ExChristian.Net - Articles

Atheism vs. Christian Myth

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:55:00 +0000

Please God, forgive my already paid debts

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:19:00 +0000

By webmdave

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. -- 1 John 2:2

The doctrine of propitiation isn’t something that’s talked about too much in modern Christian circles. Hell, heaven, sin, repentance, prayer, Jim Dobson… these are all topics that get covered constantly, but propitiation? Not in any church I attended. I think I know the reason. The doctrine is bizarre, inconsistent and incoherent to even the most religiously brainwashed.

The definition of propitiation is “An atoning sacrifice to gain or regain the favor or goodwill” of God. To propitiate is “to appease or pacify” God.

As in the verse quoted above, Jesus’ purported death on a cross was to placate the wrath of a god who supposedly has a considerable grudge against humanity. Humanity just didn’t work out as He intended.

So, propitiation is a blood-soaked offering lifted up to appease the wrath of blood-thirsty deity. When this deity sees hemoglobin, he feels better about things and can finally overlook offenses that normally cause his eyes to blaze with righteous indignation.

When this deity sees hemoglobin, he feels better about thingsBut modern ears and minds aren’t accustomed to thinking of God in the throws of blood-lust. Why in the world would killing something and looking at its plasma satisfy anyone’s – including a deity’s – righteous indignation? Has God got a thing for vampires? To tone things down a bit for 21st Century Christians, propitiation has been repackaged for the modern ear. Christians are now told that all humanity has a “sin debt” to God: We are in debt to God for our sin and the debt must be paid. The death of God’s only son on the cross paid that debt, so it is said.

Enough of the introduction already – get to the point.

How many reading this have ever received a traffic ticket for some driving infraction? After paying the fine, do we turn around and cry out for forgiveness? Think about begging and pleading and weeping to be forgiven by the court for the traffic violation – after already paying the fine.

If the penalty has already been paid, there is nothing left to forgive.

In Christianity, however, the payment apparently isn’t sufficient. God won’t forgive your debt even though Jesus paid the full penalty for the sin debt of the entire world!

If the penalty has already been paid, there is nothing left to forgive. If while on your way to traffic court a friend unexpectedly steps in and pays your debt for you, do you still have to appear in court and pay your debt? Do you a have to beg anyone’s forgiveness to be free of the debt? Obviously, once your debt has been paid, it’s been paid! You are off the hook. You have no legal requirements toward the court or even toward your friend.

Forgiveness and debt paying are two different things. If the court forgives my debt, I don’t have to pay anything – the debt is forgiven. If, however, someone else pays my debt, then the debt is paid and I no longer need seek mercy and forgiveness to get out of the debt.

Forgiveness of debts and paying of debts are mutually exclusive exercises. Either one pays a debt or one is forgiven of a debt, but no one paying a debt begs forgiveness of the debt. Conversely, if a debt has been forgiven, there is no longer a requirement to pay the debt.

Jesus’ death on the cross is said to have paid the debt for the whole world of humanity, but all of humanity is still supposed to actively seek the forgiveness of God!?!

Has the debt been paid or not?

What I am suggesting here is that having been placated through the blood of His son -- the debt payment He supposedly required – God has nothing left to forgive. The entire debt has been paid. Even God can’t forgive a debt that has already been paid, because if the debt is paid, there is no longer a debt!

So which is it? Does God forgive sinners of their debt, or has the debt for sin already been paid?

Somehow, in Christianity, it makes sense to have a debt that has already been paid and yet still must be forgiven. Somehow forgiveness for a debt can only be granted once payment in full is credited to the account. And, once a person becomes a Christian, regularly groveling for forgiveness of daily stumbles is a regular routine, even though propitiation has already been made.

What do you think?

Edinburgh University Resurrection Debate

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:07:00 +0000

A two-hour video debate on the historicity the resurrection between Liberty University Professor Gary Habermas and JesusNeverExisted.com Author Ken Humphreys. The debate was held McEwan Hall, Edinburgh University on March 10, 2008.From Wikipedia:

Gary Robert Habermas (born in 1950 in Michigan) is an American Christian apologist, theologian, and philosopher of religion.
Habermas is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. He holds a Ph.D. (1976) from Michigan State University in the area of History and Philosophy of Religion; and an M.A. (1973) from the University of Detroit in Philosophical Theology. He is a prolific author, lecturer, and debater on the topic of the Resurrection of Jesus. His work defending the resurrection is often cited in the area of Christian apologetics. He has also specialized in cataloging and communicating trends among scholars in the field of historical Jesus and New Testament studies. Habermas has authored twenty-one books on religious and philosophical subjects. He continues to do research, publish popular and academic papers, give debates, and he frequently appears on television.

