can come up with your OWN logical conclusions...."
 
I did not read you site, I have no desire to. I came across the link to the questions you posed from a forum and decided to answer them. Since you wanted to point this out and yet still not answer the question but accuse me (or other atheists since you did not have the common courtesy to answer my questions yourself) I will pose it to you this way: as a follower of Messianic Judaism (a SECT in Christianity), why do you follow a bible that has be edited, re-edited, mistranslated, has had books added, has had books taken away, and has evidence of forgery in it (most of these things have been done during the votes mentioned above) could be true in any sense?
 
"7. 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.

Their response: God doesn't send anyone to hell; we send ourselves to hell. God has given us every chance to accept Him, and He has given us WRITTEN information as to what happens after we die. It's OUR choice!
Yahweh has done everything possible to give us chance after chance after chance, yet we ALWAYS managed to blow it. The FINAL chance He gave us was when He sent us an aspect of Himself who taught us how to worship Him properly, how to treat each other in a civilized manner, and then to offer HIMSELF as the Final Sin Sacrifice. This aspect of God was called Yeshua (Hebrew = "Salvation"). He was foreshadowed throughout the entire "Old Testament" and He did exactly what He came to do. Yet people are too blind, too proud, too stubborn and too dense to even bother to investigate what He was all about. It's much easier to ignore, or make fun of Him and of those who believe in Him.....
God has always had only our best interests at heart - like ANY decent parent. Parents have to have rules for their kids, or else their kids will end up destroying themselves and others. Do we not teach our toddlers that stoves are hot? That streets are dangerous? That eating dirt will make them sick? Any parent who loves their kid will teach that child what's good and what's bad. Why should God be any different? Without His teachings, we wouldn't even know good from bad! And you want to condemn Him for this?"
 
This god is condemned for the fact that it would send innocents to "eternal torment" for simple unbelief due to lack of evidence. This is much different than a parent's teachings. One can believe in their parents for they see their parents, they hear their parents, they know their parents, etc. If a child was denied any contact with their parents while they were growing up, and then when they reach an age of understanding they are given a book that has certain rules written in it and many stories in it that seem more of fiction than fact but then they are told that their parents wrote that book for them and they are to believe this and do everything that this book (even though it contradicts itself) says but most importantly they must believe that their parents wrote it for them and believe that their parents are still out there and they care and love them or they will be tortured for eternity when they die, what do you suppose the reaction would be?
The concept of Hell (and yes, only your god can send people there. It is by human beings choices but you god still created it and will send people there.) is flawed and used only to scare others into following.
 
"8. If Jesus did had 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?

Their response: Judas didn't have to be dammed; he damned himself by being greedy and turning his Teacher over to the authorities for thirty pieces of silver. God uses our "carnal natures" (our inner drives and desires that we choose to cater to) for His own glory. He used Hitler's Holocaust to bring about two major end times prophecies: Israel became a nation again in 1948 in one day, exactly as foretold. (Also see Israel and Jerusalem: The Road to Armageddon)

Ezekiel 37: 21 "Thus says the Lord God: ' Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land.""
 
Your god created Judas for the purpose of betraying Jesus. He knew, as he was creating Judas, that Judas would betray Jesus. Therefore Judas was damned to Hell the minute he was born, even before he was born! It was not Judas' choice for this is why he was created. If this is not so then how could your god know if Judas would betray Jesus?
 
"9. If Judas was willing to go to Hell for humanity, didn't he make more of a sacrifice than Jesus, who spent only three hours in pain? Shouldn't we then be worshipping Judas??

Their response: Yeshua spent a whole lot more than three hours in pain! He was whipped, flogged, spat upon, and beaten within an inch of His life for hours on end, before He ever went to the cross - where He spent another SIX HOURS in agony! (Your moronic comment shows you haven't actually read the Bible - and we suggest you read the Gospels for yourself instead of getting your ideas from someone who knows no more than you do!) And then read the "Old Testament" - specifically the Book of Leviticus - which shows how God always required blood sacrifices to atone for sin. That blood had to come from a completely perfect, unblemished animal. Yeshua was that perfect, unblemished FINAL Sin Sacrifice. He was, as the Bible clearly tells us, God Incarnate; whereas Judas was a mere, sinful, conniving man."
 
You say your god demanded blood sacrifices to atone for sin? Doesn't this seem barbaric and makes no more sense than other people making sacrifices to their gods for atonement?
Does the bible give an exact hour/day count of how long his suffering lasted? Where are these verses?
 
"10. 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 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?

Their response: It never ceases to amaze us how atheists who haven't got a clue about God or the Bible think they have believers over a barrel! The answer to your supposedly "unanswerable question" is: In Biblical times when only the elite could read or write, most historical facts were passed down orally - and you can bet that His story was passed down orally before being put to writing!"
 
I will not put the rest of the "answer" here for it is too long and unnecessary. You say that this is a truth? Why then, didn't the Romans even mention his death? The Romans wrote everything down, they chronicled every thing that came across their scope(and it has been said that their era was the best recorded era in history), and yet they missed the death of a god? Even the death of a man would have sufficed (in which logs where kept).
 
"11. Why is it that the life of Jesus was so similar to the lives of pagan Christ’s, particularly Herakles, Dionysius, and Asklepios, whose stories are much older than that of your savior's?

Their response: Satan has always and is still is busy sending forth deceit. The difference between the above-mentioned pagans and Yeshua is that Yahweh's SON was sent for a reason, and He impacted the world to the point where he is STILL the most influential entity who ever lived. Yeshua's impact resonates into eternity, whereas hardly anyone recognizes the names of "Herakles, Dionysius, and Asklepios"...."
 
According the traditions and stories of the above pagan "Christ's" they were all sent for a purpose as well. You say he is the most influential? Then is it hard to believe that, say, Herakles (or the Greek Hercules) or Dionysius or Asklepios or Mithras or Attis or Osiris could have influenced the Jesus story since they were the most influential entities that had ever lived during the time of the Jesus myth? I find it hard to believe that anyone would ignore these stories, especially the Osiris-Dionysius stories, and still claim the Jesus story as "original".
 
"12. Explain why your "just and merciful" god sent bears to kill forty-two children who called his prophet Elisha "bald head." (See 2 Kings 2:23-24).

