Misc Writings Against X-ianity

 

 

 

Home Page

AAgainst Christianity

Table of Contents

ASatan, Evil and Mankind

ACreating God

AGod and Morality

AChristian Holidays

ABiblical Absurdities

ABiblical Cruelty

AResurrection and NT Flaws

Email Me?

 

 

This is a continuation of my compiled writings against Christianity. If you wish to return to the Introduction, Complete table of contents or somewhere else, surely there’s a link for them somewhere on this page. If you’re here by accident and don’t wish to stay – then I didn’t want you here anyway and you now have a new computer virus….

Table of Contents for this page

Christian Holidays 1

Christian Mindset 3

Wrongs of the World. 7

Jesus NT. 8

Easy Salvation. 11

God is Ethical 14

Just God & Morality 15

Merciful Healings 19

The Immoral Tyrant 21

Complex Creation. 24

 

Christian Holidays

Worth mentioning with regard to the evolution of Christianity are the holidays, celebrations and recognition paid by Christians each year.

 

The Encyclopedia Britannica reports that:

 
"The traditional customs connected with Christmas have developed from several sources as a result of the coincidence of the celebration of the birth of Christ 
with the pagan agricultural and solar observations at midwinter. In the Roman world the Saturnalia (December 17) was a time of merrymaking and exchange of gifts. December 25 was also regarded as the birth date of the Iranian mystery god Mithra, the Sun of Righteousness."

Colliers Encyclopedia agrees:

 

"After the triumph of Constantine, the church at Rome assigned December 25 as the date for the celebration of the feast, possibly about A.D. 320 or 353. By the end of the fourth century the whole Christian world was celebrating Christmas on that day, with the exception of the Eastern churches, where it was celebrated on January 6. The choice of December 25 was probably influenced by the fact that on this day the Romans celebrated the Mithraic feast of the Sun-god (natalis solis invicti), and that the Saturnalia also came at this time."

 

Before Christ, December 25 was and is the birthday of Mithra, the pagan sun god. Sun worshippers since the time of Babel recognized this time of year in honor of their gods.

 

Easter was not a Christian holiday, but like Christmas and many passages in the bible, was taken from previous religions.  Thereby, much of what the Christians claim is actually pagan in its roots and evolved into what they now believe and recognize. After much debate, the Nicaean council of 325 A.D. decreed that "Easter" should be celebrated on the first Sunday, after the full moon, on or after the vernal equinox. Why was so much debate necessary if "Easter" was a tradition passed down from the Apostles? The answer is that it was not an Apostolic institution, but, an invention of man!


History records that spring festivals honored the pagan fertility goddess known as the Babylonian Queen of Heaven, later worshipped under many names including Ishtar, Cybele, Idaea Mater, or Astarte for whom the celebration of Easter is named. These events were celebrated at the same time as present "Easter". Easter is not another name for the Feast of Passover.  In the year 399 A.D., the Theodosian Code attempted to remove the pagan connotation from those events and banned their observance. A common Christian tactic, take away the basis of the culture and force in Christian connotations. The same may be said of Christmas, and numerous Christianized populaces throughout history.

 

Back to Table of Contents….

 

Christian Mindset

 

Answers to prayer should be the norm for Christians. Didn't Jesus say “Ask and it shall be given you” (Mt.7:7)? Based on Jesus’ words, answers to prayer should be forthcoming, frequent and expected. Yet, throughout churches, bible studies and gatherings, Christians are experiencing extreme difficulties. Prayer requests are made daily from Christians experiencing pain, self-doubt, exhaustion, impatience, weakness, spiritual stagnation, fear, unrelenting bondage to sin and ubiquitous demonic forces.

Is prayer the panacea that it’s made out to be in the Bible? If the solution could be solved by prayer, wouldn’t Christians have resolved these problems long ago?  Yet, the difficulties will persist as long as there are Christians. Why? These afflictions continue because the Christian thought-processes reject objective, rational, critical thinking. Objective and critical thought-processes are to be done independent of God or the Bible, which would in Christianity be considered sin. The Bible teaches Christians to avoid such thought because it would require one to lean on their own understanding (Prov. 3:5). It would be utilizing the wisdom of the wise, the understanding of the prudent (I Cor.1:19); the wisdom of this world which is foolishness with God (I Cor.3:19). It might cause them to question their religion. This dilemma for many otherwise intelligent, capable Christians is the crux of the problem. In various passages, the bible even warns Christians against speaking with unbelievers (TI 6:20, 2TI 2:14-16, 3:1-7, 2JN 1:10-11).