From JesusNeverExisted.Com:

About Ken HumphreysSome people want to know where I'm coming from:I'm an ex-college lecturer, ex-photographer, ex-computer salesman – but not an ex-Christian, Jew, Moslem or Nazi! I had a religion-free childhood and from the youngest age acquired an interest in history. In turns I was both fascinated and appalled by the history of the 'Christian Faith' and have made its legacy and crimes a life-long study, not because – as Christian apologists often imagine, I was ever 'hurt', abused, or rejected by the Church or Christians – but because humanity's fate has for so long been held captive by this pernicious creed. But all religion is inherently dangerous.

His eye is on the sparrow

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:13:00 +0000

A video by TruthSurge showing how much God loves each of us and how he looks after us all. Matt 10:29-31

God is your ATM, Prayer is your PIN

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:37:00 +0000

Betty Bowers Explains Prayer To Everyone Else

Betty Bowers's Music Video - You're Going Straight To Hell

http://www.bettybowers.com

The True Christian

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:23:00 +0000

By billybee

According to recent statistics, there exists approximately 4,684 different denominations, groups or sects of Christianity in America.

I think it fair to assume that most -- if not all -- of these different and distinct faith-based groups possess what they believe to be a substantially clear understanding of the book they present as an authentic message from the single most powerful being in the universe.

There exists approximately 4,684 different denominations, groups or sects of Christianity in America.Understandably these various groups consider this message (when correctly understood) to be the most important collection of ideas to which the human race has ever had access. Therefore, it is not only their strong desire, but it is their duty and obligation to see that this message is delivered to all human kind.

The method of transmission of the message is extremely varied. The components of the message are extremely varied. Usually, however, there is one factor that appears to be common among most (if not all) carriers of this special proclamation. That common factor is a nearly universal mind-set that their group has the best, most correct and truest understanding of the message. This not-so-subtle attitude of superiority may remain mostly unspoken by the group members, but then at other times, this faith-fed confidence will surface, causing rise to division and mistrust between the groups of people who might actually be seeking the same ultimate goal.

When a Christian religious leader, like Dr. James Dobson, accuses Barrack Obama of not being a "true" Christian, Dobson provides himself as a perfect example of the person described in the previous paragraph. Dobson, in my humble opinion, could be unintentionally contributing to the erosion of the religion that he mistakenly believes he is trying to protect and nurture.

I will assume, of course, that Dobson and the members of his flock might strongly disagree. As for the other 4,683 possible points of view, I will not even begin to speculate.

Jesus shows up in another ultrasound

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:26:00 +0000

Is it a blessing from above?

A Lorain, Ohio, woman got an ultrasound in preparation for her first baby, but instead of seeing the image of an infant, Monet Sledge saw something else (video: MyFoxCleveland).

"I was shocked like really," said Sledge.

She showed the picture to her sister Tequoia Smith, a married mother of four who has seen her share of ultrasounds.

"I was expecting to see little body parts," said Smith. "Like a face, arms and legs." But instead she too saw the image of Jesus on the cross.
"As soon as I saw it I was like oh my gosh."

The baby girls legs are completely extended and straight in the photo, which resembles Jesus' arms stretched out on the cross.

Her developing knees look like Jesus' head with a crown of thorns.

Sledge said she also found it weird that when you turn the picture sideways, "her legs are perfectly crossed at the ankles, like Jesus' legs would be nailed on the cross."

Doctors say the baby is perfectly healthy and due August 12th.

Some people are encouraging the mom to sell the image on eBay, but she has not decided wether or not the image is for sale just yet.

She embraced the picture as a positive message from above.

"People say maybe my baby is gonna be blessed and maybe it is a good sign," said Sledge. "I don't know, I've done wrong in my life, maybe he's forgiven me early."

Big sister Smith agreed.

She added that the family has had some challenging times lately with injury, employment and other stresses.

"Maybe it's a sign of a good pregnancy or maybe we've just been through so much it's a sign that everything is gonna be okay. After the initial shock it's like God is here even when you don't know it."

Story Link

More Jesus appearances: Jesus is nearly everywhere.

God loves America best

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:00:00 +0000

I confess. I have a degree of loyalty to the my homeland that is probably typical to that of any U.S. veteran after 20 years of active duty military service. However, when I attend veteran's organizational events, am asked to stand for prayer, and forced to hear people prattle on about how God loves and blesses America, well...

The Doyle and Debbie Show is sublime parody, simultaneously lampooning and idolizing country music's tradition of iconic duos. Bruce Arntson and Jenny Littleton take audiences on a freewheeling joyride through a wickedly funny script and slew of equally hilarious original songs. Over the past year and a half, Doyle and Debbie have developed a rabid cult following in Nashville, TN.

