Why I’m an Atheist

Why I am no longer a Christian…

NOTE: This document is about 12 pages long with half inch margins in Microsoft Word.  So it’s quite long.  I have tried to make it an easy read. but you might want to pace yourself.

I must begin by telling my story.  I was a Fundamentalist Christian, raised in the Southern Baptist denomination, for the first 26 years of my life.  My father was an ordained minister and my mother was a committed Christian.  This, of course, made my parents very dogmatic about making sure I read and studied the Bible.  They also home-schooled my siblings and I.  They taught us well, as I have always performed well scholastically, but we were exposed to Christian doctrines constantly.  I will note here that I do not believe this was wrong in any way.  Parents have a right to educate their children as they see fit.  I only wish to demonstrate the depth of my immersion in fundamentalist Christianity.  As a result of all this, I am well versed in the doctrines of Christianity.  I excelled in games of Bible trivia.  I often knew more than my Sunday school teachers.

Somehow in the midst of all this, I developed an absolute love of truth, and a suspicion and dislike of authority; even though I was only given platitudes as reasons and I was told to obey authority no matter what.  Ironically enough, I picked up the love of truth from Bible passages such as “the truth shall set you free” and “buy the truth and sell it not.”  I probably developed my dislike of authority due to being required to unquestioningly obey authority; as authority, I was taught, was a principle of god.  In my late teens I read George Orwell’s 1984, and it helped me begin to be suspicious of anyone that demanded mindless obedience.  I also greatly admired the logical aspect of the Star Trek Vulcans, and because of that influence, I have always endeavored to be fiercely rational.

In 2007 my wife and I got involved in the Ron Paul presidential campaign.  We continued our involvement until the primaries in February 2008.  As we fought for liberty as part of the campaign, I began to read the writings of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Ayn Rand.  These writings helped me develop a realization of my innate freedom and value as a human and the horrible evil it is to infringe upon another’s right to freely exist.    I began to question all the political information I had ever been given.  Many of my views changed, and many were strengthened.  I developed a personal philosophy of questioning my basic assumptions to get to the bare issue of a subject.  If my assumptions did not stand up to logic and the facts, I would abandon them.  I became a fan of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.  I differed from Rand in that I was not an Atheist, I was still a Christian.  A couple of people I became friends with during the Ron Paul campaign were Atheists.  We would debate the subject of Christianity, but my main focus was political at the time, so I simply held my beliefs and tabled the issue until after the campaign.  I had a few logical arguments that I felt made the case well enough.  So at the time I did not dig too deeply into the arguments against Christianity.  I read Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ around that time and, although I knew the arguments in the book were quite weak, I took it as evidence that Christianity was true.  I convinced myself that it was just a choir book, and that there must be better information available.  I decided that the reason Strobel left out opposing viewpoints was because they weren’t good enough; I was wrong.

Finally in the early fall of 2008, I could hold off no longer.  I took the plunge into the evidence and arguments against Christianity.  As I did, my faith began to rapidly dissolve.  The unarguable facts against Christianity and the constant logic stretching by Christian apologists just kept weakening my faith.  The apologists always seemed to change the subject or reframe the issue in their favor when they were cornered.  Their “that’s not really what that means” method of arguing would make any lawyer proud, because they scream against any attempt by atheists to use the same tactic.  I also distrust the “it’s not much of a stretch to get to” concept in excessive use by apologists.  If it’s not much of a stretch to get back to A from D, then could we not get to M from D as well?  Such ridiculous reasoning makes arguing useless.  The more I read Christian responses to the facts, the more I got the feeling that I was reading the words of snake oil salesmen.  I try not to base my life simply on instinct, I prefer facts, but I usually find that my instincts don’t contradict plain fact.  It is also interesting to note that the apologists’ articles are often virtually incomprehensible.

I am now an Atheist.  I do not believe that the existence of god is impossible, as there are very few things that are totally impossible.  I also believe that if we discover a being of great power that it would not necessarily be a god, even if it had characteristics that made it similar to what we would consider a god.  The word god implies a necessity of worship.  Just because there might be powerful, seemingly supernatural beings in existence, doesn’t mean they are worthy of worship or that they are any better than we are.  They would simply be more powerful.  I believe that if god did exist he would be irrelevant, as we don’t need him; we have everything we need already.  If god created the world, then he made it to be mutually exclusive of him.

As far as my view of life, I believe that we have everything we need to succeed inherent in us at birth.  We have reason with which we can evaluate the ideas we are presented and make moral choices.  We have mathematics and science to help us explore the world around us.  We have our individuality that lets us know what purpose to pursue in life.  We have determination and tenacity to help us pursue our dreams and goals.