In contrast to objective, rational thought, Christian thinking is centered in a Bible-oriented faith. Biblical faith believes the proclamations of only the Bible and strongly rejects other ways of thinking. A healthy, productive psyche is found in something fervent Christians are "not allowed" to do. The 2nd century church father Tertullian wrote that the personal pursuit of truth and understanding is in itself an indication of heresy. Thus, it is heretical to consider that the earth's age might exceed 6,000 years, in spite of the geologic scientific record, lest one compromise the Bible's genealogy of Jesus to Adam. It is heretical to challenge the Noah flood story regardless of the extraordinary improbability of Noah's ability to gather, feed, and keep alive two of every fowl, cattle, and creeping thing of the earth on a one-window boat for 10½ months; and in spite of the archeological record of neighboring cultures which contradicts the occurrence of a worldwide flood. Certainly, it would be heretical to question the teachings and deeds of Jesus even though the earliest copies of copies of manuscripts date from 300 years after his alleged life; and even though the reputable Jewish philosopher and historian Philo of Alexandria who was contemporaneous with Jesus never so much as mentioned the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth or the alleged miracles in and surrounding his life.


Faith as defined by the Bible requires the suspension of basic human thought-processes which are necessary for the functioning of a healthy mind. For example, in order to be a candidate for becoming a Christian each person must accept that they are sinners. Why? The historical facts as recorded in the Bible state that some 6,000 years ago a person named Eve, who, after being made from Adam's rib while he slept, was spurred on by a talking snake to seduce Adam into the sin of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. All objective, rational thought must be suspended to believe this story. But, once this story is accepted, the process of exploitable, child-like faith and cognitive dissonance is the established modus operandi.

 

Often, religions associate critical thinking with desires, sin, and doubt. However, to be critical thought, it must be independent thought. It is called “independent thought” because it is to be independent of personal desire.  You may want very badly for the ocean’s water to be purple. Your desire may be strong. You may have very good personal motives for wanting water to be that color, and you can convince yourself with self-deception that it is.  But evaluating and thinking, outside of your bias and desire, would prove otherwise, which is a matter of critical thinking. 

 

Critical thinking is characterized by careful evaluation and judgment against the tendencies that your personal prejudice place on you as far as you are able.  Blind trust, while having noble attributes, leads to destruction.  Ignorance is the mother of devotion, and devotion without thought is dangerous.  Look at the massacres of the crusades, the witch hunts and burnings, the terrorist groups…  If people weren’t so bent on their desires and used critical thinking and independent thought, such atrocities might have been eluded.  When you bring every thought into captivity, into obedience of a preset state of mind and an already drawn set of conclusions, then you are no more than a puppet.  And puppets cannot judge whether their master is good or evil, just follow his commands.  That is why the master demands each thought be captive to his way of thinking. That is also why religion depends on faith and not rationale.  Without reason, you are afloat on a sea of superstition, traditions and fallacies.  Most often, your devotion will lie in whichever superstition is taught to you first.  And most often, doubt in that belief is a sin, a crime and a shame.

 

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”  - wished I could remember who said this….

 

Back to Table of Contents….

 

Wrongs of the World

 

It is a common phrase to hear “god did not cause your problems”, though of course, the same people are all too eager to tell you that god did cause their good fortunes. Come now, did god cause Adam's problems?  Certainly he did!  He created Adam in the garden, naive and unknowing of right and wrong, evil or good - and he's in there with whom?  Satan, the master deceiver, god's archnemesis – cards were stacked against Adam from the beginning. God knows if he allows Satan to be there, then Satan is going to help with the downfall of man. God knows if he creates Adam, he'll sin and billions of people thereafter will go to hell because of it. Yet he does it anyway! That is where the potter created the vessels of wrath, as Romans tell us… Another passage of interest in that book is Romans 9:11-13 “Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls--she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’"

 

“What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”

 

Just like Jacob and Esau, our places are set. Some of us are vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction from the beginning by our creator.  Did Esau ever stand a chance? – No! In order that god's election would stand - he was screwed.  God hated him, before he was born or “had done anything”, so god set the scenario so that Esau would serve Jacob.