Their response: First of all, if you KNEW your Bible, you could see they were not young children; they were a gang of snotty youths (teenagers) who were jeering the Prophet Elisha. Kids have always been cruel and today's youths are still as evil as they always were - and getting worse (as the Bible has ALSO prophesied...). There are documented incidences where some kids have killed their parents because they refused to take "no" for an answer. In Biblical times BEFORE Yeshua came to die as our Final Sin Sacrifice, God ordered belligerent youths to be stoned! That is how serious He is about training children up properly....

Secondly, have you ever read ALL of 2 Kings 2? If not, then we suggest you educate yourself before spouting off something you know nothing about. If you had read from the beginning of this chapter, you would see that earlier that day, Elisha lost his master, Elijah, when God took him to heaven (he was the second person we know of to be "raptured"! See also Genesis 5:24.) Bottom line: Elisha had a really bad day and when those snotty youths jeered him, he lashed out. Did GOD kill the kids? No - Elisha called the curse down on them IN THE NAME OF THE LORD...The spoken word can be a very dangerous thing - and in those days prophets were able to accomplish many things with just a spoken word!"
 
How did the prophets of that time accomplish what they did? Does it not say that through gods power they accomplish their deeds? Therefore, Elisha called a curse upon the children, and then your god carried out the curse (meaning your god sent the bears).
A teen is still a child and they are still young, therefore they are young children in my eyes.
The main point here is that your god had bears kill children for making fun of his prophet. While the prophet still called upon god to curse them and kill them your god still obliged. Do you feel this was just? They throw out insults and then they are murdered? That doesn't even fall under the law at the times: Eye for an Eye. Then again your god is just and merciful, so this little blemish on his record should be over looked.

These questions were never answered, I was told that all I did was reword the original questions (even though all but one went unanswered) to try to “trick” them. Trick them into what exactly, I have no clue.

If you ever confront a Christian like this do not expect to receive an answer out of them. They will dance around the question with bible versus and condemn you to their Hell but they will not answer the questions directed at them. Why, you might ask? Because they can’t.

Jesus promised his followers in no uncertain terms that he would soon return in glory and vindication. He vowed to redeem their suffering and to establish the Kingdom of God* on earth.. To heighten their expectations he assured his followers that most of them would live to see all of this come to pass. His failure to do so places Christians on the horns of a serious dilemma by exposing him as a false prophet.

Jesus’ hollow promises work to seriously undermine his credibility. If the credibility of Jesus is undermined, so is that of the church. If, on the other hand, it is argued that the gospels and Paul reported incorrectly, does that not seriously undermine the credibility of the New Testament? Even if one were to argue that God knowingly inspired the contradictions, errors and broken promises in the New Testament, as have some, why should anyone believe any of its teachings if so much of it could be false?

In Matthew 7:15, the famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warns his listeners to, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” A "false prophet" is defined in Deuteronomy 18:21-22 where it reads: "And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously. Thou shalt not be afraid of him". Did Jesus ever predict something which didn't happen? The answer is a resounding yes. He in fact told several bald-faced lies.

In Matthew 7:19 we read, “Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire". Here Jesus condemns false prophets to hell. Since he himself qualifies as a false prophet isn't he saying that he should go to hell?

The following quotes confirm that Jesus deliberately lied to his followers thereby leading them into false expectations.

Matthew 10:23 - When giving instructions to his apostles as to just how they are to go about spreading his message Jesus says,." . . . for truly I say unto you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes."

Matthew 16:28 - Jesus says to his disciples, "There are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Matthew 24:33-34 - After prophesying a wide assortment of events including the second coming, Jesus said to his disciples, " . . . when you shall see all these things, know that it (the 2nd coming) is near, even at the door. This generation shall not pass till these things be fulfilled." He was obviously referring to the contemporary generation.

Matthew 26:64 - When brought before Caiaphas, the Chief Priest, Jesus said to him, "I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man . . . coming on the clouds of heaven." According to this the second coming was to happen during Caiaphas' lifetime.

Mark 9:1 - Jesus said to the people and to his disciples, ”Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Luke 21:27-28 -Jesus said to the congregation, “And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”

Luke 21:32 - Jesus said, again to the congregation, “This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.”

John 5:47 - Jesus says, "If you do not believe his [Moses'] writings, how will you believe my words?" To Christians Moses' writings are the five books of the Pentateuch, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. In them is given the law of Moses which includes, among other things, the hallowed Ten Commandments. Jesus either ignored or actually broke many of them as we have seen.

John 18:20 - When being questioned by the high priest, Jesus answered, "I spake openly to the world; I have ever** taught in the synagogues and in the temple, and in secret have I said nothing." Here he told two lies. For example, the Sermon on the Mount, perhaps his most famous sermon was delivered neither in a synagogue nor in the temple but on a mountain top (Matthew 5:1.) In Matthew 16:20 he warns his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. In other words, Keep it a secret.

Revelation 22:7, 12, 20 - Jesus says, "Behold, I come quickly."

Almost two thousand years have passed, all those who knew him are long dead, yet Jesus’ promise of a quick return remains unfulfilled. I think it’s time to acknowledge that either the New Testament Gospels are fiction or that Jesus flat-out lied***.

I recently received an email pertaining to the different prophecies pertaining to the god-man Jesus in the Christian bible. “Look at all the prophecies Jesus fulfilled”, they say(basically). “He must be the savior!" Well, Let's look at some common prophecies and a very brief overview of what is wrong with them:

Virgin birth

No, there is no virgin birth prophecy. Is 7:14 reads with "ha-almah", which means "young woman". "Bet'ulah" is the Hebrew term for virgin, and it is used later in Isaiah, so the author of Isaiah certainly knew the difference. Then there's Is 8:3, which has that child mentioned in Is 7:14 being born. Is 9:6 refers to that same child of Is 8:3.

Jesus

Is 53 deals with Israel, not some savior.

The “pierced” man

Ps 22 does not read "pierced". "Ka-'ari" means "like a lion"

There is no prophecy of the savior being in the ground 3 days and coming back. Judaism in fact has no dying and rising savior story.

Look at Is 9:1-2 and then look at Matt 4:12-16. Notice something amiss? Yeah. The author of Matthew chopped part of Is 9:1 out. Talk about manufacturing a prophecy to fit your needs!

Micah 5:2 refers only to that the savior's lineage comes from Bethlehem, not that he would be born there. That is to say, the savior is of the Davidic line, and Jesus wasn't of the Davidic line!

Those are just some of the crap "prophecies". You're better off not trying the rest.