The reasons that I will put forth that convinced me that Christianity was just another made-up religion are: the virgin birth prophecy was a misinterpretation, the other prophecies that Jesus fulfilled are also misinterpretations, the Christian story was not unique during that time in history, the differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic texts of the Old Testament indicate the Bible was not inspired, the evidence of Jesus’ life and resurrection has no backing in non-biblical history, The Bible is not clear on how to be saved, Jesus’ return was to be soon after his death not millennia later, it seems that early Judaism was polytheistic (just for fun), the doctrine of hell is weak, hell is horribly evil and immoral, and self-delusion is necessary to remain a Christian.  I have yet to find plausible arguments against these reasons.  Barring some astounding new evidence, I don’t believe I ever will.  Besides, if the evidence necessary to believe Christianity is still hidden after 2,000 years, then God must, by necessity, be horribly evil, because he is damning people like me for being too dedicated to the truth.  It means he is either unable to let the evidence be found or he is unwilling, which means he is either weak or evil, and therefore cannot be the modern Christian God.

NOTE: I wrote an article that I’ve posted on the main page of my blog called “A Resurrection?” in which I analyze the “evidence” of the resurrection so often used by apologists.  I wrote it several months after this article, so it is not included on this page.

The virgin birth is based on a mistranslated and misinterpreted scripture.

Early on it became apparent to me that the Bible was most definitely not inerrant, and never claimed to be.  The proof by implication concept (A.K.A. the “well it was implied” concept) makes the whole Bible meaningless.  For example, either Jesus said he was God, or he did not.  The fact that he allowed himself to be worshipped, or esoterically commented that he and his father were “one” does not prove that he was God.  It merely allows one to conjecture, whatever one wishes; as there are many verses where he clearly distinguishes himself from God.

Isaiah 7:14, the verse that supposedly prophesied the virgin birth story, is not about a virgin.  The word that is translated virgin is not the specific word virgin.  Bible commentators argue until their blue in the face that it cannot be “proven” that the verse does not mean a virgin.  However, there is a specific word in Hebrew that means virgin, and that is not the word used in Isaiah 7:14.  Also, if you read the passage, it is obvious that the child the woman is to conceive will be born very soon and that he will not be old enough to know right from wrong before the king that is assaulting Judah, while the passage is being written, is defeated.

The Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was the Hebrew Old Testament translated into Greek, has the specific Greek word virgin and the New Testament writers quote mostly from the Septuagint.  Thus they were using anything they could find to support their story; they would have known the verse was not a prophecy of Jesus if they had used the original Hebrew text.

Also, the fact that the apostle Paul says that Jesus was born of a woman, not a virgin, in Galatians’ 4:4 indicates that Paul did not believe in a virgin birth.  “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law (KJV).”  Greek also had a specific word for virgin and Paul did not use it in Galatians 4:4.  The argument that the Galatians already believed in the virgin birth and that Paul did not need to reiterate that fact does not stand.  Paul was making a point about the power of God with this phrase.  If he wanted to hammer the point home, he would have stated the whole truth and mentioned the virgin birth.  I will note here that Paul’s letters are, chronologically, the earliest Christian documents.  They were written before the gospels.

It’s also interesting to note that in Mark 3:20-21, Jesus’ family comes to get him, believing him to be crazy.  It would seem that a mother that had witnessed all the things that supposedly happened at the virgin birth would not think her son was crazy.  In Luke 2:19 it says that, “…Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.”  So did she forget them 30 years later?

So if the virgin birth doesn’t stand, then Matthew and Luke can be thrown out as embellished versions of the Markan account (Mark was the earliest gospel, and Matthew and Luke are based on it) because if they would fabricate a virgin birth and mix it in with possible history in order to make the point that their protagonist was a god, then is it not possible that they would fabricate the rest of the supernatural aspects of the story in order to further deify their character?

Many of the other Christian Messianic prophecies, including the resurrection, are misinterpretations.

If you read some of the other “prophecies” used by the gospel writers and modern theologians, you will see that they are grossly out of context.  The fact that the writers of the gospels would use verses out of context further weakens belief in the validity of their writings.  This becomes even clearer when we see that several of the quotes used are not even in the Old Testament.  Matthew’s “he shall be called a Nazarene” was either a complete fabrication or was based on a completely unknown non-canonical book, as it is not in the Old Testament.  The argument that the Holy Spirit knew what was going to happen and hid prophecies within prophecies doesn’t make sense.  If the level of obfuscation goes that deep, then the Bible can be made to say just about anything.  It doesn’t account for the non-existent prophecies as well.

The curse Yahweh placed upon the serpent in the Garden of Eden is taken to be a messianic prophecy.  If you read the verses in Genesis (3:15), it is virtually impossible to think that it could be about anyone or anything except the relationship between women and snakes.  Psalm 16:10 is taken to mean that the messiah would not remain dead.  “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”  If you read the verse however, the very idea becomes ludicrous.  The word that is translated “Holy One” means something to the effect of saint or good person; according to Strong’s Concordance of the King James Bible.  This verse is the only time the word is capitalized after translation.  I had read the verse many times before learning about its supposed messianic implications and it had never occurred to me that the verse could be about the messiah.  I know that personal opinions are not good arguments in and of themselves, but if a knowledgeable layperson cannot tell a passage is messianic, it makes me highly suspicious of a passage’s messianic validity.  We should be suspicious of “hidden meanings,” because they are often fabricated by those that want to control us.

