Wednesday, June 13, 2012

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Christianity-- A Disingenuous Religion Based on Lies and Deception

Cathy Cooper has posted another blog post ranting against Christianity. It's unfortunately that there are many who erroneously think the same way she does. An understanding of what the scripture actually says not the rhetoric spewed out by those ignorant of God more than clears up the problems she keeps posting about.

According to the video below, C. Michael Patton, Th.M. and Tim Kimberley, Th.M of Credo House, describe how, when believers are presented before Yahweh, their own resumes could never measure up, so instead, they must submit the resume that belongs to Jesus in order to be "saved" and this post will explain how this analogy illustrates how disingenuous the Bible and Christianity is at its core. The video is based on the verses in Ephesians 2:8-9, which many Christians believe relieves them of any responsibility for their "sins"--for they believe that as long as they have this "gift" of "grace," they will be "saved."

Notice that "gift of God" is not a release from responsibility. Notice how she leaves out verse 10. Maybe she missed it.

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions —it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. - Ephesians 2:1-10


Look at the whole context of the passage. Why does the pardoning of our sins come as a gift? Because we don't deserve it. It's grace and mercy - God choosing to hold back the wrath that we deserve. We are not being let go unscathed. In order to get this gift, one must agree that you are a sinner and need a savior - that God is right. You are noit being declared innocent, but "not guilty". And  it is not about the good works you do because they don't offset the offenses you are guilty of. We are not saved by our own good works but so that we can  do greater good works. 







"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."  Ephesians 2:8-9

Cathy has indeed pointed out a great video. It is part six of a ten part series on 10 myths people believe about God.  I recommend watching all 10. Link

In Ephesians, Paul explains that "grace" is a "gift"--it has nothing to do with what a person does, and Yahweh chooses at his whim whom he bestows his "grace" upon. (Eph. 1:5) It could be a rapist, or a murderer--it's all up to Yahweh, as Yahweh PREDESTINED those he bestows his "grace" upon, just as he PREDESTINED those that are damned.

Um no. EVERYONE is bound for hell unless God has predestined them for Heaven. No one's fate is up in the air and then God makes a decision determining if they go to Hell or go to Heaven. If God does nothing you go to hell.  Hell is default. What makes Cathy or anyone else think that they are better than the murderer or rapist and deserve grave more than they do? We don't. And once one becomes "saved" they would exhibit true repentance and will no longer engage in living a life encumbered by sin. 

There is no free will to choose whether or not we want this '"grace," as it is a "gift" believers were PREDESTINED to receive, i.e., this "gift" is NOT of themselves and they have nothing to do with it.

Without Jesus, your will is not free. According to Biblical philosophy, we are all slaves to sin by default. The gift isn't just freedom from the eternal wrath for our sins which we deserve but freedom from sin itself. Not sinless, but no longer to addicted to sinning.

Yahewh determines who believes in Jesus and those who do not believe in Jesus. Therefore, those that were NOT predestined to receive the "gift" of grace, i.e. salvation, were PREDESTINED to be damned, and they too have nothing to do with it. It is all done according to Yahweh's "pleasure and will." (Eph 1:9)

"For HE CHOSE us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5HE PREDESTINED us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9And hed made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ." Ephesians 1:4-10

The passages does not discuss what those who go to hell or why people go to hell. This passage is about those elected for salvation. If you want to discuss original sin and why we are born indicted and deserving of hell, read Romans 5.

Now, we also find contradictory passages in the Bible to the above deterministic passages such as the one below,
At the commencement of his ministry, Jesus himself commanded, “repent, and believe the gospel.” Mk. 1:15.
which illustrates again, the contradictory nature of the Bible.

No contradiction. A person who is predestined for salvation will repent, and believe the gospel and never reject it. THAT IS HOW WE KNOW THEY ARE ELECT!!!! Jesus also said:

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” - John 8:24

Who did Jesus say who he is?


This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:28



That is what Paul's letters say. 

Furthermore, it is the existence of these types of contradictory passages which has led to the development of the various denominations of Christianity--some that believe in determinism (e.g., the Calviniss) and some that believe in "free will" (e.g., Catholics). When a text does not have consistency and is contradictory you can conclude anything from it.

That isn't the case here. I\ realize that it's true that there are varying opinions, but that does not mean the problem is with the Bible. The problem is us.

 Meaning of course, that Christians themselves cannot even agree amongst themselves as to the "true" meaning of the text, and Yahweh, the so-called "all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful" god, did not do a very good job of "revealing" the text to his followers--which means of course, he "knowingly" caused the confusion, which has resulted in multiple conflicts and millions of deaths. But I digress......


That is why you need to know Jesus for yourself. Blindly believing another person (every bit as much a sinner as you) leads to nothing but confusion and disappointment. Trust God first and he will lead you to ministries you can trust as you study on your own.

In the video, C. Michael Patton and Tim Kimberley explain that the salvation of Christians is not based on anything they do. It is based on "faith" alone, so that no one can "boast." (Eph. 2:8-10) This means that Christians, as long as they believe in Jesus, and repent for their sins, can continue to rape, murder, and commit other crimes without any fear that they could lose their salvation. Note, that some Christians do not believe you even need to "repent" in order to be saved--all they have to do is believe. Furthermore, there is no justice for the victims of Christian "sin" in the Christian system. i.e.--There is no justice at at all.