 

ROM 9:15-18 God has mercy on (and hardens the hearts of) whom he pleases., GEN 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's., etc…

 

World hunger, murder, rape, etc.. all a consequence of god choosing to create people in a place and situation where he knows that we’ll screw up.  And all of this, so that god can have some company and a few followers for eternity?

 

People starving while an almighty god sits by idly… Even if you wish to argue that the wrongs of the world aren’t god’s fault (just a consequence of his actions and choices, which led to consequences of our actions), there is certainly no arguing that he doesn’t step in and help.  When children are starving, to a loving god - does it really matter what their beliefs are?  And there are Christians dying of cancer, starving and suffering from the same ailments and tragedies as pagans and atheists.  Why?  Some mysterious, divine plan god has for the cosmos – that requires the suffering of mankind?  Surely, for a god with whom all things are possible – there are better ways to gain followers and enact his divine plan than one requiring the suffering at present…  So either god is the reason for the problems at present, or god is unwilling or not able to intercede with the problems, or simply god is not.

 

Back to Table of Contents….

 

Jesus NT

 

A common yet rather odd quip is that the OT god and the NT god are “radically” different, given different covenants with the people. Odd, when god says “he changes not” and he’s “the same yesterday, today and forever”. In fact, this is the god “with whom there is no variableness”. Nonetheless, a look at the NT, aside from the gospels’ accounts of the resurrection.

 

People are always debating on verses in the bible, yet “God is not the author of confusion," as I Corinthians 14 33 tells us.  "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound," Paul wrote in I Corinthians 14 8, "who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?" So it should be simple to understand, not confusing – yet debate rages on, sects continue, etc… If all things are possible with god, and god knows that things should be clear... then why isn’t god’s word clear? Why can’t Christians agree on dogma and verses?

 

Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword." (Matthew 10 34) "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22 36) "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19 27. In a parable, but spoken of favorably.)  The burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of Jesus: "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." (John 15 6) 

"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." (Luke 14:26) The Greek word here is miseo which means simply "hate," not "love less than me," as some suggest. Its derivatives include misogyny, etc..

In the canonical gospels, Jesus himself makes many illogical contradictions concerning some of his most important teachings. First, he repeatedly states the he is sent only "to the lost sheep of Israel," and forbids his disciples to preach to the Gentiles. Then he is made to say, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (It is also interesting to note that the Trinity was not adopted by the Church until the 4th century, long after "Jesus’" purported statements concerning it. These proselytizers, then, were awfully slow in their preaching of this doctrine!) Next, Jesus claims that the end of the world is imminent and warns his disciples to be prepared at a moment's notice. Then he tells them to build a church from which to preach his message. Now, if the end of the world is coming, why should they build anything? We know that this "prophecy" didn't happen; nor has Jesus returned "soon," as was his promise.

Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming: "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28). "Behold, I come quickly." (Revelation 3:11) It's been 2,000 years, and believers are still waiting for his "quick" return.

"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. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-36)

When one of his disciples requested time off for his father's funeral, Jesus rebuked him: "Let the dead bury their dead." (Matthew 8:22)

Jesus never used the word "family." He never married or fathered children. To his own mother, he said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (John 2:4)

He did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying, "Ye have the poor with you always." (Mark 14:3-7)

Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a "fool" shall be in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22), yet he called people "fools" himself (Matthew 23:17).

Regarding his own truthfulness, Jesus gave two conflicting opinions: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (John 5:31), and "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true" (John 8:14).

Back to Table of Contents….

 

Easy Salvation

 

“Whosoever calls upon the lord will be saved”, “repeat this prayer after me and your place in heaven will be set”, on and on the messages of salvation flow.  It certainly doesn’t sound hard does it? Believe in Jesus, repeat this prayer and confess your sins – then you will be greeted at the pearly gates. For each instance of how easy it is to be saved, the bible has instances that seem quite the contrary. It says “many will seek to enter in and shall not be able”. You missed the end – shall not be able. They try and are not able. The bible also says: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.”