The Christian faith is based on the belief that their bible is indeed the word of their god. If their bible cannot be shown to be inspired, then the Christian faith could be said to be false. If the Christian bible cannot be shown to be inspired, then the whole of Christianity can be said to be the same as any other religion that has been devised and practiced by man.

The bible story of the god-man Jesus is a contradictory account, like most of their bible. Their bible shows that this particular god-man spoke and taught many absurd and foolish things, all the while preaching against his own teachings or acting in direct contrast to his very belief system. If one were to read the entire Christian bible, one will find tales of ignorance, murder, sexual perversions, mass insanity, idiotic laws, and even cannibalism and human sacrifice. This staggers the imagination how anyone in his right mind could read the Christian bible and believe that it was written by a all-wise, all-just, and (most importantly) all-loving god. Christians have found biblical scriptures telling them to burn people at the stake, to justify slavery, to oppress and persecute others, and to kill and commit war in the name of their god. Unfortunately, there are some even today that would have us return to the teachings and laws found in this supposed “perfect” work of a living god.

We are taught in our culture that Jesus is the divine hero, but other cultures have different saviors. Religious beliefs are a function of the culture in which one lives. If we had been reared in a different culture, we would have heard the story of a different savior, instead of the Jesus story. Upon comparing the stories of the different saviors that are far older than Christianity, one finds that the similarities are so striking; it is hard to swallow that this Jesus was the one true savior. In fact, the main problem the Romans had with the Christian religion was that it was parallel to teachings of their scholars and the stories of Apollo, Dionysus, Herakles, ect.  

Jesus as a god-man is a myth and is proven by the very bible that Christians hold so dear (as told in Isaiah 7:1-16; you will find that most Christians will justify Isaiah 7:14 is the prophecy of this Jesus fellow but we clearly see after reading 1-16 that this prophecy is meant for King Ahwaz). Belief in these christian myths has brought misery, suppression of thought and inquiry, fear, and has promoted ignorance. The human race no longer needs these myths of old. Just as little children grow up and learn the truth about the existence of the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny, the human race needs to mature and learn the truth about the existence of god.

It would seem we are slowly approaching that time of year again that has hard-core christians shaking with righteous fear. What am I talking about, you might ask good reader? Halloween. Yes, it is not for another month but already the christian propaganda is flying.

http://home.computer.net/~cya/cy00061.htmlhome.computer.net/~cya/cy00061.html

The link above is a christian propaganda site condemning the holiday as evil etc, etc etc. Good readers, I did a rant on this last year (Titled Halloween) that covers everything this site says and more. The person who wrote this article obliviously didn't do much research on the subject before posting, opting to remain "in the dark" for the most part and only posting things that helped the christian point of view that Halloween is evil and of the "devil".

If you wish to educate yourself then please read my previous Halloween rant. I think it will help.

Well, after a long slumber I have returned. I have returned to you, good reader, so that I might help you in the fight against close-mindedness in the form of the worlds religions. Today we focus on the christian god. I have compiled a few reasons as to why such a being cannot exist.

Now, this is not presented as a proof of any god. You cannot prove or disprove god, but the christian god on the other hand, is very easy to show to be impossible, as most christians define this god. In order for us to do this we would have to be all knowing, having nothing hidden to us in our knowledge of the universe and life. For if there is one tiny thing we do not know, then there within this tiny thing, exists the possibility that god or what ever "could" exist. I disagree.
Why do I disagree? By the way that christians traditionally define their god, they set the grounds for its own impossibility. If you assign traits and characteristics to a god that are in any way self-contradicting, then it only follows that it is an impossibility that this thing could exist. By its very definitions, this god's existence is also impossible. An analogy is the impossibility of cubic spheres. By definition, a cube has 8 corners, where as a sphere has no corners.

Defining the christian god:
The attributes of this god as defined by the majority christians themselves are:
1. Perfect in every way.
2. Omni-max: all-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, and all-compassionate.
3. Perfectly just, and righteous in every way.
4. Testified to in a perfect book.

Christianity states that their god created the world and that his creation was perfect until man came and caused imperfection by breaking the laws of this god. Humans, thus, brought suffering and pain into the world, losing perfection. This set into motion the need for forgiveness from this perfect god. Those who repent, and accept the terms are granted bliss for eternity; those not fortunate enough to accept or realize this, spend eternity in torment. But remember that this god still loves us all.

1. Perfect in every way:
God is said to be perfection, a perfect being that is perfect in every way, shape and form. Now, if this god was perfect, then what drove him to create anything in the first place? Being perfect means being complete, there is an equilibrium that would never be disturbed by anything. Yet, this perfect god created. Why is this? Was he lonely? Was he bored? Did he wish to see if he could do it or not, like a sort of test? If he was lonely, how then could he be complete and perfect? If he was bored, how then was he perfect? Was he complete? If this god was perfect, then he would need nothing, want nothing, and have no desire to do anything. He would just exist. A perfect god that wants, needs, and desires to create is impossible.
Further, a perfect being, desirous of a perfect creation, would create a perfect thing. Yet this perfect god made an imperfect creation. Man is not a perfect creature, and is fallen as told in the bible. Either god was not perfect, and therefore incapable of creating perfect humans, or god was not desirous of having a perfect creation, in which case we humans are supposed to be imperfect, and that brings up a whole new reason to doubt the christian story. If the Bible is to be held as credible, then this god cannot be perfect.

Omni-max:
God is said to be Omni-max: All Everything. 

All knowing: By looking at this one trait we can show how it contradicts the other "ALL" traits, and show this god is impossible.
This god is said to know everything past, present, and future. This, in essence, rules out the possibility of being all powerful, since knowing how the future will be there is no way this all knowing god could change it in any way. An All Knowing and All Powerful god is impossible. This god knew from the beginning that there would be suffering. He knew from the start every scream, cry, and tortured moan his creation would endure. Thus he cannot be all loving and all compassionate at the same time. An All Knowing and All Compassionate/Loving god who creates beings he KNOWS will suffer is impossible.
This god knows everything there is to know, yet it is claimed we have free will. This god knows the decision we will make before we make it, and no matter what happens god knows before hand. There is no decision we could ever make that this god does not know about, and, because he is also all-powerful, no event he does not ultimately control. We are bound in a finite realm, and therefore cannot know the future before it occurs. Yet by the christians' definition, god is not bound to our finite realm. We have the illusion of free will, nothing more. An All Knowing god and free will is impossible and cannot co-exist.