Again this is not what the Bible is saying. The passages she quotes have nothing to do with this point. she is raising.  God's forgiveness of sin doesn't obligate you or allows you to continue sinning and to do worse. 


What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin — 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness.14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. - Romans 6:1-14


No Justice? God is more than capable of avenging the innocent. People who victimize others not only sin against their victim but sin against God himself.  Unrepentant reprobates go to Hell. Don't be one of them. 

Their analogy in this case, illustrates just how disingenuous Christianity is at its core. In the video, they describe how, when believers are presented before Yahweh, their own resumes could never measure up, so instead, they must submit the resume that belongs to Jesus in order to be "saved"! In other words, they must lie about their true identity, and present someone else's resume to "the boss." If anyone in THIS life did such a thing, that is, present a resume to a prospective employer that belonged to someone else, well, that person would not only be liar, they would also be breaking the law!

Not if the employer (God in this case) decided to accept the resume of his son instead of mine and treat me accordingly. It's not against the law if that is how the employer has decided to run his business. There in no deception because Christ knows he is carrying us and the Father and the Holy Spirit knows we are being judged on Jesus' flawless record instead of our flawed ones. God is the one who set it up.  If you don't like it that's fine, but ultimately that doesn't matter. Lots of luck with using your own resume. Mine is horrible. 

 The fact that Christian salvation is based on someone else paying for the crime of another is disingenuous enough, but that Christians see no problem in creating an analogy where a person must lie about who they are and present a resume to Yahweh that does not belong to them--well, that certainly does illustrate that these Christians who feel this analogy is appropriate cannot see the forest for the trees. That is, they cannot see that their religion and their so-called salvation is based on lies and deception.

How pitiful.
________________
Cathy Cooper

How is it a lie if everyone involved knows that Jesus substituted in our place to pay for sin?  Who is being lied to? No one. Who is being deceived? The one who thinks that their righteousness measures up to God's standards of Holiness. But that isn't God telling us that our righteousness is enough. 

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. - Isaiah 64:6


22 This righteousness is given through faith in[a] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. - Romans 3:22-24


It's not like no one told us. It's on you if you reject it. 

Debunking Christianity: Christianity-- A Disingenuous Religion Based on Lies and Deception

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why the Crucifixion ofJesus was a Waste and Rejected as Atonement by Yahweh (God)


Harry McCall has written a blog post that attempts to show that Jesus' crucifixion does not atone for sin because it does not fit the Old Testament paradigm. This is an important issue that should be closely examined.

A. The Roman method of crucifixion, which included the beating Jesus received before he was nailed to the cross, was done by non-consecrated pagan gentile men who were not set apart as holy in God’s sight. Plus the fact that Jesus’ beating and crucifixion generally was not any different from the thousands of other rebels and criminals the Romans made examples out of. (1)

The closest Old Testament sacrifice that most closely foreshadows what Jesus did is the Day of Atonement. Those rituals are where one should look to see the parallels. The day-to-day sacrifices was offered for an individual by an individual through a priest. The Day of Atonement was performed by the High Priest on behalf  of the whole Jewish nation. The fact that Jesus was killed by Gentiles shows that the sacrifices is about all people not just Jews.

B. There is no recorded sacrificial animal in the Hebrew Bible that was ever tortured or made to suffer as atonement to God. The animal was ritualistically sacrificed with a knife, and bled to death quickly. Afterwards, its whole body was brunt (or only its fat and organs burnt) with the sweet smell in the form of smoke of the burning flesh rising up to God.

Of course the animal was not mean  not mean to be sacrificed. The wrath of God was not being poured out on the animal.  The animal was a stand-in for the person. This was a substitution. Death was not enough. It had to be be a man. Blood innocent of all sin because animals could not justly take our place.  Not sin offering! Not all sin offering were burnt offering. Notice in Numbers 6:11 there is a distinction made between burnt offering and sin offerings. They are not always equivalent. Jesus as a sin offering offered in propitiation for us.


By contrast, Jesus was purposely made to suffer under pagan gentile Roman law (not under God’s law as found in Leviticus 1-18). Jesus was neither quickly killed by proper bleeding, nor was his body burnt as recorded in the Gospels. Also even the innocent women, children and babies who were slain with the sword at Jericho and Ai died quickly and then their bodies were burnt so Yahweh could enjoy the sweet aroma of cooking flesh (Joshua 6: 21 & 24).

The people killed at Jericho and Ai were not sin offerings. 

Counter to this fact, Jesus’ death failed to qualify as a consecrated sacrifice under any of the Priestly laws of the Hebrew Bible. Again, Jesus’ body was not burnt as a human sacrifice as set by the examples in the in the Hebrew Bible (the Book of Leviticus), and thus Yahweh (God) could not feast upon the smell of its smoke.

There is nothing that says that a sin offering must be a burnt offering. 