 

 The bible reads “narrow is the way that leadeth to eternal life and few that find it”. It is narrow and many shall not be able because god chooses who he will have mercy on – it does not matter whether you try or on your desire – does that sound so hard? Yes. So in one part of the bible it is easy – just believe (John 3:16), just call on the lord and be saved – easy right? Passages that are great for those sermons on god’s love for all men. But then later the bible says that it is hard! Few will be able, few are chosen, narrow is the way, only those in the will of god, etc... We like to believe that god hears the cries of people – but the bible says this is not always so.

 

Matthew 7:21:  "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

 

Lamentations 3:8 : “Even when I call out or cry for help, he shuts out my prayer.”

 

Why? Because god has created some for destruction? Does he chose who he wants, just as Romans suggests?

 

Joshua 11:20 “For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy”.

 

If our fellowship and salvation is of the utmost importance to god, why would he harden people against him? If god is love, merciful to the end – would he destroy people without mercy? And is everyone and everything really all about god, the pain of everyone a result of an ego-maniac?

 

Pr.16:4 “The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.”

 

Does a kind and benevolent god create all things for himself? Does he create the wicked for the day of evil? Everyone is predestined, just as the verses I listed in the previous document confirm. The loving god creates some of us for hell, some of us for heaven, some of us gifted and some of us deformed?

 

Exodus 4:11: “The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?”

 

Back to Table of Contents….


 

God is Ethical


Ethical: adj. Conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior.

God is NOT ethical. Sending bears to maul children is unacceptable behavior. (2 Kings 2 23, 24). Forcing people to do your bidding or be utterly destroyed (including ordering women, children and infants to be slaughtered) is not accepted as a standard of behavior (I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8).


"God is Moral"


Moral: adj. Relating to principles of right and wrong; i.e. to morals or ethics.

God is NOT moral. Forcing people to eat their own children due to a famine imposed because god is mad is not moral. (Duet. 28 53) Placing lies into the mouths of people in order to deceive, and speaking evil against people is not a moral act (2 Chronicles 18:22).

"God is Just"


Just: adj. Used especially of what is legally or ethically right or proper or fitting.

We are told that "No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed" (Lev 21 18), yet Exodus tells us that god creates some blind, deaf and mute in 4 21 "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?" So is it fair that god creates some blind or mute? And then consider that he tells the church not to allow them near the temple after he creates them that way! Blaming and punishing a generation for the wrongs of generations long since gone (Ezekiel 18:20) and punishing someone seven times worth their wrong (Lev. 26: 28, 29) is not just.


"God is Good"


Good: adj. Having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified.

Romans: "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." Is it fair, good, for some to be created to suffer wrath and others to enjoy the splendors of god? So they are "prepared in advance" to show his wrath and make his power known... who exactly is he trying to impress? If a strong man beats up a weak boy, what has that proven? Aren’t there better ways for an almighty, with whom all things are possible, to show his wrath and power than to create people for that very purpose and take it out on them?

 

Forcing people to eat their own, rubbing dung in faces, committing and ordering merciless killings, etc. is not good, positive or desirable.

 

Back to Table of Contents….

 

Just God & Morality

Often after confronting a Christian with the examples of unnecessary and spiteful cruelty, I have been told "God's actions do not need justification."

 

Alas, if a servant never questioned its master, is it ever any more than a puppet? And if we, the slaves and marionettes, never judge the actions of our master, then how can we state that he is good?  Labeling something good is passing judgment, equally as much as labeling something evil. Are we supposed to blindly adhere to the indoctrination of our youth and culture? If so, then how can we condemn other religions and why would we try to dissuade them from their belief?

 

Gods require faith, each and every god, so what are we to use to distinguish which god is true and real, and which is not? Each claims truth, each has a sacred document or a plethora of documents.  Each claims evidence that is often narrowly backed by shreds of science, archeology and history, yet often contradictory to the scientific consensus.  With the enormous array of myths, superstitions, religions, deities, messiahs and their protagonists - what do we have but reasoning and logic! The need for justification and congruity are quite necessary. 