A Perfect Book:
Almost every time the christian will bring up the Bible in support of his religion. Many claim the bible is the perfect word of a perfect god. Yet when one looks at the bible, they come away with a different opinion. The book that is said to have all of humankind's answers, the moral foundation and guide for us to live by, save us from hell fire eternal, is wrought with more problems than you could shake a stick at. Given by this perfect god to IMPERFECT man, written in his imperfect language of man, translated into many different imperfect languages of imperfect man, voted upon by church councils as to which books are divine, interpreted by imperfect man. As we have seen above man is an imperfect creature, yet this god gives it his perfect word, knowing it will not be received properly. One only has to look to the different sects of christianity to see this. No sect interprets the scripture the same.
Another reason given by the christians about the bible is all the prophecies within the book that have come true, with many of them all fulfilled by the god man Jesus alone. One needs only read the passages in their proper context to see how they are not prophecy. For example just look at the virgin birth prophesy in Isaiah 7. Reading the verses in the proper context show that this is a sign given to King Ahaz. In chapter 8 of Isaiah the verse is fulfilled. Yet the christians blindly point to this and smile in smug assurance that it is a proof for their god. As for another prophecy that never was we look to Ezekiel 29. In verses 9-12 and including parts of chapters 30 and 32, we are told that Egypt will be a desolate waste uninhabited, barren for a 40-year period, and that neither man nor beast will pass through Egypt. Also this perfect god, if it exists, has the means to give us all his divine will, and allow us to know him personally, yet all we have is a book written by imperfect man. Again another reason for the impossibility of the christian god as defined by the christian.

My conclusion:
These arguments for what I believe shows the impossibility of the christian god, using the very definitions of the christians themselves. Anyone who is reasonable and freethinking could not accept that this god exists. The very essence of this god is contradictory in nature.
Many believe as a source of comfort, many believe based upon fear, and still others are in it for the prize at the end. I on the other hand will believe in reality, and the christian god is not nor ever will be real.

Well, not what you are thinking really. I got an email from a guy I use to work with who actually reads these little rants and he wanted to know why I have such disbelief and "anger and resentment" towards the Christian faith. I started to send an email to argue with him but then I thought about it and yes I do have a lot of anger and resentment towards the Christian faith. Now to the question as to "why"; I guess it could be answered simply by saying I had been lied to. Let me explain.
While growing up I viewed a lot of things in the world that will not be discussed here. Let’s just say that they were family problems that no loving god would allow a child to endure (nothing to do with me physically). Anyway, I was sent to church with Baptists as a young child (5 or so) till my family moved when I was first grade. I took a break from church events even though we prayed and such (dinner, evening, etc.). When I was 8 or 9 we moved again and I was invited by a friend I had made to attend another Baptist church. I was truly never excited about this prospect but accepted and went. I continued to go because I was interested in religion but never really believed any of it.
I grew out of the phase when my parents started to force me to go to church, not sure why since they themselves never went but eh.
I dropped the church entirely before I went to Jr. High and started to question "where did we come from really" which lead me to evolution. Studying this for a few months my parents became alarmed at my new beliefs and started to go to church regularly, dragging me along. I hated it. Everyone, no matter how nice they were, seemed to carry a mask with them that they put on for others. Very rarely did you see people without their "mask".
I have always thought of myself as a "survivalist" so when I was thrust into this situation I made a "mask" for my self, a Christian mask, which I wore every where. I told my friends about my new found religion and how wonderful it was, taking on the enthusiasm that my parents had about it and trying to spread it to others (all new Christians experience this really, or so I have been told), and so I became the "token" christian amongst my peers.
It was when I hit the 7th grade that all was about to change for me. My life, as I knew it, was ripped away from me as I was thrust into an all Christian school. My faith dropped like a rock. This incident wasn't its true reason, I will confess. I was already beginning to question everything that I had read in the bible, little questions that (some) will be addressed later, but this was just it. Religion and the Christian god had left me to my parents and they did as they saw fit.
I never stopped wearing my mask, however. I was still trapped in a Christian home so I had to play the part and I must say that I played it well. I went to church, read the bible, prayed even, but it was all for those around me so that my life could be easier. I think my ultimate act of mask wearing (and when I got really tired of wearing it) was when I was baptized in the church of Christ (not LDS). I did this because it was always being hinted at me by my parents, by the kids at the Christian school and their parents, and because, to keep wearing my mask, I had been an un-baptized "christian" for quite awhile.
After the deed was done I was actually some what guilty at deceiving everyone like that so I let my mask slip a little. People saw a bit of my true nature but not enough to alarm anyone. I started asking unusual questions to my parents and the "hardcore Christians" that they couldn't answer. I started to openly research other forms of religion and belief and little by little my mask was slipping.
Finally I turned 18 and dropped the mask all together. Many people where shocked but I didn't care. I had wore the damn thing long enough, been who and what everyone wanted me to be long enough and it was now time for me to be me, with out a mask.
So now I openly ask all and question their beliefs, for blind belief is foolish, and it is great.
Maybe all this is my form of petty revenge for all the lies that Christianity tried to shove down my throat (for the little time I believed). Maybe, but even I can't say for sure. All I know is that I tell people what they don't want to hear about their religions, I just tell you all what you probably don't want to hear about Christianity through these little rants. Why here?  Some people asked me too.
But back to some of the things that Christianity lied to me about. Ready?

 

I've enjoyed debates, discussions, and "arguments" about religion. It has never been my specific intention to diminish the faith of those with whom I discuss it. Any increase in knowledge and understanding is a “good” thing, and a successful argument can only serve to broaden, define, and bolster one’s beliefs. Any type of blind faith is a bad thing.

The thoughts, problems, conclusions, faults, and arguments that follow are the foundation stones of my lack of belief. All Bible verses are quoted from the King James Version.

I. If a “loving god” exists, why is there so much pain, suffering, and “evil” in the world?

Two presumptions of Christianity are that:

1.       Their god is omnipotent, and

2.       Their god is omniscient.

It is a fact that tens of thousands of defenseless children and infants die each day from starvation or horrible diseases. Continually, children are victims of kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder by pedophiles. How could an omnipotent, omniscient god allow these innocent human beings to suffer so?

Either:

1.       Their god is unable to stop or control these events. If so, he’s not omnipotent, and therefore isn’t worthy of worship. Or,

2.       Their god could, but chooses not to stop or control these events. If this is so, such a callous, uncaring and indifferent god isn’t worthy of worship. Or,

3.       Their god doesn’t exist and is solely the mythical creation of ancient men who sought to both explain the unknown and to establish control over the actions of other men.