C. No sacrificial animal, be it human or beast, could still be alive (that is resurrected) after the act of sacrifice was completed and still be a true offering to God. Its life (as carried in its blood) was drained and the victim was sealed in death to God forever in the heavens by the rising smoke from the burning sacrificial flesh.

No where does the Bible say that - Old or New Testaments. Jesus' Resurrection is the guarantee that his sacrifice was accepted. 


Keep in mind that the sacrificial system was always meant to be replaced by something greater.

“The multitude of your sacrifices—
    what are they to me?” says the Lord.
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
    of rams and the fat of fattened animals; 
I have no pleasure 
    in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. - Isaiah 1:10-12


It was a stop gap. A picture of Jesus. 



3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
    but a body you prepared for me; - Hebrews 10:3-5


D. No one single one time offering ever atoned once for every sin of the Jewish people, much less all those of the entire future gentile world (contra Paul’s theology in Romans). Plus the fact that Jesus is said to be sinless is only a subjective truth: To the educated religious Jews, he was a Godless blasphemer. To the Christians, he was the perfect sinless lamb of God. .

See Hebrews 10. I don't see how Jesus' see how Jesus' sinlessness could be subjective. Either he kept the law or he didn't. No one dared bring up a single fault. Even Pilate found no fault in him. Those same "educated Jews" knew Jesus was blood innocent. He had done nothing wrong. For proof look at their reaction when Judas tried to give back the money they had given him for betraying Jesus to them.


3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”
“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”
5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”[a]  - Matthew 27:3-10

E. There are also two other major factors that would reject the death of Jesus as a sacrifice:
1. Jesus’ blood was shed away from the Temple’s altar on non-consecrated ground.

There are several examples  of examples of God accepting sacrifices that had nothing to do with the Temple's altar. For example: Elijah's sacrifice on Mt Carmel. And what about all the sacrifices offered before the temple was even built? What? Aaron's sacrifices as Israel's first High Priest didn't count? Better try that one again.

2. The theology of the late Priestly School that compiled the Levitical Law which controlled the Torah, would have never allowed nor accepted any human sacrifice.

It's not really a question of what the Levitical Law would allow or accept. What does God allow and accept? The thing to remember is that none of us are good enough to atone for our sins. It is like trying to pay off the national debt with a penny. We owe a debt we could never pay and Jesus paid that for those who will accept that gift. 

Plus another problem for the early Christians who were seeking to validate the life of Jesus with proof texts from the LXX (and Hebrew Bible) was the fact that the Jewish scriptures (Deut. 21:22 - 23) condemns a person who is hung on a tree as a sinner rejected by God. This problem gives us an insight into just how Paul’s hermeneutics (Gal. 3: 13) reworked the plain meaning of this text when dealing with Jesus.



Finally, the problem of Jesus bleeding to death as he was crucified between two criminals (who were also executed in the same exact same manner) caused a major theological problem. To counter this, medieval artists painted the two other criminals as being simply tied to their crosses (in contrast to Jesus who was the only one the artist depicted as nailed to his cross). This church art work was often commissioned to leave no doubt that it was and could only have been Jesus who shed his blood as a sacrificial atonement for the sin of the world.

So because some people changed the situation to on the cross to fit with their sensibilities, we should accept that as proof that Jesus' was just killed and his death held no greater significant. That is a real poor argument. Contrast that with what Paul said. 

13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” - Galatians 3:13


Perfectly fits with scripture
End Notes
1. See Josephus, The Jewish War Book 2, Chapter 308 and Philo In Flaccum 72; 84-85.
2. J. Milgrom, Sacrifices and Offering in the Old Testament in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, edited by K. Crim ( Nashville, Abingdon Press 1976) pp. 763 - 771).
Harry McCall 

The reason why the Resurrection is so important is that it validates the fact that the sacrifice was accepted. 


22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead,freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.25 David said about him:
“‘I saw the Lord always before me.
    Because he is at my right hand,
    I will not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
    my body also will rest in hope,
27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
    you will not let your holy one see decay. 
28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
    you will fill me with joy in your presence.’[e]
29 “Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
    “Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies
    a footstool for your feet.”’[f]
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” -Acts 2:22-36




Monday, June 11, 2012

Debunking the Problem of Evil--Why Yahweh's Way is Best

Euthyphro Dilemma keeps coming up from time to time. Atheists seem to think that it a good argument disproving God and I think they really like it because it comes from ancient Greece. I'm not only excited or moved by it at all. It really is weak. In a post today it was brought up in one of its forms again - and rather lengthily. The premise was stated in the following paragraph.

Yahweh is said by Christians to have certain attributes such as being all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful, but the attributes of the god Yahweh, as depicted in the Bible, present a god that is not only supposedly loving--but also angry, jealous, vengeful, and just plain evil. According to Christians, Yahweh is an all-powerful, all good, all knowing god--which is inconsistent with a world of suffering--and this is known as the Problem of Evil. The dilemma for Christians is that if Yahweh is all powerful and all knowing, he could accomplish any of his tasks without the need for suffering--or he would not be all powerful and all knowing. If he was all good, he would want to create a world without any pain and suffering, since it would be within his power and knowledge to do so. But clearly we have pain and suffering. Therefore, Yahweh is not all knowing, all good, or all powerful.