That was the Old Testament...

noreply@blogger.com (DocMike) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:41:00 +0000

By DocMike

Evangelical leader James Dobson said, yesterday, that Obama was "distorting the Bible" when he made the following statements in a speech:

Obama asked, "Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?"

Dobson said, "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," adding that Obama is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter." He went on to say that Obama should not be referencing "antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament."

Isn't this typical? It's okay for Dobson and other Christians to distort the Bible to fit their world view; for example calling certain parts "antiquated" and "no longer relevant" while claiming other parts are still completely relevant. I wonder who decides which is which...

In my world view, the entire book is antiquated and irrelevant!

I especially like the phrase "traditional understanding of the Bible." I guess that means don't use your own mind (or reason) to figure out what it says or means. Just ask Uncle Jimmy. He'll set you straight on the "real" meaning. After all, we're all too stupid to figure out what the sky-daddy was talking about. Right?

Technorati Tags:
humor Atheist Bible Christian Comics religion Evangelical

Christian charity raises money for non-gay famine victims

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:25:00 +0000

A report from The Onion news network

Christian Charity Raising Money To Feed Non-Gay Famine Victims

Sexual symbols in religion

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:03:00 +0000

Note: This video is not work friendly

A look into the symbolism of sex and it's reflection in religion, modern symbolism, and architecture.

The Cambridge Companion to Atheism - Michael Martin

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:54:00 +0000

The Cambridge Companion to Atheism - Michael Martin - Upload a Document to Scribd

One less god

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:00:00 +0000

What is Atheism?

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:46:00 +0000

A paper by Psycholex

What is Atheism?

What is Atheism? Just about everyone knows what an Atheist is, right? Well, judging by what I've read on the internet, read in chat rooms, & received in Emails; many people still have no clue what Atheism really is! Since not all Atheists have the same view of Atheism as I do, I may not cover your individual outlook on it, but I will attempt to define the basics of Atheism. Defining Atheism To define Atheism, you must first look at its root word, theism. Theism is simply the belief of a god(s). Theism by itself is not a religion; it is just simply a belief, nothing more. Theists can be either polytheists or monotheists, depending on how many gods they choose to believe in. After this we go into specific religions, like islam, judaism, & christianity. Atheism is simply the opposite of theism. The prefix A means "without" or "not", so Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). It is not a religion, just like theism is not a religion, but there are specific philosophies of Atheism that can be defined as religion, thought since they all lack a belief in a god or the supernatural, they are not true religions, for example Humanism. Atheism also has branches off the basic disbelief. There are "strong Atheists" and "weak Atheists." Strong Atheism usually is a total denial of the existence of god(s); it usually is aimed at one or two specific gods for various reasons. Most Atheists, who think this way, see a belief in a particular religion's god to be totally irrational and see no possibility for the existence of their god. Weak Atheism, is what most Atheists would be; simply without belief in any god(s). Weak Atheists do not believe in god(s) for the simple reason that it is irrational and no evidence for the god has been brought to their attention. Most weak Atheists are quite ready to believe in a god as soon as there is some sort of evidence in its favour. Weak atheists will not choose a particular god to deny, they look at all gods equally. Theists & Atheism Theists generally focus on their individual gods and fail to realise that other gods are believed in besides theirs! They then use this lack of understanding to make all sorts of wild and irrational claims about Atheism. They would like to think that since Atheism does not follow their one "true" god(s), then Atheists must be against their god. We are often lumped together with other theists when this happens, since every other belief system in the world would deny the trueness of that one god, just like Atheists do. They all fail to realise that Atheism is not focuses on individual gods, in some cases they are, but not in the general definition. Atheism deals with the disbelief of all gods, not just those of christianity, islam, wicca, judaism, etc... Theists simply assume that everyone has the same image of god as they do. But the christian's gods are not even remotely similar to the gods of Wicca. So first we must define what a god is, and then can debate weather or not it exist. As long as the theist holds the belief that there is only one god, then the conversation is pointless, because of flawed logic on the part of the theist. This can lead to many headaches as the Atheist attempts to explain how everyone else in the world views god, so the theist can actually understand the position of the Atheist. Theists tend to make some very irrational assumptions about Atheism, most are based on either incorrect information or flat out lies based on hatred. 1. People stop believing in god, so they can sin and do whatever they want. This misconception stems from the idea that atheists not only cannot be moral without god, but in fact do not want to be moral. Theistic, particularly Christian, attitudes towards atheists can often be summarized by the oft-quoted verse Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. Despite numerous attempts, no theist has ever conclusively demonstrated that belief in their god is required for morality - and in fact there are many good reasons to think that such a claim is simply false. Perhaps there are atheists who rejected belief in gods in order to avoid morality - but I've never encountered any, and the many atheists I have known have had quite different reasons for their atheism. 2. Atheists hate God. This is just a misunderstanding of what Atheism is! Atheists cannot hate something that they do not and cannot believe exists. It's one of those arguments that are designed to make people hate Atheists, nothing more. 3. Atheists worship Satan. Again, we find a theist thinking that for some reason that only their god is relevant to the atheist - and if the atheist does not believe in their god, then they must worship the antithesis of their god, Satan. But the fact of the matter is, atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in the god's supernatural competitor, either. 4. Atheist relies as much on faith as theists do. This is theists trying to place their irrational beliefs on Atheists, which is impossible, by definition! Faith is the assumption that something is their without any proof; it is pretty much wishful thinking. Theists try to say everyone has faith in something, but this degrades faith. To say Atheists have faith in science could just as easily be applied to theist’s faith in science. That would then make the theist definition of faith lose al its supernatural meaning, therefore destroying their so-called proof of god through faith. 5. Everyone worships something, so atheists must have some god. This complaint runs along lines very similar to the previous, and sometimes this idea is also expressed by claiming that "Atheism is a religion." Since they cannot imagine living their life without worshipping their god, they also cannot imagine atheists living without worshipping something, like money or humanity. We must redefine worship to make this make any sense. Worship would have to include anything that ultimate concern or most important. This is a grasp at straws, just because you can identify one "most important" aspect of your life, does not constitute worshiping it. By defining worship like this does an injustice to the religious meaning of worship. 6. Atheism is due to bad childhood experiences with false religions. It is certainly true that many atheists have had poor experiences with religion, often in childhood. It is also true that such experiences have caused people to reconsider how they feel about religion and, in some cases, to finally reject religion and even belief in gods. However, this is by far not the only reason why people are atheists. Some, for example, never believed in any gods and never belonged to any religion. 7. All atheists believe in "X." Many theists still try to pigeonhole atheists into a single philosophical straight-jacket - be it humanism, communism, nihilism, objectivism, or something else. By claiming to have identified this other belief system necessary to Atheism, they can then proceed to attack that belief system and pretend to have refuted atheism without ever actually addressing atheism itself. It is certainly true that atheism can be a part of the aforementioned worldviews, among many others, but it is not true that atheism necessitates any of them. Not only does atheism fail to imply an agreement with any one belief system, it also fails to imply agreement with any other atheists. My neighbour might also be an atheist, but we might disagree on nearly every single philosophical and social issue imaginable. Just because we agree on not believing in magic elves, unicorns or gods does not announce to the world that we agree on anything else. Psycholex