Explanations that the ways of god are just too mysterious for us mortals to understand are insufficient. There can be no possible moral justification for such meaningless, purposeless, and “evil” acts.

II. Miracles, by definition, contradict science.

The “evidence” for biblical miracles comes solely from the bible. The existence of miracles defies rationality. Apparently, god thought it necessary for Jesus to perform miracles to convince others. But merely reading about a supposed miracle that happened 2,000 years ago is far less convincing that witnessing one yourself. Why were miracles necessary then, but not necessary now?

It's all too commonly said, "It's a miracle!" The few who survived the WTC attacks lived because "it was a miracle". Were the 2700+ who perished unworthy in some way?

It's a "miracle" that so many churches survived the tsunami in Southeast Asia in December 2004. Why isn't it a "miracle" that the tsunami killed over a quarter of a million people?

Why do religious "visions" always appear in the "correct" religious context? Catholics see the Virgin Mary on a tortilla, Muslims see Muhammad on a sand dune. Why didn't Native Americans a thousand years ago see Jesus Christ?

III. If god created the universe, why does the persuasive evidence of science compel so many to conclude that the unguided process of evolution accounts for life?

Is there any justification, other than “faith”, for a belief in creationism? If so, what observations or physical evidence can be presented?

If the fossil record is not evidence of the evolution of life on this planet, then god either put it there to deceive us or trick us into believing something that isn't true. Why would he do such a thing?

IV. If god is morally pure, how can he sanction and even order the slaughter of innocent children as the Old Testament says he did?

The god of the Bible - is a hateful, arrogant, sexist, cruel being who can't tolerate criticism. I wouldn't want to live in the same neighborhood with such a creature!

The biblical god is a macho male warrior. Though he said "Thou shalt not kill," he ordered death for all opposition, wholesale drowning and mass exterminations (How many infants and children were killed by god in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? How many infants and children were killed by god during the "Great" flood?); punishing offspring to the fourth generation (Ex. 20:5); ordering pregnant women and children to be ripped up (Hos. 13:16); demanding animal and human blood to appease his angry vanity; is partial to one race of people; judges women to be inferior to men; is a sadist who created a hell to torture unbelievers; created evil (Is. 45:7); discriminated against the handicapped (Lev. 21:18-23); ordered virgins to be kept as spoils of war (Num. 31:15-18, Deut. 21:11-14); spread dung on people's faces (Mal. 2:3); sent bears to devour 42 children who teased a prophet (II Kings 2:23-24); punished people with snakes, dogs, dragons, drunkenness, swords, arrows, axes, fire, famine, and infanticide; and said fathers should eat their sons (Ez. 5:10).

Is that nice? Would you want to live next door to such a person?

Here's another example, in 2 Samuel 24 when god moved David to take a census, then it turns out that it was sinful for David to have taken a census (even though god does not lead people to sin according to James 1:13), then god punishes David for this sinful act by killing 70,000 other people. 1 Chronicles 20 retells this story with Satan in the role of inciting David to sin by taking a census, thus revising the earlier version to get god off that hook. However, god still punishes David by killing 70,000 people whose only apparent crime was to have been among those David counted in his somehow sinful census.

How about:

1 Sam. 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

This was apparently done because their ancestors had done something to displease god several centuries earlier.

V. If Jesus is the only way to heaven, then what about the billions of people who have never heard of Him?

If you must accept Jesus as your Savior in order to be saved, what about the billions of beings that are born and raised to believe OTHER religions? Surely, God couldn’t believe that ALL children born and raised their entire lives as Moslems, with no impartial or unbiased exposure to Christianity have any realistic chance of being converted.

VI. If god cares about the people he created, how could he consign so many of them to an eternity of torture in hell just because they didn’t believe the right things about him?

If you must accept Jesus as your Savior in order to be saved, what about the billions of beings that die as fetuses, infants, and who are mentally deficient? It would be impossible for them to accept Jesus. So are they are condemned to spend eternity in hell because of conditions over which they had no control?

Deu32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a god of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

This verse says god is just, but where is the justice?

For justice to exist, the punishment must fit the crime. No matter how many “sins” or bad deeds one commits in this world, there must be a reasonable limit for an appropriate punishment. A sentence of eternal punishment in hell is incomprehensible.

Why are there so many religions that all proclaim to be the correct and only true religion?

Could you – personally – hold someone’s hand over the flame of a gas stove while they writhed and cried out in agony? Could you hold it there FOREVER???

We find it repugnant that Hitler persecuted, tortured, and killed Jews like Anne Frank. But god, because Anne Frank did not accept Jesus as her savior, will hold Anne Frank over the flame FOREVER.

VII. If god is the ultimate overseer of the church, why has it been rife with hypocrisy and brutality throughout the ages?

The Crusades? The Inquisition? The Salem Witch Trials? The near extermination of Native Americans? Adolph Hitler’s claim to be a Christian and that his extermination of the Jews and others was morally correct?

VIII. Why are the morals espoused in the bible so suspect?

There are MANY “shall not’s” concerning sexual relations between a man and his female relatives, but nowhere in the bible is pedophilia prohibited. Nowhere in the Bible is rape specifically prohibited. On the contrary:

Deu22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Deu22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

These verses seem to me to indicate that rape (of a virgin) is “OK” as long as the rapist pays the girl’s father and then marries her (unless they aren’t “found” and then it’s not a problem – the rapist gets off scot-free).

-OR-

Num31:15 And Moses said unto them, have ye saved all the women alive? Num31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Num31:17 now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. Num31:18 but all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

The implication here is that they’d be kept as sex-slaves, but even if they were only to be kept as "regular" slaves; it’s still ridiculous from a moral point of view.

“Thou shalt not rape,” seems to me a reasonable and desirable, if not mandatory, commandment – certainly much more so than:

Exo23:19 the first of the fruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy god. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

The morally repugnant concepts of original sin, depravity, substitution forgiveness, intolerance, eternal punishment, and humble worship are all beneath the dignity of intelligent human beings and conflict with the values of kindness and reason. They are barbaric ideas for primitive cultures cowering in fear and ignorance.

IX. Why does the concept of prayer raise so many problems?

Didn't the six million Jews who perished in Hitler's concentration camps pray? Why did god ignore them?