This farce has been answered ad nauseum for years ever since it first appeared. So instead of writing a rebuttal, I want anyone who thinks that this dilemma is a death blow for Christianity, I invite them to see what Christians have actually said in answer for this. There are good answers that do not include putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and hoping it goes away. 

I can hear the criticism already: The article is not about the Euthyphro Dilemma. It is related. It all boils down to Theodicy and the Problem of evil. It's about what God says about justice. What is right and what is wrong and who gets to decide what that is and what it means. I'm not the only one who sees the connection. Read the following article http://gospelaxiom.blogspot.com/2011/09/problem-of-evil-and-euthyphro-dilemma.html

Read  Mariano Grinbank's solution to this often used dilemma. Don't wanna read? No problem. His video has been turned into a video and an audio.  Here are links to this wonderful resources.

Text
Essay: The Euthyphro Dichotomy by Mariano Grinbank
 
Video



Audio
 MP3

Debunking Christianity: Yahweh and the Problem of Evil--Why Yahweh is an Egotistical, Evil, Sadistic, Masochistic God

Sunday, June 10, 2012

C.S. Lewis on Reasoning to Atheism - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted this gem of a quote from C.S. Lewis

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."

—C.S. Lewis


C.S. Lewis on Reasoning to Atheism - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, June 8, 2012

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: King David and Jesus: The Bible’s Mythic Super Heroes

McCall posted the following paragraph. 

A decade ago, I read Steven McKenzie’s King David: A Biography(Oxford University Press, 2002). What I soon realized was that the Bible creates propaganda to sell faith in its God, especially though famous characters created to promote belief in Israelite monotheism; be they Abraham, Moses, David or Jesus. These embellished Super Heroes function like our comic book (now in movies) Super Heroes such as Superman, Batman and Spiderman battling the forces of evil for a world of good. But these idealized figures simply function to serve our fantasies in a world where reality is fraught with suffering and injustice


Debunking Christianity: King David and Jesus: The Bible’s Mythic Super Heroes



It is not a new argument. I have posted and talked about this subject a lot on this blog. Instead of dredging them up, let's instead look at how Chris Sims answered this question.


Chris Sims is a blogger, comics writer, and simply brilliant and he happens to be an atheist. I do not agree with everything he says and writes but he is spot-on here.

The idea of Superman as a Christ figure is the herpes of pop culture criticism. No matter how hard you try to get rid of it, it just won't go away.

It's a popular interpretation, but the thing is, it just doesn't work. As I understand it, the entire deal with Jesus in a nutshell is that he was the Son of God, divinity made flesh who was sent to Earth in order to instruct us as a teacher and then sacrifice His life, redeeming the whole of humanity for its sins through His suffering on both a literal and metaphorical level. There's a little more to it, of course, but for more details, you can check out around 90% of the rest of Western art and literature.

Superman's story, on the other hand, has nothing to do with any of that. The core of his character isn't about sacrifice or redemption at all, it's about having power and choosing to use it for the benefit of everyone rather than just using it for yourself. The comparison seems to be entirely based on the idea that Superman's a really nice guy who came from somewhere up in the sky. That's about where the similarities end.

Jor-El is not Space God. He doesn't send Superman to Earth for our benefit, he sends Superman to Earth because it's the one place in the universe where his son can survive and thrive. He's protecting him, not sacrificing him, and humanity's need for someone to fight robots and Brainiacs doesn't even cross his mind. And, to paraphrase Grant Morrison, I'm pretty sure Heaven didn't explode shortly after Jesus was launched down to Bethlehem.

Superman's morality isn't divine or innate, either. It's not something that he was born with, and it's not something that sets him apart from humanity. Morally speaking, anyone can be as Good as Superman; the only advantage he has is that he was brought up by a couple of really nice farmers. He's an aspirational figure rather than a redemptive one, who shows us that we all have the ability to use our talents for good, we just have to choose to do so.


Similar arguments can be made showing that there is no more than a superficial argument that can be made equating anyone with the Bible and pagan myths or people in the Bible and modern fictional characters. 

Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: J.P. Moreland presents "Evidence for Christianity"

Chad has posted links to a three part video of Dr JP Moreland  lecturing on the evidences for Christianity.



Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: J.P. Moreland presents "Evidence for Christianity"

Full series on the evolution of marriage and the Bible: a response to “Marriage=” | True Freethinker

Mariano Grinbank has posted a summary article debunking and ripping to shreds the silly notion that marriage has evolved and that each "flavor" is equal to another. this is a good resource to start looking at and dialogue over these issues. The posts are a response to the graphic on the right. Mariano carefully considers and analyzes each scenario put forth in the graphic. I will be recommending this often.



Full series on the evolution of marriage and the Bible: a response to “Marriage=” | True Freethinker

Ask Chris #109: The Movie Industry's Kill-Happy Super-Heroes - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Chris Sims has written a great article about the differences in presenting Superheroes in comics vs in movies. It's centered around why do Superheroes kill in movies while being adapted from characters with a "no killing" policy. He makes a lot of valid points and makes some great insights on culture and on human nature.