 

Look at the numerous, atrocious events throughout history that have been caused due to people’s adherence to religious doctrine.  If they would have used their minds and compassion to evaluate and justify their creed – then how many of the dreadful events of the past would have been avoided?  German Christians built human ovens for the burning of pagans and witches centuries before the Nazis. How many people were stoned to death, burned at the stake or ostracized because of obedience to the “good book”?  Terrorist cells, the crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, the holy wars – all repercussions of religious observance without justification and critical thought.  Each god and religion requires faith and the loyalty of its followers, while labeling pagans as deceptive, manipulative self-seekers and wrongdoers.

 

Why is it that Christians are so distrusting of human rational and conclusions that they will readily trust in what a book states over critical thought? Yet in so doing, they are trusting in their human rational and conclusion to believe in a god and, even more so, trusting in a book written and interpreted by human rational about humans interacting with god?

 

Lastly, if we do not assess the justification of our deity and our dogma, and continue to teach and spread the doctrine – aren’t we just spreading immorality? Before answering consider what morality is, by definition:

 

Morality: noun. (1) Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct.

 

Evil: noun. (1) Morally objectionable behavior (2) That which causes harm or destruction or misfortune (3) Having or exerting a malignant influence.

 

Good: noun.  (1) Having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified. (2) That which is valuable or useful.

 

People define morals; they decide that which causes harm, destruction or misfortune (evil) is unwanted, unacceptable behavior or conduct, and to be avoided. They also decide that which is valuable, useful and positive (good) behavior or conduct – and from that we determine our laws, lives and society in general.  Christians, however, wish to take the entire word and have it mean something else entirely. They want it to be a set of standards laid out by a creator that everyone must adhere to (except the creator itself). But this is not morality, it is regulation.  Might makes right and since god is mightiest then he sets the rules.  While there are problems with that mindset, notice there is a large difference in rules and morals.  Rules are decrees governing conduct and behavior.  God gave us rules, not morals.  To spread a doctrine, with a god whose actions you never ascertain to be justified, is taking away a person’s concern with distinction between good and evil, which is morality.

 

How many people would consider forcing people to eat their own children, rubbing dung in people’s faces, ordering the destruction of infants, etc to be morally objectionable?  These are things the god of the bible has done (or threatened to do). The only way for it to not be morally objectionable is to state that god’s actions need no justification nor can they be assessed as good or evil.  It is taking away thought, morality, and the very concept of evil and good. I prefer to keep my morals by using my mind to see an evil act as an evil act and a deplorable god as deplorable.

 

Back to Table of Contents….


 

Merciful Healings

 

I have been asked "If God were not merciful, would He have cured the blind and the lame and the dying?"

 

Though the questioner seems to never consider if god were merciful would he create people blind and lame? Exodus 4:21 "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?" It is “Munchhausen's by proxy”, in which someone makes someone else sick in order to gain attention, respect, or worship. God tells us that he creates people blind, deaf and lame. Various instances in the bible dictate god creating disease. If someone is cured, does that make god merciful?  Or rather, would the truly merciful god not have created the disease or person deformed in the first place?  It isn’t merciful for someone to make you sick in order to make you better and gain praise – that is demented, selfish cruelty.

 

Much like the creation of people, God wants to show his mercy and make himself look good by setting us up to fail, then giving us a way out! Evil and all the iterations and variants thereof, sickness and all the variants thereof, etc are all thanks to god. Yes, people brought it on by sinning in the garden, I will certainly concur but god knew they would sin! God knew that it would happen; He put a stacked deck on the table. He knows we will succumb to the laws that he places on us – just as he knew Adam would fall.  Everyone is subjected to the pains and trial of life, billions to an eternity of hell – so that god can have the fellowship of true believers in the end times.  His benefit, arguably with that of the chosen few, at the expense of all – that is not mercy!

 

The bible tells us in Romans "what if god, willing to show his wrath and make his power known, created with much longsuffering the objects of his wrath fitted for destruction". Does this sound like mercy to you? People created as objects of wrath, fitted for destruction?  Who's he trying to impress? "show his wrath and make his power known"... if a strong man beats up a child, what has that proven? If a stronger, smarter man sets a child up for failure, then let's him off, is that mercy or just someone toying with an underling?

 

Back to Table of Contents….