Grow up, already!

noreply@blogger.com (Astreja) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:27:00 +0000

By Astreja

One of the odder things about Christianity is its tendency to exalt the child at the expense of the adult. In fact, the "Ye must be born again" meme lies at the heart of the evangelical form of the religion.

But is this desirable? Well, it all depends on what the "keepers" of that faith are actually trying to accomplish.

Consider this: In most cultures, the transition to adulthood is a highly significant time. "Childish things" are put aside, and the mantle of responsibility is assumed. In return, the initiate gains the authority to participate in adult matters such as procreation, governance and support of the tribe.

Contrast this with the infantilization of Christians by Christianity. Cast in the role of eternal child to an Eternal Parent, the natural maturing process is short-circuited. Responsibility gives way to "I'm not perfect, just forgiven". Reasoning, skepticism and problem-solving skills are downplayed or denigrated, while credulity is elevated to a virtue.

And then there's all those late-night chats with one's Invisible Friend. Lovely, just lovely.

For the average person, this deliberate abrogation of full maturity is a tragedy of the highest order -- Both for the self and for the community at large.

For those who would lead such trusting young lambs, however...

Oh sinner do not stray from the straight and narrow way, for the Lord is surely watching what you do.

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:27:00 +0000

Is God a Delusion?

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:10:00 +0000

A two-hour debate between Bill Cooke, Senior Lecturer at Manukau Institute of Technology and William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada.

Born and raised in Kenya, Bill Cooke was educated there, in the United Kingdom, and in New Zealand, where he now lives. He is currently Senior Lecturer at the School of Visual Arts, Manukau Institute of Technology, in Auckland and is editor of the NZ Rationalist & Humanist. Cooke has authored several books, including "A Rebel to His last Breath, an intellectual biography of Joseph McCabe" and "A Gathering of Infidels."