Ask Chris #109: The Movie Industry's Kill-Happy Super-Heroes - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Thursday, June 7, 2012

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Contradictory And Chaotic Gospel Lies Used to Prove the Resurrection

Harry McCall is back to making outlandish assertions on the Debunking Christianity blog. In this article he attempts to shred that Resurrection accounts by trying to point out contradictions that here seems to think equate to lies.

The Gospels can’t even get their post-resurrection stories straight! In fact, they have used lies to cover earlier lies in selling Christianity. (I view both telemarketers and the Gospel writers driven by the same ideology: Sell the product at any cost. Lies are totally OK if it creates a sell / belief!)

In order to prove someone is lying you have to show that what they are saying is false and demonstrate that they knew what they were saying was false. If you are looking for this logic from McCall, you won't find it. FacePlant number one. As for exposing contradictions, you will not find them here either.

Here are a few of the many lies the post-resurrection Gospel stories use:

A. Jesus tells Mary not to touch him: “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” (John 20:17)

B. Then Jesus contradicts what he had just told Mary by what he now tells Thomas: “Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.’" (John 20:27) Not only is all this contradiction in the same Gospel of John, but it’s in the very same chapter of that Gospel as well!

Why assume that Jesus was not with the father ever  between the times that Mary and Thomas saw Jesus? No reason to make the silly assumption McCall is making here. The text does not tell us that Jesus had not been with Father at all in the 50 days between the crucifixion and Pentecost. We don't know. Poor reasoning. Faceplant number 2.

C. But then we are told the bodily resurrected Jesus really has no mass after all as he can now past [pass] straight through walls and doors “Eight days later, his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" (John 20:26)

No where does the text tells us that Jesus' resurrected body was massless.  Quantum Mechanics shows that massive objects can tunnel through other objects. Even massive objects have wavelengths. Additionally, why could Jesus vibrated through the walls and door - slipping his atoms through the spaces in the atoms of the door? There are other possibilities rather than assuming that Jesus' new body is massless. Get real. Faceplant number 3.

D. Now the lies get even wilder as the reader is told that Jesus can even transform his appearance from unknowable to the knowable at will: “When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him…” (Luke 24:30a) and again in John: “Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.” (John 21: 4) So just how do we know who or what was really resurrected???!

Then Jesus just disappears into thin air again: “…and he disappeared from their sight.” Luke 24:30b (Beam me up Scotty!)

If you are going to try to disprove the Bible by what it says, you have to take into account that it says that Jesus made everything there is and that Jesus has all power and authority. If that's true than why could he not appear, disappear, or make himself recognizable whenever he feels like it? Of course he can. Fail. Faceplant number 4.

E. Then according to the Gospel of John, faith in the resurrected Jesus can ONLY be based on the Gospels claims alone which are themselves based on and steeped in Circular Reasoning: “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, who are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20: 30 -31) Thus, we MUST now believe the Gospel of John . . . why? Because the Gospel of John says so! Now simple faith is TOTAL TRUST in a confused Gospel of John!

McCall has not managed to prove that the Gospel of John is confused. Faceplant number 5.

F. Finally, modern microbiology would logically tell us that Jesus would have to have active E-coli resurrected in his gut also so he could digest a fish: “He (Jesus) asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.” (Luke 24: 42) Thus, we not only have a resurrected Jesus, but now we must have millions of E-coli resurrected by God in Jesus’ gut!!! Thus, faith in the resurrected E-coli is also “Saving Faith” since - without the living E-coli - eating the fish in order to end Jesus’ hunger (in the process of digestion) would be impossible. So (theologically) if there were no resurrected E-coli in Jesus’ gut, then Jesus assented to Heaven (Acts 1:9) with a fish undigested in his gut would mean this chewed up undigested fish now has an eternal life too; thus ironically finding itself part of the God Head and so the Trinity now becomes Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Holy Fish!

This one just isn't a faceplant, it is a facepalm as well. First, McCall assumes that if Resurrected Jesus ate food his body would also need to digest it. No proof of that. Second McCall contradicted himself because he said that Jesus' body was now massless, unless of course he wants to punt to massless E-coli too!  No? I wouldn't either. Faceplant number six.

In conclusion, spiritual Christians love to tell worldly Christians: “If you were put on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” To which I would counter: “If all the Gospel’s conflicting statements about the resurrected Jesus were used at trial in a modern court of law, how many of the Gospel writers would serve jail time for perjury? . . . ALL of them!

Harry McCall 

That's funny. First McCall claims the Bible says Jesus' Resurrected  body was massless and then he had E-Coli. By the same logic McCall is using we should throw out this article because of the contradictions in it. There have been several legal experts who agree that the Gospels would hold up in a modern law court. As for McCall's article, I've seen better arguments from Scientologist (and we know that they are cult duping people of millions of dollars). Utter failure.