 

The Immoral Tyrant

 

Morality: noun. (1) Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct.

 

Evil: noun. (1) Morally objectionable behavior (2) That which causes harm or destruction or misfortune (3) Having or exerting a malignant influence.

 

Good: noun.  (1) Having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified. (2) That which is valuable or useful.

 

People define morals; they decide that which causes harm, destruction or misfortune (evil) is unwanted, unacceptable behavior or conduct, and to be avoided. They also decide that which is valuable, useful and positive (good) behavior or conduct – and from that we determine our laws, lives and society in general.  But Christians often wish to take the entire word and have it mean something else entirely. The context of their wanted word is a set of standards laid out by a creator that everyone must adhere to (except the creator itself evidently). Might makes right and since god is mightiest then he sets the rules.  There is a large difference in rules and morals in the theological sense.  Rules are decrees governing conduct and behavior.  God gave us rules, not morals. 

 

But either way, morality is relative to intelligence.  Independent thinkers assert that ethical values and morality are relative to human life and human intelligence, while Christians wish it to be relative to god’s intelligence.  Christians believe themselves too persuaded by biases and desires to correctly use their intelligence to determine morality – yet these same Christians that distrust human thought, completely trust their human decision to believe in god, to believe in man’s writings of god and what god wishes, and in the human interpretation. Highly incongruent…

 

Religious morality does not allow you to think, to use your intelligence or principles, to determine what is acceptable and good.  Rather it spells out what is good and requires that you follow these precepts unquestionably.  So, for instance, if a person did not lie because it is forbidden by their creator – this isn’t per say a “moral” act or “moral” person, but an obedient person. The moral person, according to the definition of moral, is the person that chooses not to lie because they believe lying leads to ill consequences on others or themselves, i.e. is harmful.

Often times, people try to stop the pain of others, which is compassion. Atheists can perhaps express compassion more easily than believers. If we minimize the pain of others and enhance their quality of life, we are moral and good. If we don't, we are immoral or amoral, depending on our intentions and evil. Without the Ten Commandments, would it never have dawned on the human race that there is a problem with killing? The prohibitions against homicide and theft existed millennia before the Israelites claimed the copyright.

Christianity strips you of morals.  Why do you treat your neighbor nicely?  The Christian is obligated to because a rule was placed on them by the god of the bible. Since we are all connected – part of the same species, linked by common genetics, ideas, feelings and compassion – I want to be nice to my neighbor. I do not have a rule or dominion over me to be nice to my neighbor.  I could flip him off everyday or ignore him entirely if I so wished. But I want a strong stable society of goodwill and peace.  I want to be there to help if needed or just for comradery.  Since I value myself, you and my neighbor, and the others to whom we are related, I recognize that when someone is hurting, my natural family is suffering. When someone wishes to talk, they have a need. By nature, those of us who are mentally healthy recoil from pain and wish to see it ended.  Those of us want to see others happy.  Not because we are commanded to love our neighbor, but because our neighbor is a person bearing inherent value in and of themselves as they relate to us.

If you were in need, I would be there to help you.  But what does the bible say about you helping me? “Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? Therefore is wrath upon thee.” II Chronicles 19:2.  If you needed a place to stay, I’d help you out.  But 2 John 1:10 “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; (11)   for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.” 

Hosea (9:15) quotes God: “. . . for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more.” In Psalms 139:22 David seeks god’s approval since he hates those that are not of god with “perfect hatred”.  So while there are passages about loving people for god’s sake, there also those of hating people for god’s sake. Seems contradictory to say god is love.

Back to Table of Contents….


 

Complex Creation

 

Christians love to point out the complexity of life, the diversity of living beings. And the quick retort is that the complexity necessitates a creator.  But what of the ever complex god of the Christians? If complexity necessitates a creator, who created god? If the complex to creator relation ends at god, why can’t it end before him or after him?

The world is not proof of god. It is just something theists like to attribute to a god or gods. Whether due to our fear of death, our need for assurance, or to explain the natural world around us - people have created god/gods. Is the Christian god immune from our tendencies to manufacture deities?