Why Pray? If it changes god's mind then he is not sovereign. If it does not change god's mind then it is superfluous.

X. Why does god demand that we love and worship him?

Either love the Christian god or you'll be punished. How can it be a true love when it's a contingent love? Aren't love and respect earned?

XI. Why do some of the beliefs and teachings of Jesus seem so questionable?

Jesus is a chip off the old block. He said, "I and my father are one," and he upheld the Old Testament law.

Mt. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

He preached the same old judgment: vengeance and death, wrath and distress, hell and torture for all nonconformists. He believed in demons, angels and spirits. He never denounced the subjugation of slaves or women. Women were excluded as disciples and as guests at his heavenly table. Except for hell he introduced nothing new to ethics or philosophy. He was disrespectful of his mother and brothers; he said we should hate our parents and desert our families.

Mt. 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Lk. 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

So much for "christian family values."

Jesus denounced anger:

Mt. 5:22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

But was often angry himself:

Mk. 3:5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

He called people "fools":

Mt. 23:17 ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

Mt. 23:19 ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

Jesus called people "serpents":

Mt. 23:33 ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Though he warned that such language puts you in danger of hellfire (Mt. 5:22).

He said:

Mt. 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

So much for "Peace on Earth."

He irrationally cursed and withered a fig tree for being barren out of season:

Mt. 21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

He mandated burning unbelievers:

Jn. 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

The Church has complied with relish.

He stole a horse:

Lk. 19:30 Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. 31 And if any man ask you, why do ye loose him? Thus shall ye say unto him, because the Lord hath need of him. 32 And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them. 33 And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, why loose ye the colt? 34 And they said, The Lord hath need of him. 35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.

He told people to cut off hands, feet, eyes and sexual organs.

Mt. 5:29 and if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mt. 19:12 for there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

You want me to accept Jesus, but I think I'll pick my own friends, thank you.

XII. If the bible is “god’s word” why are there so many real or apparent contradictions?

Why would god allow so many translational problems? Why wouldn’t he make the bible a simple, clear, easily-understandable book to reach ALL people without introducing suspicion and uncertainty? Why has god given us real, physical evidence for an earth more than 4 billion years old and for the existence of evolution? Was his intent to deliberately mislead us?

The biblical account of Noah and the ark presents many grave problems for me:

1.       A boat of the stated size, made strictly of wood, could not support its own weight, much less the weight of the animals and supplies to be added to it.

2.       There is no physical, scientific evidence of a worldwide flood with floodwaters covering all the highest mountain peaks.

3.       All the water of the earth, including ice-caps, is, by far, insufficient to cover all the land-masses. Where did all this additional water come from? Where did it go?

4.       Disregarding the conflicting references to the number of “clean” animals loaded aboard the ark, two animals of each species could not possibly fit in the space defined by the dimensions of the ark.

5.       How could Noah (even with the help of his family members) gather up a male and female of all 500,000+ species of beetles, when even entomologists with microscopes often find it impossible to differentiate the sexes (not to mention all the other species of insects, birds, mammals, reptiles, marsupials, and invertebrates)?

6.       Even if they COULD have been gathered and sexed, how much time would it take to load each pair of animals aboard the ark, find a place for them, and provide for the varied and diverse physical and environmental needs of each species?

7.       What did all the carnivorous animals eat in the days and weeks after they left the ark and before their prey animals had reproduced?

8.       How was a viable population established for all those different species of animals with only a single breeding pair of each to provide a genetic base?

9.       What is the explanation for the geographical isolation of many species of animals (and plants)? For example, why are kangaroos only found in Australia, and why were tomatoes and potatoes only native to the Americas?

10.   I find it impossible to believe that out of all the people on the face of the earth at that time, ALL were unworthy of God’s grace except Noah and his family. ALL were killed by the flood. ALL presumably went to hell for eternity.

11.   Why were all but a pair of each of the animals destroyed? Had they all become wicked and evil too? This story is too similar to prior “flood myths” that originated in other cultures. Its ludicrous impossibility casts aspersions on the validity and truth of ALL the stories in the Bible.

Are people saved by “faith”?

Mark16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

-AND-

John3:16 for god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-AND-

Eph2:8 for by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of god: Eph2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Or are people saved by their deeds (works)?

Mat16:27 for the son of man shall come in the glory of his father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

-AND-

Mat19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? Mat19:17 and he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one that is, god: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Mat19:18 He saith unto him, which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Mat19:19 Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

-AND-

Jas2:24 ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

If children are not responsible for the sins of their fathers:

Deu24:16 the fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

If the bible says that children will not be punished for the sins of their parents, then why are all of us held responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve (original sin)?

Furthermore, if god really created Adam not knowing either good or evil:

Gen 3:22 And the LORD god said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Then, how could such a harsh and enduring punishment as death for Adam and all his descendants possibly be just? Prior to Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the "tree of knowledge", they would have been unable to differentiate between right and wrong.

God's admonition that they were not allowed to eat that fruit would, therefore, have been meaningless to them in any "right/wrong" context. They would have been like an untrained puppy that’s told by a master, "Don't pee on the rug!" Given the puppy's inability to comprehend the "wrongness" of peeing on the rug, it's ludicrous for the master to "blame" the puppy for "sinning".

Our secular courts are more just than god when they show mercy on people who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, such as children and the mentally handicapped.

And why isn't this doctrine of original sin found anywhere in the bible except in Paul's writings? Why didn't Jesus ever mention it, or teach it?

The sun was stopped in its track for an entire day?

Josh10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. Josh10:13 and the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

For this to have occurred, the rotation of the earth would have to have stopped and then restarted. Even if a miracle caused this phenomenon, why did no other peoples of the earth (many of whom were quite astronomically oriented) make a record of it?

Many biblical individuals are claimed to have lived several centuries – some over 900 years. If man was created with such life-spans, why didn’t other cultures include records, legends, or stories of long-lived individuals? (Though there are some cultures that claim ancient kings lived tens of thousands of years, this is so obviously bogus that it couldn’t have happened and couldn’t have been derived from the stories in Genesis.)

A prophesy:

Isa7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

But only two other verses in the bible contain the names “Immanuel” or “Emmanuel”:

Isa8:7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks: Isa8:8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

-AND-

[An angel of the Lord, appearing to Joseph in a dream]: Mat1:21 and she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Mat1:22 now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Mat1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [This is apparently a re-statement of the prophesy.]