Debunking Christianity: The Contradictory And Chaotic Gospel Lies Used to Prove the Resurrection

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Second Responding Post to Jonathan Pearce on the Veneration of Jesus' Tomb

Jonathan Pearce wrote a blog post making a point that a lack of veneration of Jesus' tomb as evidence that there was no tomb from which Jesus rose from the dead three days after the Crucifixion. I disagreed. You can read the original response I posted at the end of this post. There has been some back and forth in the comments section on that post. Pearce's latest comments brought up some issues that I think takes more space than are appropriate for the comments sections which is why I started another blog post. I had written: Better folks have already ripped such arguments [that there were no guards at the tomb] to shreds, It's been 2000 years do you really think that none of those ideas have been trotted out or answered before?

"ripped to shreds"? By who?

Please don't tell me you refer to Craig who all but admits agnosticism in his article, and this is the article which is used to defend this position by so many other apologists!

I have seen much of the same muddled thinking on the Debunking Christianity blog many times. Do people like Pearce really believe that William Lane Craig is the only Christian scholar that  has ever lived? Dr William Lane Craig is indeed brilliant and respected and correct in much of what he says and teaches but he doesn't speak for all Christians and he is not right about everything. The Bible is right. God is right. You, me, and him are only right when we obey God and speak the truth.  I find it shocking that Pearce is not better acquainted with the work of Christian scholars. 

No Offense intended but in addition to William Lane Craig, I'd count Gary Habermas, Timothy McGrew, Mary Jo Sharp, Michael Licona,  Darrel Bock,   Craig Evans, James White, and J.P. Holding as knowing more about the Resurrection than Pearce and whose scholarship carries considerable more weight! If you want to see such anti-Resurrection arguments, you can start with them and branch out. There have been many people in the past 2000 years ripping such drivel to shreds.

Why would Paul, Peter, John or any of the first Christians would venerate a tomb of a man they knew to be alive and had told them to get busy doing evangelism?
One would assume that all the Apostles would have known the whereabouts, as well as the various Marys and Salomes and others who the various Gospels disagree as visiting.

Disagree? How do the Gospels disagree? If I tell you that Sally, Jane, and Martha went to the store, but tell another person that Martha went to the store how is that a contradiction? It might be a disagreement but it's not a contradiction. So we don't know how many women were at the tomb Easter morning. So what? 
We don't have their names or titles. That does not mean they were not there. Not worth basing an argument against the Resurrection on.

The fact that the evidence points towards Joseph of Arimathea being fictional should lead one to conclude that his tomb most probably is too, especially given the utterly improbable scenario of sentencing a man to death and then asking the people who sentenced him to death for the worst possible crime to release his body for an honourable burial!

Evidence? How does Pearce know Joseph of Arimathea was fictional? He can't  prove that. There is evidence that tells us Joseph of Arimathea was a real person. And we know that if a man had enough clout he could ask for the body of an executed person. Josephus was allowed to stop the execution of  his three friends who were being crucified.

 A tomb to which women seemed to know, visit but have NO WAY of being able to roll away the stone, and no forethought to find a way, but HEY, luckily angels are on hand to help.

That really is a really not the only assumption you could make. They would have known the soldiers had been  placed there at the tomb. I would think they thought that they could ask the guards to open the tomb for them enough to enter and take care of Jesus' body. 

 A tomb to which they are travelling to anoint an already anointed body. A tomb at which guards are incredibly unlikely to be posted, who contrive to be bribed (a fate worthy of execution) to deny the most incredible thing they ever would have seen (and yet not be converted by).

Miracles themselves are not enough to convert a man from a sinner to a child of God. With all the evidence around us of God's existence and power, people still continue to disbelieve. Why would the guards be better or smarter than Atheists today? Wait. Maybe some of them did become Christians because of the experience. Pearce is wrong. We can't say one way or the other.

Around which an earthquake unattested by any other source takes place. And during which, according to Matthew again, a parade of resurrected dead Saints swan around a municipal city without anyone else noticing or reporting it.

I wonder if Pearce ever really read the Gospels. The texts do not tell us how far outside of Jerusalem was the earthquake felt. And other people around Jerusalem did notice the dead saints walking around.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people. - Matthew 27:51-53

And so, this tomb, the most holy place on earth (for if that happened now, given that Graceland, without bones, is venerated; and given that other such places, with no body or bones, are venerated such as Međugorje; Basilica of the Shrine of Our Lady of Aparecida; Lourdes; Shrine of the Three Kings; Mount Tabor; House of Peter; Mount Carmel; Nazareth; Bethany (resurrection of Lazarus)!!!; the Jesus Trail; Galilee etc etc), is forgotten for 300 odd years. And this is not odd to you. This, with all the other odd information, half of which I have not mentioned, is not odd?

I find it odd that you would think that Pearce would imagine any of those places as holy. Venerating a place or an object does nothing to deepen my relationship with God or helps anyone. I'm sure the first Christians thought the same way. Notice that in the New Testament there is nothing and no one venerated but Jesus Himself. We don't see all the fodder examples Pearce props up until Christianity becomes the state religion and people join bringing in their paganism without being converted.  And some people compromised and added other ideas and concepts into Christianity in order to get converts. You know...same thing happens today.

You are exhibiting an extraordinary amount of cognitive dissonance here. Wow!

That said, nothing I say will ever convince you as a dyed-in-the-wool, head-in-the-sand sort of person.