The fact that many people continue to believe in a god that doesn't show himself is pretty amazing. The physical world is evidence of only one thing - the physical world. It is the attempt of the theist to make the world - "the creation". You have no proof for your god. You may have a book (which is sacred to you), the world that you wish to attribute to your god, etc., but nothing more than any other theist or polytheist, nor anything that is exclusive and conclusive.

People like to attribute things to god/gods. People like to pray over food, lives and troubles and believe someone's listening, helping and watching. People like to be important in a cosmic plan. If that is what you choose, it is what you choose. It may not be the most logical thing, or the most probable.

You want the complexity of earth to reveal a creator. Yet, the complexity of the creator does not reveal another creator. You want the unseen nature of god to mean mysterious, not non-existent. You want the pain of the world to mean an inexplicable, immense plan for greater good, not a consequence of a stochastic universe.  All the while, you have no proof of god. Stating that something exists requires evidence. And as Carl Sagan coined “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

There is no evidence of non-existence, and what direct evidence could there be? If I said I had a purple centaur that spoke Spanish locked in my basement, you could not disprove it. You could make many reasonable assumptions that I do not, plausible arguments against it. However, since there is no direct evidence that I do not have a purple centaur that speaks Spanish, nor any evidence of a purple centaur, you couldn't disprove it. As for my claim, I would have to provide proof!  I could show you the creature or conclusive evidence of the creature, but sadly I don't have a purple centaur that speaks Spanish, but my cousin does!

But certainly, we have no evidence of god/gods - so why would we believe in something's existence that hasn't shown itself to exist? Even if we do belief in a god or gods, to try and back that belief with a creation science is faulty. Scientific creationism is a pseudoscience; it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing. Creation science will remain unchanged as a theory. It will engender no debate among scientists about fundamental mechanisms of the universe. It generates no empirical predictions that can be used to test the theory. It is taken to be irrefutable. And it assumes a priori that there can be no evidence that will ever falsify it.

Religious creationism could be scientific, however. For example, if a theory says that the world was created in 4004 B.C. but the evidence indicates that Earth is several billions of years old, then the theory is a scientific one if it is thereby taken to be refuted by the evidence. But if, for example, the ad hoc hypothesis  is made that God created the world in 4004 B.C. complete with fossils that make the Earth look much older than it really is (to test our faith, perhaps, or to fulfill some mysterious divine plan), then the religious theory is metaphysical. Nothing could refute it; it is airtight.

If the age or scientific dating techniques of fossil evidence is disputed, but considered relevant to the truth of the religious theory and is prejudged to be consistent with the theory, then the theory is a metaphysical one. A scientific theory cannot prejudge what its investigative outcomes must be. If the religious cosmologist denies that the earth is billions of years old on the grounds that their own “scientific” tests prove the Earth is very young, then the burden of proof is on the religious cosmologist to demonstrate that the standard scientific methods and techniques of dating fossils, etc., are erroneous. Otherwise, no reasonable person should consider such an unsupported claim that would require us to believe that the entire scientific community is in error. Duane Gish, of the CRI and various creationism books, has tried this. The fact that he is unable to convert even a small segment of the scientific community to his way of thinking is a strong indication that his arguments have little merit. This is not because the majority must be right. The entire scientific community could be deluded. However, since the opposition issues from a religious dogmatist who is not doing scientific investigation but theological apologetics, it seems more probable that it is the creation scientists who are deluded rather than the evolutionary scientists.

There are many believers in a religious cosmology such as that given in Genesis who do not claim that their beliefs are scientific. They do not believe that the Bible is to be taken as a science text. To them, the Bible contains teachings pertinent to their spiritual lives. It expresses spiritual ideas about the nature of God and the relationship of God to humans and the rest of the universe. Such people do not believe the Bible should be taken literally when the issue is a matter for scientific discovery. The Bible, they say, should be read for its spiritual messages, not it lessons in biology, physics or chemistry. This used to be the common view of religious scholars. Philosophical analyses of the absurdity of popular conceptions of the gods were made by philosophers such as Epicurus (342-270). Creation scientists have no taste for allegorical interpretations.


 

Back to Table of Contents for this page….                                    EMAIL ME: orcinus06@yahoo.com but not hate mail… broken links/discussion=GOOD, “You’re going to hell”, etc=BAD

 

To the Entire Table Of Contents