William Lane Craig is an American philosopher, theologian, New Testament historian, and Christian apologist. He is an author and lecturer on issues related to the philosophy of religion, the historical Jesus, the coherence of the Christian worldview, and natural theology. He lives in Atlanta, Georgia.

A tribute to George Carlin

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:34:00 +0000

Bullshit

The Ten Commandments

On June 22, 2008, American comedian George Carlin was admitted to St. John's Hospital in Santa Monica, California complaining of chest pain. He died later that day at 5:55 p.m. PDT of heart failure at the age of 71. He had a history of cardiovascular issues, including several heart attacks.

"Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck."
-- George Carlin Raised in the Roman Catholic faith, Carlin often denounced the idea of God in interviews and performances. He invented the parody religion Frisbeetarianism, defining it as the belief that when a person dies "his soul gets flung onto a roof, and just stays there" and cannot be retrieved.

Carlin also joked that he worshiped the Sun, because he could actually see it, but prayed to Joe Pesci (a good friend of his in real life) because "he's a good actor", and "looks like a guy who can get things done!"

Carlin also introduced the "Two Commandments", a revised "pocket-sized" list of the Ten Commandments in his HBO special Complaints and Grievances, ending with the additional commandment of "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."

Why I Deny the Virgin Birth of Jesus

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:27:00 +0000

By Daniel Florien of UnreasonableFaith.Com.

The test read positive. Ayesha’s face flushed; tears formed in her eyes. She was trapped. She would be killed. She was a stain on her family’s honor. Amir, her soon-to-be husband, would turn her in as soon as he found out. She knew she deserved death. The shame was unbearable.

That night she had a vision. The brightness blinded her at first, but gradually she saw an angelic face and it said, “Ayesha! You are favored indeed by Allah! For God himself is the Father of your child. Do not be afraid. He will be great and be called the Son of the Most High.”

The next day Ayesha told her fiancé that God had impregnated her, she was still a virgin, and an angel had told her this. Would you believe Ayesha?

An ancient book says a man 2,000 years ago was born of a virgin and was sired by God himself. I once believed this, because I believed the Bible — a book I thought God himself wrote.

I was wrong. Here are five reasons why I no longer believe in the virgin birth.

1) There is no reliable evidence.

We have no eyewitness accounts, no doctor confirmations, no DNA samples…

Ordinary events require evidence, but extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. By any classification, the virgin birth is an extraordinary event, yet there is no evidence to support it.

We have no eyewitness accounts, no doctor confirmations, no DNA samples — we have nothing except a couple references in the Bible that were written many decades after the event occurred.

2) The earliest references are late and sparse.

Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources?
Probably because it hadn’t been made up yet.

Paul, the earliest New Testament author, never mentions the virgin birth. For someone who we rely upon for much of Christian theology, it is an odd omission. Paul refers to Jesus’ birth twice (Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4) and never says he was born of a virgin or of different means than anyone else. You’d think that would be important.

The virgin birth is also not in Mark, the earliest gospel, or in John, the only other gospel not based on Mark. Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources? Probably because it hadn’t been made up yet.

Why would the story be made up? Perhaps to fulfill an old prophecy of a virgin birth, which the Gospel of Matthew cites:

Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

Some scholars say “virgin” was a mistranslation in the Septuagint (the Greek translation the gospel writers used), and should have been translated “young woman.” That means the story might have been based on a mistranslation!

It seems likely the virgin birth was created to boost the authority of Christianity through prophecy and compete with rival gods who were born of virgins.

3) It’s the same old myth.

The claims of Jesus’ birth are no different from any of the other virgin birth legends.

Jesus was not the first god to be born of a virgin. Mut-em-ua, the virgin Queen of Egypt, supposedly gave birth to Pharaoh Amenkept III through a god holding a cross to her mouth.

Ra, the Egyptian sun god, was said to be born of a virgin. So was Perseus, Romulus, Mithras, Genghis Khan, Krishna, Horus, Melanippe, Auge and Antiope.

In the ancient world, great men were born of divine fathers and human mothers. Alexander the Great and the Roman emperor Augustus were great men and (therefore) said to have divine fathers. Jesus was also a great man, so he too must have a divine father.

The claims of Jesus’ birth are no different from any of the other virgin birth legends. It doesn’t have any more evidence or appear to be any more likely. Why believe it over the others?

4) Is it more likely to be a lie, or to be true?

“It is therefore at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”
Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine, American revolutionary and author, said “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course, but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is therefore at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”

A betrothed teenage girl finds out she is pregnant. The father is not her soon-to-be husband, and he knows this. In her society, the penalty for this prescribed by God is death by stoning. What does she do? She claims an angel appeared to her and told her God impregnated her, and that she is now carrying the Son of God.