I just find it sad that people such as yourself spend so much time accepting possible over probable so that your belief-system is a tapestry of possibilities absent of any kind of strong plausibility.

 I often wonder if people like Pearce ever really stop and think about what they believe. On one hand admitting that Christianity may be true but rejecting it because in their opinion it isn't plausible. Further opining that they can't reason it as being probable. Hello!? A miracle, by definition, cannot be probable. So you cannot use that determine if it's true or reasonable. I don't think my head is in the sand. I have sifted through evidence. Studied a lot of Science and History, and I have concluded that the Bible is true. And if that makes one who disagrees a liar, then they are a liar. I have to say that one who find  arguments like the ones Pearce uses compelling should look very closely without the arrogance of thinking that you get to determine what is enough evidence and just look at what God has provided for us objectively. You will find that Jesus was right. 

19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. - John 3:19-21

What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why was Jesus' tomb not venerated?

Monday, June 4, 2012

The Science of Star Trek [Infographic]

The Science of Star Trek [Infographic]

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why was Jesus' tomb not venerated?

FacePalm MontageJonathan Pearce wrote about question of why Jesus' tomb was not venerated.

Any other ad hoc (Christian) rationalisation is simply not good enough - it doesn't answer the question well enough, the question "Why was the tomb of Jesus, God incarnate, not venerated?

Let us even use the the same definition for veneration he uses.

By veneration, I mean the worship or religious and spiritual respect given to (dead) people or places deemed as important to the religion or cult. In Catholic traditions, veneration of Saints has been a long-held tradition.

If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead why would worship at the place where he was buried. He is not there! On top of that there is the first commandment that would mean it is a bad idea  to worship anything else or anyone else other than God.


Definitely this is a failed argument!



Debunking Christianity: Why was Jesus' tomb not venerated?

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why Christianity has Contributed to the Development of the Porn Industry

It amazes me how people confuse what the Bible says versus what people say the Bible says. There is a difference. Worse is when people choose to reject God based on those erroneous teaching. This particular post I am responding to does exactly this: Denying Christianity because of stupid things people who either pretended to be Christians taught or just got God wrong. In some cases, they were really Christians who just got the concept of sexuality wrong. Instead of just pointing out what is wrong here let us look at what the Bible really says.

For the most part, Christians have always felt uncomfortable with their sexuality. In this post, I will explain why this is so, and why the attitude Christian society has towards the human body and human sexuality has led to sex being viewed as something "dirty," and that the human body itself is "filthy."
The Christian view that humans are "born sinners" and that the body is filthy, and sex is "dirty" then leads people to act on their so-clalled "sinful nature"--which has inevitably contributed to the development of the porn industry.

 It does not follow that being a sinner is followed by sex being filthy and dirty. Just because church clergy tells you that sex is immoral and should not be enjoyed does not mean that the Bible says the same.This is why You need to know the Word of God for yourself.

"As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.” - Genesis 9:7

So how does it make sense that God would condemn sex when he told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. He even told Noah and his family to be fruitful and multiply. The command to Noah was given after people were sinners. No where in the Bible does God tells us to go and sin. Also notice no where in the Torah do we see anything for sacrificing for the sin of having sex with your spouse.

How could this be you might ask? It all began with the "Eve whore" in Genesis --who is blamed for luring man into partaking of the forbidden fruit.

 The Bible does not blame Eve for our sin. It's Adam's fault.

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.  - 1 Timothy 2:13,14

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned —
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.- Romans 5:12-14
The forbidden fruit then became a metaphor for human sexuality, and sexuality then became to be viewed by Christians as an indulgence that is immoral and potentially dangerous. But why?

That is not what the Bible says. The metaphor does not hold and no way to substantiate it from the Bible.

 In the story of Adam and Eve, Yahweh told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit--but they did anyway. After they had eaten the forbidden fruit, they then realized they were naked, and shamefully covered themselves with leaves they had "sewn" together. (How they knew how to sew, and where they got the needle and thread from is not explained in the story.) Through Augustine, this instigated the view that somehow the human body is dirty and shameful and should be covered, and sex is somehow an immoral act. However, this is not main context of this story at all, as I note in another post --it is a red herring. The original authors of this story, and theologians of the past and present would have us think the "shame of nakedness" and the "original sin" of partaking of the "forbidden fruit" were the focus of this story--but they are not. The real focus of this story is the transition from a matriarchal society to a patriarchal one, which allows the demonization of women, as traditionally, Eve is blamed for the "Fall of Man."
Augustine was a great theologian and I admire the way God used him, but St Augustine is wrong if he did indeed teach that the human body is shameful. The Bible does not tells us that sex is immoral. The Bible says you should not engage in immoral sex. God does not hold Eve responsible for the sin compromising the whole human race. That was on Adam. Re-Read Romans 5. Of course men have tried to pass the buck. Even Adam tried to blame Eve, but God would not have it.