Why is Jesus never referred to in the New Testament as “Immanuel”?

Which verse is correct?

2Chr36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

-OR-

2Ki24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

There are MANY other contradictory verses in the bible. This seems odd for a work that was “divinely inspired” or “the infallible word of god”. If the errors are attributed to copyists, then the entire bible is suspect. Who’s to say which portions were copied correctly and which weren’t? The prose of biblical apologists is rife with "probably", "possibly", "maybe", "perhaps", "may have", "may not have", "could be", and "may be". Did god intend that his word be misunderstood? Did he want us to be confused?

Why are women denigrated?:

1Tim2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 1Tim2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority

While slavery might have been “accepted” during both Old and New Testament times, we now know that slavery is WRONG. Aren’t moral absolutes eternal?

As Jesus was dying on the cross, he cried out:

Mark15:34 and at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, El oi, El oi, lama sabachthani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Also, the Hebrew word for god is not EL, in fact El was a minor deity in the religious thought and praxis of Ugarit.

Why would he feel that God, his father, had forsaken him? Wouldn’t he have known he was NOT forsaken, even if his father turned his back so that he did not have to watch his only son die? Wouldn’t he have been able to “control” any amount of physical pain? Didn’t he know he would rise from the dead? Why would he call out to a pagan god and not his “father”?

Excluding the works of biased Christian authors, there isn’t one writing outside the bible in all of ancient history that clearly refers to the existence or miracles of Jesus of Nazareth. Those that are purported to only refer to the stories and myths surrounding Jesus or the Christ. And they were written well after the fact.

This prophesy of Jesus:

Mat16:28 Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

This prophesy did not seem to come true, did it? Though the men standing there are long dead, aren’t we still waiting for the second coming?

XIII. Why did no contemporary writers chronicle the acts and life of Jesus?

Here we have a "great and wondrous" teacher who, over a period of about three years, drew tens of thousands of followers and listeners from many nations, who worked many remarkable miracles, yet no one wrote about him at the time. Not a word. Not a jot or a tittle.

How likely is it that Herod could have killed all the infant boys in a town and not one of his enemies and detractors (who carefully chronicled his many crimes, even quite trivial ones) would have even hinted at this one?

***

The “perfect word of god” contains so many atrocities, inaccuracies, errors, contradictions, and absurdities, that it’s rendered totally unbelievable. The ineffective arguments of apologists that some verses should be taken figuratively and others literally raises the obvious question of which verses throughout the bible are literally true? One would expect an actual “word of god” to be clear, accurate, and timeless. The bible is none of these.

Since there are no irrefutable or even reasonable proofs of the existence of the Christian god, I am left with my lack of belief and my anger at being lied too.

And that about sums it up. Hope this clears it up for ya, Scotty my boy.

Here are some quotes a good friend of mine (Fiction Alchemist) gave me.



"Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but unable? then he is impotent. Is he 

able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both willing and able? 

whence then is evil?"

-- Epicurus, quoted by Philo in Dialogues, X.



"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can 

be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so 

that there cannot be any validity in that argument. The idea that things 

must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination."

-- Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian



"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

-- Lord John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, 1887. Often misquoted as "Power 

corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Acton was condemning the 

doctrine of papal infallibility.



"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, 

education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would 

indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment 

and hope of reward after death."

-- Albert Einstein



"That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the 

Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have 

been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that 

the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound 

has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse 

has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men 

really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was 

the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate 

women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon 

all sorts of people in the name of religion."

-- Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian



"You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in 

humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the 

diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, 

or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in 

the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the 

world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in 

its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in 

the world."

-- Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian



"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with 

religious conviction."

-- Blaise Pascal



"He is YOUR God, They are YOUR rules, YOU Burn in Hell."

-- Ephemera Buttons and Magnets



".a God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make 

bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a 

single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it 

short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his 

other children to earn it; who gave is angels painless lives, yet cursed his 

other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who 

mouths justice, and invented hell -- mouths mercy, and invented hell --  

mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and 

invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who 

frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without 

invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon 

man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and 

finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to 

worship him!"

-- Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger



"During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded 

that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after eight 

hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumb-screws, and firebrands, and 

set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day 

during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole 

hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with 

their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as 

witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry. 

There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has 

changed."

-- Mark Twain, Europe and Elsewhere, "Bible Teaching and Religious Practice"



"Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above 

blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it."

-- Mark Twain, a Biography



"If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and 

qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to 

ask for any man's compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far 

above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort 

of man in these regards. He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not 

buy these things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of 

the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as 

dignified as the better sort of man in this regard. He would value no love 

but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences 

contracted for. Repentance in a man's heart for a wrong done would cancel 

and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or 

desired or expected of that man. In His Bible there would be no 

Unforgivable Sin. He would recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of 

Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its 

commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right 

belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner. He would not be a jealous God -- a 

trait so small that even men despise it in each other. He would not boast. 

He would keep private Hs admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise 

as unbecoming the dignity of his position. He would not have the spirit of 

vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips. There would 

not be any hell -- except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave. 

There would not be any heaven -- the kind described in the world's Bibles. 

He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for 

making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort 

and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy."

-- Mark Twain's Notebook



"The best minds will tell you that when a man has begotten a child he is 

morally bound to tenderly care for it, protect it from hurt, shield it from 

disease, clothe it, feed it, bear with its waywardness, lay no hand upon it 

save in kindness and for its own good, and never in any case inflict upon it 

a wanton cruelty. God's treatment of his earthly children, every day and 

every night, is the exact opposite of all that, yet those best minds warmly 

justify these crimes, condone them, excuse them, and indignantly refuse to 

regard them as crimes at all, when he commits them. Your country and mine is 

an interesting one, but there is nothing there that is half so interesting 

as the human mind."

-- Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth



"Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only 

animal that has the True Religion -- several of them. He is the only animal 

that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't 

straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to 

smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven. The higher animals have 

no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the 

Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste."

-- Mark Twain, The Lowest Animal essay, 1897



"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, 

and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming 

feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

-- Thomas Jefferson



"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his 

God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that 

the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I 

contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people 

which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an 

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus 

building a wall of separation between Church and State."

-- Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802



"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense 

founded on the Christian Religion..."

-- Article XI of the English text of the Treaty of Tripoli, approved by the 

U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and ratified by President John Adams on June 10, 1797. (This article is lacking in the Arabic original. Note that congress 

and President Adams approved this English text.)