Now what is more likely, that she is lying or telling the truth? Even if Mary claimed this herself, we would not believe her. Now consider that the story didn’t appear until over 50 years after it supposedly happened.

The likelihood of the virgin birth being true is very, very, very low.

5) We would never, ever, believe this today.

Imagine if a teenage girl in your neighborhood claimed that her pregnancy was due to God impregnating her and that she was still a virgin. Would you believe her? Or would you think she was lying?

If she insisted on it being true, we would put her in a mental hospital.

Why does this change just because Jesus’ birth happened 2,000 years ago? There is no evidence in favor of it. Even if Mary herself claimed it, there would have been every incentive to lie about it since the only alternative was death. Again, why would anyone believe this?

* * *

We have seen this incredible claim has no reliable evidence and no early Christian sources. There were claims of virgin births before Jesus, and Jesus’ virgin birth was probably invented to compete with those claims. It is far more likely to be a lie than true. And we would never believe anyone who claimed such a thing today.

Because of these reasons, I have no choice but to deny the virgin birth of Jesus — and all other claims of virgin births and divine fathers.

Daniel Florien was an evangelical Christian for over a decade. He attended Bible college to be a pastor and was the guy handing out tracts and knocking on doors. Now he admits he was wrong. To read more about his journey out of Christianity and other tremendous articles like the above, visit Daniel's blog, Unreasonable Faith, at http://unreasonablefaith.com.

Restoration, renewal, and big bucks

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:40:00 +0000

By webmdave

For those who remember the scandal a few years ago surrounding Tom Tewell, the pastor of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in New York City, and who also remember the nearly worshipful devotion in so many of the comments posted here, and who have developed a decided cynicism toward all things Christian, the following information will come as no surprise.
Salary and Benefits
Salary - $145,000
Housing Allowance - $50,000
Benefits including Pension, Medical and Continuing Education - $80,775
Total - $275,775
The Presbyterian Church has created a job for him, one that pays him over a quarter of a million dollars a year. What is this job? He is the executive director over a new pilot program aimed at "renewing Presbyterian ministers."

Executive Director of The Pilot Project on Renewing Presbyterian Pastors

MISSION STATEMENT

Believing that Leadership is the key to the future of the Church of Jesus Christ and that a congregation cannot go farther spiritually than the Pastor has gone, the Pilot Project, sponsored by the Presbytery of Greater Atlanta, the Presbytery of Flint River, and an Atlanta Foundation, seeks to provide practical resources to Presbyterian Pastors in struggling and challenging congregations. We believe that numerical growth is rooted in spiritual growth and that Pastors cannot give away what they are not in the process of experiencing. The 3 year Pilot Project will seek to renew the spiritual lives of clergy in order to create a culture of spiritual growth in congregations who are experiencing declining membership, financial instability and loss of hope. Clergy in challenging congregations often focus on survival rather than focusing on “ equipping the saints for the work of ministry.” (Ephesians 4:12). The Pilot Project in Pastoral Renewal provides these pastors some spiritual direction and coaching, as well as practical resources to enrich their own lives and the lives of their congregations. The Pilot Project in Pastoral Renewal will employ an experienced Pastor as the Executive Director who will be able to “walk alongside” clergy in a time of struggle, encourage them in their leadership and offer practical suggestions to help their congregations to grow spiritually and numerically.

JOB DESCRIPTION

The Executive Director of the Pilot Project will be responsible for:

1. Meeting with the Executive and Associate Presbyters of the Greater Atlanta and the Flint River Presbyteries, as well as the appropriate committees, to identify a specific number of clergy who will be included in the pilot program. A process will be developed, in conjunction with the leaders in each Presbytery, to determine how to invite Clergy into the Pilot Program in future years. The first year, our plan is to begin with 10 Clergy- 9 from Greater Atlanta and one from Flint River. 7 of the clergy from Greater Atlanta will be from congregations identified by the Presbytery as primed for growth. A Clergy couple from Greater Atlanta Presbytery who are Pastors of an Emerging Church in the Atlantic Station area will also be included, as will the Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Albany, Georgia, in the Flint River Presbytery. It is hoped that approximately 5 additional Clergy will be added to the pilot each year. Presbytery of Greater Atlanta
February 23, 2008.

2. Coordinating a regular Gathering of Clergy in the program for mutual support, prayer, devotional reading and study.

3. Preparing and identifying Small Group Study Materials and Devotional Guides for Clergy in the Pilot to use with their congregations.

4. Providing Regular Individual Coaching Sessions for each Pastor in the Pilot Program to help him or her to develop creative ideas for ministry and hone their pastoral, preaching and leadership skills.