That Eve was scapegoated and women were vilified by the Abrahamic faiths is explained by one of my favorite philosophers, Mary Daly, who was a feminist and theologian who taught at Boston College. In her book "Gyn/Ecology, she explains how an "all male homosexual trinity" claimed to be responsible for all of creation; and the "Virgin Mary," who was but a vessel that could only be validated by a man, has helped lead society to where it is today concerning attitudes towards sex and women. It was through these myths that the Bible writers sought to eliminate the goddess. Men, jealous of the creators of life, sought to vilify women, thereby elevating their own status--and they did so via such myths. Unfortunately, this vilification has led those in Christian society--whether they claim to be Christian or not--to view sex and women as immoral and dirty.

 Imaginative. But hogwash just the same. So why have some Christians and others in  Abrahamic faiths vilify women and blame them for their own lack of self control. The Bible tells us. Men love darkness rather than light and would rather blame women rather than take responsibility. Really sad.

Most people believe that this is how it has always been--but this is not the case at all. In fact, in Africa, before the introduction of Christianity, women walked around half naked, or completely naked, and nobody paid any mind. They were not lusted after as "Eve whores,"--as their body and their sex was completely natural for them. It was through the Abrahamic faiths that the natural act of sex became something unnatural. This then leads down a rabbit hole, where men blame their own urges on the "Eve whore" as they themselves believe that everything from masturbation to sexual enjoyment in general is "dirty"--making women the scapegoats.

Yup some people have thought this way and continue to think this way but that is not what the Bible tells us is true. The Bible tells a man to enjoy his wife. Love her. Satisfy her. And for a wife to do the same for her husbands.

15 Drink water from your own cistern,
    running water from your own well.
16 Should your springs overflow in the streets,
    your streams of water in the public squares?
17 Let them be yours alone,
    never to be shared with strangers.
18 May your fountain be blessed,
    and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 A loving doe, a graceful deer —
    may her breasts satisfy you always,
    may you ever be intoxicated with her love. - Proverbs 5:15-19

13 Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer looks with favor on your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. 14 You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.
15 Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.[a] So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth.
16 “The man who hates and divorces his wife, ” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,”[b] says the Lord Almighty.
So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful. - Malachi 2:13-15
.

This view of the "Eve-whore" was then promulgated throughout our society in general--resulting in perverted views of human sexuality. It is our antecedent beliefs that influence how we "see" things, and it is the results of these beliefs that has not only suppressed women, but has also promoted the view of women as dirty "Eve-whores." (Note, that there are no derogatory terms--at least I do not know of one--that denigrates men for participating in sexual acts--but there are MANY such derogatory terms for women.)

Agreed our society does have perverted views of human sexuality but those views do not match the one the Bible admonished us to have. That is the problem.  The Bible does have derogatory terms for men who engage in sexual acts outside monogamous marriage like  "fornicator", "adulterer", "sinner", and others. Why don't these come up anymore? Simple instead of our society being ashamed of such evil, we revel in it. We celebrate it. We display it. Our society's condemnation is well-deserved.

I do not view sex as something "dirty," nor am I a hedonist.

Neither does the Bible.

I believe that sex is completely natural and is an expression of love that should not be taken lightly. I also believe that when people commit to each other, they can have a fabulous sex life. Christians however, with their perverted view of sex, do not see it that way. Not only is sex in marriage no longer a "forbidden fruit" for many Christians, (i.e.,boring) but wives themselves are viewed as somehow "pure," so quite naturally, this then leads to adultery where the "born sinners" seek out the "Eve-whores" to satisfy their "sinful" urges.

What? You mean men are not capable of controlling those urges and give themselves to one individual woman? You mean they need the help of God to change how they think and to best treat their wives in and out of the bedroom? Exactly the point the Bible is making. It's the most fabulous sex life you can have - God's way. It is isn't the Bible's depiction of sex that is perverted, it is human beings that have perverted and some of them were in the church when they perverted it.

  (They could never do that with their wives they say.)--which has also been a contributing factor to the development of the porn industry. Unfortunately, women, who believe they are now liberated from the bondage of men, are also now participating in the same way that men are--but that is a subject for another post.

The following doesn't refer to just homosexuality but to all who wanna do this their way:

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. - Romans 1:28-32


Therefore, the perverted views of sex resulting from the influences of Christianity has been a contributing factor to the development of the porn industry. So Christians who whine about the sexual immorality in society should take a look in the mirror.....
_______________
Cathy Cooper

Twice she make a point that teaching people that sex is dirt and immoral although we are all hardwired to need it contributed to sexual immorality and porn in our society but fails to make it stick. I mean after all historically goddess worship always seems to include some kinds ritual sex or orgies. An awful lot like some of the porn we have today. If she was correct you wouldn't see anything like that until Christianity had become a major religion had it been a major contributing factor. Further the problem with sexual immorality in our society is indeed due to us. Many "Christians" will preach against gay people having sex but won't say a word about people living together and having sex as long as they are a man and woman. This is no less a sin. 

On the other side, I think that anyone who would argue that God hates sex and expects us to hate it too never really read the Bible. The book Song of Solomon (aka Song of Songs) is full of erotic imagery and language. Hot stuff it is but this failed argument it isn't.

Debunking Christianity: Why Christianity has Contributed to the Development of the Porn Industry