"The religions disperse, kingdoms fall apart, but works of science remain 

for all ages."

-- Ulugh-Beg (Words carved on stone astronomical observatory erected by 

Ulugh-Beg, Tamerlane's grandson, in Samarkand in the 15th century.)



"His Holiness decreed that the said Galileo is to be interrogated with 

regard to his intention, even with the threat of torture, and, if he 

sustains [i.e., answers satisfactorily], he is to abjure de vehement [i.e., 

renounce a vehement suspicion of heresy] in a plenary assembly of the 

Congregation of the Holy Office, then is to be condemned to imprisonment as 

the Holy Congregation thinks best, and ordered not to treat further, in any 

way at all, either verbally or in writing, of the mobility of the earth and 

the stability of the sun; otherwise he will incur the penalties for relapse. 

The book entitled Dialog de Galileo Galilee is to be prohibited. 

Furthermore, that these things may be known by all, he ordered that copies 

of the sentence be sent to all Apostolic Nuncios, to all Inquisitors against 

heretical brevity, and especially the Inquisitor in Florence, who shall read 

publicly the sentence in the presence of as many as possible of those who 

profess the mathematical art."

-- Papal decision entered into the record of the Holy Office, 1633



"I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei of Florence, being 70 years 

old... swear that I have always believed, believe now and, with God's help, 

will in the future believe all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church 

doth hold, preach and teach. But since, after having been admonished by this 

Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center 

of the Universe and immovable, and that the Earth is not the center of the 

same and that it moves, and that I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in 

any manner whatsoever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine; 

and after having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary 

to Holy Writ, I wrote and published a book in which I treat this condemned 

doctrine and bring forward very persuasive arguments in its favor without 

answering them: I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is 

of having held and believed that the Sun is at the center of the Universe 

and immovable, and that the Earth is not at the center and that it moves. 

Therefore, wishing to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all 

faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, 

I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith these errors and heresies, 

and I curse and detest them as well as any other error, heresy or sect 

contrary to the Holy Catholic Church. And I swear that for the future I 

shall neither say nor assert orally or in writing such things as may bring 

upon me similar suspicions; and if I know any heretic, or one suspected of 

heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or 

Ordinary of the place in which I may be."

-- Galileo, recanting his scientific beliefs before the Inquisition, 1633.



"One Galileo in two thousand years is enough."

-- Pope Pius XII



"The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of 

Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetics in childbirth was 

regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against 

Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by 

bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in 

architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born."

-- Mark Twain, a Biography



"Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt."

-- Mike Huben



"Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to investigate."

-- F. M. Knowles



"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a 

lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal 

God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something 

is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration 

for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

-- Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein: The Human Side.



"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which is 

based on experience, which refuses dogmatism. If there's any religion that 

would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism."

-- Albert Einstein



"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these 

aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the 

sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards 

freedom."

-- Albert Einstein



"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly 

the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that 

you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles 

and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the 

mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, 

and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in 

hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world 

we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them 

by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the 

Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all 

the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which 

mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think 

our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary 

supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our 

own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead 

of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it."

-- Bertrand Russell, Why I am Not a Christian



"The creationists have this creator who is evil, who is small-minded, who is 

malevolent, and who is not very bright and can't even get his science right. 

Creationists have made their creator in their own image, in my view."

-- Ian Plimer, The Skeptic, Vol. 13, No 2



".it dawned on me that a universe without deities was simpler and more 

internally consistent. The beauty and simplicity with which atheism, 

materialism (on the mind/body question), moral relativism, and other 

philosophical ideas all just fell into place has eliminated any doubt that I 

could be mistaken. I didn't realize until then how much cognitive dissonance 

the little logical inconsistencies in my previous beliefs had created. It is 

really wonderful for that to be gone. Atheism has given me more inner peace 

than religion ever could have."

-- David Nye



"We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal 

edifice. comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none 

the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its 

dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does 

not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of 

the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly 

holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to 

the whole body the character of faith. And so it stands today more firmly 

than ever."

-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 459



"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for 

the masses, [religious] faith is often the sole foundation of a moral 

attitude. For the political man, the value of a religion must be estimated 

less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly better substitute. 

As long as this appears to be lacking, what is present can be demolished 

only by fools or criminals."

-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 267

This is old news and I wanted to post this when it first happened but I've been busy. Anyway Christians are protesting at soldiers funerals. Soldiers who died in Iraq. Why? Well the answer is simple, to protest the fact that these families are morning the deaths of their children/brothers/husbands because they fought in a military that supports homosexuality. Some of the protesters even went as far to say that the reason these soldiers have died is because their god hates gays. Simple right?

What is wrong with these people? This is why I belittle and put down this religion and no other religion (mostly). This is just stupid and rude and extremely sad. These protesters are not people, they are monsters! They are not even life forms that I will recognize.

You can hate gays, you can hate the war in Iraq, shit hate Bush and all that but these families have the right to mourn the passing of their loved ones like everyone else.

This is where the "freedom of speech" should have a line and if there ever was a line, these religious fools crossed it.

Extremely sad and I absolutely hate these people. I really wish I could meet one in person, then we could have fun by playing "Bang your head", in which I play basketball with their skull.

That’s right folks, Pat Robertson is back and now he is condemning his old friends!

This crazy fool has said that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's current stroke is all apart of his god's wrath on him for pulling out of Gaza, which Pat just coincidently apposed.

So, it would seem that anyone who disagrees with this loony is going to be smitten by his "all powerful" god......... Wow. Now that is insane!

"He was dividing God's land, and I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the [European Union], the United Nations or the United States of America,'"  Said the crazy old fool Robertson on his zombie "700 Club" show on ABC family.

This is what his spoke's woman said about Pat's recent madness:

 "What they're basically saying is, 'How dare Pat Robertson quote the Bible?'"

"This is what the word of God says," Watts said "This is nothing new to the Christian community."

Really? Wow. What a poor pathetic excuse for a human being. What a bunch of morons. I honestly can't believe this guy still has a T.V. show. With all the crazy he spews from that toxic dump of a mouth of his, I am very surprised that ABC family hasn't dropped his show.

But wait, he gets a ton of mindless zombie viewers, which translates to $$$$ for ABC. They will take the money over the right thing any day. Very very sad.

 Well, sorry this is a late entry. I got other stuff on my plate for now and when it is in full swing I will tell ya all about it.