5. Coordinating an Annual Renewal Retreat for Clergy in each of the two Presbyteries, led by experienced clergy, who would be willing to share not only their expertise, but their struggles and failures as well. The Clergy in the Pilot Program would attend the retreat at a minimal cost to themselves or their congregations and would have an opportunity to learn from and get to know some of America’s most creative clergy leaders.

6. Consulting with the clergy in the Pilot Program about such topics as:
A. Leadership – Developing the Leaders around you
B. Creating a Culture of Creativity in a Congregation
C. Best Practices in Ministry
D. Healthy Habits for a Pastor
E. Finding Creative ways to increase Worship Attendance
F. Developing a Vision for the next 5 years in your church
G. Attracting the next Generation into the Church
H. Surviving as a Pastor when you want to Quit!

7. Teaching an occasional Continuing Education Seminar at Columbia Theological Seminary, if invited, on Models of Church Growth ( Spiritual and Numerical) for Clergy and lay leaders.

8. May from time to time take on other assignments at the direction of the CF Foundation staff examples include: Assisting and advising on the Chaplaincy Program in East Lake and involvement in churches assisting with the replication of the East Lake model around the country.

Pilot Program Time Table

This 3 year Pilot Program will begin with the hiring of an Executive Director who will begin in April of 2008. The Pilot will be measured annually against evaluative criteria that will be established by the each Presbytery and the CF Foundation to determine the success of the pilot. The Pilot will conclude at the end of June of
2011 and a determination will be made, at that time, whether the Pilot will become a Permanent Renewal Ministry of the Greater Atlanta Presbytery and the Presbytery of Flint River.

Salary and Benefits
Salary - $145,000
Housing Allowance - $50,000
Benefits including Pension, Medical and Continuing Education - $80,775
Total - $275,775

To read the publicly released report from the Atlanta Presbytery, click here. The quotation above comes from page 29 in the report which appears on page 10 in the .pdf file.

Is this job really worth a quarter million a year? Is this why Christians want to give money to their churches?

What is wrong with this picture? Or is anything wrong with it all?

What do you think?

Deity Comparison Test

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:39:00 +0000

Sponsored by

Tim Simmons, CEO

How does your god stack up? With so many gods on the table, how can you be sure you're worshiping the very best god?

Fifteen minutes could save you 15% or more on... Oh, wait. Sorry. Just take this simple test to see how your god compares, but be HONEST! If you aren't honest with yourself, the results will be worthless and why even bother? Each question has two choices so pick the BEST answer.

(Click here to take the test...)

Come back here to comment!

Debunking Christian Apologetics: Fanaticism "Proof"

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:46:00 +0000

By John L Armstrong

Does the alleged fanaticism in the face of the alleged persecution of the alleged disciples and apostles prove the validity of Christian belief?

If so, does it also prove a variety of other cults and religions who's followers and leaders demonstrated the exact same fanaticism?

Does a belief in God give us morality?

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:44:00 +0000

From www.TheBlackAtheist.com

Two of the most common arguments in favor of the existence of God—or against atheism— are: 1. God gives us morality, 2. without religion people would be immoral. These arguments, which are essentially one in the same, are illogical and ill-informed on several counts. Nonetheless, this type of thinking permeates so much of our culture. We can approach, and subsequently debunk, this argument somewhat scientifically:

1)One popular assumption is that the “godless” are less moral than those who believe in God. If we use propensity to commit crime as a measure of moral health, you would expect that there would be a high ratio of atheists in prison. But studies have shown that at least 80% of people in US prisons define themselves as religious: 50% as Baptist or Catholic, and roughly 30% claim to have a religious preference but do not specify a specific religion or denomination. Additionally, if morality was a byproduct of a belief in God, than states with a high number of believers would conceivably have lower rates of crime than those that are comparably more secular. But this is also entirely untrue. SC ,Tenn, Tex, Louisiana and Georgia all rank among the top 10 in terms of crime rates, and these states are the heart of the Bible Belt...but if there are so many believers then why do these places have the highest rates of crime? The point is if we use crime rates as a metric, a high degree of religiosity does not correlate with morality, which is exactly what you would expect if religion or a belief in God were the bedrock of our sense of morality.

2) What about Hitler? Theists just love to point out that the mass murderers of the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin, etc) were all atheists, which proves atheists are evil and cannot be trusted in positions of power. Again, this view is not based in the facts. Hitler's ideology contained both pro- and anti-religious doctrines and dogmas so at the very least his religiosity is inconclusive. On one hand, he speaks about carrying out 'His' (God’s) will in exterminating the Jews and the importance of prayer. On the other hand, he speaks of maintaining the superiority of the state over the church. Beyond that, anyone who has ever read the Bible knows it provides ample anti-Semitic ideology. Not surprisingly, Antisemitism in Germany was biblically based and these ideas were prevalent in German society well before Hitler ever came to power. My point is that, despite Hitler's religious ambiguity, Antisemitism would never have been tolerated if not for its biblical roots.

Stalin was a self-affirming atheist but he does not support the conclusion that atheism leads to moral decay since he never killed anyone because of his atheism. Compare that to murderers that are clearly motivated by their religion—Timothy McVeigh, the September 11th martyrs, abortion clinic bombers, etc. Who could dispute that, but for a belief in the afterlife and the ideas of martyrdom, Islamic terrorists would lose most of their destructive motivation? Who could deny that religious ideology has been the root cause of innumerable conflicts in modern times?

3) More recently, scientists have begun studying what underlies morality. They’ve found that regardless of social class, religious upbringing, or country of origin, people have similar basic principals regarding morality. Additionally, specific areas of the brain are activated in response to moral questions. Collectively, these studies suggest that our sense of morality is innate and, therefore, independent of religious background. If our morality is not dependent on religion then where does it come from? Although the jury is still out, there is evidence of morality in animals. One study demonstrated that a chimpanzee will starve itself in order to prevent harm to another chimp and studies from behavioral biology clearly demonstrate that social primate societies are intolerant of rape or theft. This is obvious evidence of morality among creatures that completely lack the capacity to believe in God.

From the examples above, it is clear that being religious and believing in God does not correlate in any way with social health or general morality. Furthermore, scientists are beginning to understand where our morality comes from and it is clear from the work done thus far that our sense of right and wrong has roots in our evolutionary past--not a system of beliefs and ideologies invented merely 2000 years ago.

Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:33:00 +0000

Sam Harris speaking at the 2007 Aspen Ideas Conference.

Sam Harris is the author of two best-selling books, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. He speaks regularly on television and radio about the danger he believes religion poses to modern societies. His essays have appeared in Newsweek, The Los Angeles Times, The Times of London, The Boston Globe, and numerous other publications. A graduate in philosophy of Stanford University, for 20 years he has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines. He is also currently completing a doctorate in neuroscience.

This video is approximately 70 minutes in length.

Download:

Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World (mp3)

Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World (Windows)

Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World (Quicktime)

Download transcript

Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World (PDF)

If God hates homosexuals, then...

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:49:00 +0000

By Brother Jeff

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. -- Mohandas Gandhi

I find myself in agreement with Gandhi. Though I don’t believe that he was god, I have nothing in particular against Christ. I do, however, have something against Christians, and it is this -- I hate their willful ignorance and I hate their bigotry and intolerance. I am referring specifically to homosexuality.

I get so tired of hearing about how homosexuality is allegedly a “sin” and an abomination worthy of death and eternal damnation. I get so tired of hearing Christians -- who are supposedly filled the the Holy Spirit and the Love of Jesus -- continually spout hatred and bigotry against homosexuals. I get so tired of their willful ignorance in this area. I have news for Christians -- you have no idea what you are talking about, the opinions of the authors of your Bronze Age Book of Myths be damned.

If you actually, truly knew anything at all about homosexuality, you would know that it is present throughout the animal kingdom, and you would know that it is as natural as heterosexuality is. You would also know that homosexuality may have evolutionary advantages. See the latest issue of Scientific American Mind for the details, if you have any interest in educating yourselves.

Another News Byte for Christians -- there is no such thing as some evil “homosexual agenda” as you imagine, with homosexuals out to destroy America and the traditional family unit. That’s a delusion and a myth that you have been taught to believe in church. Homosexuals, in reality, want nothing more than the same basic rights that heterosexual couples enjoy, and they most certainly should have them. I have personally known several homosexual individuals over the years, and not one of them has been “evil” or “immoral” in any way. They all have, in fact, been fine, upstanding members of society.

There is nothing at all “wrong” with being homosexual just as there is nothing “wrong” with being left-handed. Genetics is key in both. If God hates homosexuals, then he must also hate the left-handed. I am very thankful that my mother raised me to see that those who are different from me are not necessarily “wrong” or “evil”, but just simply different. I see no reason to hate those who are different from me, and that includes homosexuals.

Jesus, by the way, hung out with “sinners” instead of hating them. Christians, don’t you think it’s about time that you did the same? Whenever you express hatred, bigotry, and intolerance, you send the message that that is what your religion stands for, and believe me, we get that message loud and clear! When you start showing love and tolerance and respect for others who differ from you, then perhaps we’ll believe you when you claim that your religion is about love.

Glory!