Finally, certain supposed prophecies of Jesus are built from prophecies that clearly refer to something else or they contain things that Jesus did not fulfill.  Why does only one line of the prophecy get fulfilled at a time?  Several prophecies refer to the Messiah bringing peace to the world, well Jesus hasn’t done that.  The Old Testament verses did not allow for a “second coming”, so claiming this is when Jesus will bring peace doesn’t stand.  The parts of these prophecies that Jesus allegedly fulfills are, quite often, grossly out of context.  I find this quite comical as the “out of context” argument is used in the apologists favor constantly.

The list goes on and on of the fakes, forgeries, and misapplications that make up Jesus’ supposed fulfillment of “many” prophecies.  Take a look at some of them and decide for yourself.  Ask yourself, if you had never ever heard any of the things you’ve heard about Christianity, would this verse make sense as a messianic prophecy?  Just because people with titles and degrees say its true, doesn’t mean it is.  Be sure you read the context as well.  Just reading the verses listed below can make the prophetic point seem correct, but if you read the whole chapter or the entire prophecy it will become apparent that the “fulfilled prophecy” is a stretch.  (The OT verse is the supposed prophecy and the NT verse is the supposed fulfillment):

• Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14a; Matthew 1:21-23)
• Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:1, Luke 2:4-7)
• Anointed by God’s Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17)
• Ministering healing (Isaiah 29:18-21; Mark 7:37)
• Working miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35)
• Would ride a donkey into Jerusalem (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)
• Rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11, John 7:5 and 48)
• Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15)
• Hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31)
• Crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38)
• He was not to remain dead (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6, Acts 2:31)
• Ascension (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9-11)
• If you want other options, simply google “messianic prophecies.”

As a final note, and a smoking gun in my opinion, the Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah because they knew what prophecies were messianic, and Jesus does not fulfill those prophecies.  (This article is written by Jews about the subject: http://www.hanefesh.com/Jewish-Christian_Talk.htm)

The Christian story was not unique during that time in history.

Justin Martyr bemoaned that demons, knowing the OT prophecies, mimicked them in Greek/Roman mythology.  He stated in his “First Apology”:

(Chapter 54 – http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm)
But those who hand down the myths which the poets have made, adduce no proof to the youths who learn them; and we proceed to demonstrate that they have been uttered by the influence of the wicked demons, to deceive and lead astray the human race. For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvelous tales, like the things which were said by the poets. And these things were said both among the Greeks and among all nations where they [the demons] heard the prophets foretelling that Christ would specially be believed in; but that in hearing what was said by the prophets they did not accurately understand it, but imitated what was said of our Christ, like men who are in error, we will make plain. The prophet Moses, then, was, as we have already said, older than all writers; and by him, as we have also said before, it was thus predicted: “There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He come for whom it is reserved; and He shall be the desire of the Gentiles, binding His foal to the vine, washing His robe in the blood of the grape.” (Genesis 49:11) The devils, accordingly, when they heard these prophetic words, said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine [or, the ass] among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven. And because in the prophecy of Moses it had not been expressly intimated whether He who was to come was the Son of God, and whether He would, riding on the foal, remain on earth or ascend into heaven, and because the name of “foal” could mean either the foal of an ass or the foal of a horse, they, not knowing whether He who was foretold would bring the foal of an ass or of a horse as the sign of His coming, nor whether He was the Son of God, as we said above, or of man, gave out that Bellerophon, a man born of man, himself ascended to heaven on his horse Pegasus. And when they heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah, that He should be born of a virgin (see out of context notes above), and by His own means ascend into heaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of. And when they knew what was said, as has been cited above, in the prophecies written aforetime, “Strong as a giant to run his course,” they said that Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth. And when, again, they learned that it had been foretold that He should heal every sickness, and raise the dead, they produced Æsculapius.

The argument that the pagan myths came after Christianity is laid to rest here.  Justin Martyr wrote the above text in 150-155 C.E.  Matthew was written between 90 and 110 C.E. and Luke was written between 95 and 140 C.E.  (In the section The Bible is not clear on how to be saved, there is a note on the dating of the gospels.)  Thus, there is not a great amount of time difference between the first versions of the virgin birth story and Martyr’s First Apology, less than 65 years.  We know that Greek mythology predated Christianity by centuries, though the apologists often claim that there is no proof that similar pagan myths, such as virgin births and resurrections, existed until after Christianity.  Given the temporal ambiguity, however, and the fact that Martyr did not claim that the religions had copied Christianity, but that they had copied the Old Testament prophets, it is reasonable to assume that the religions were at the very least contemporary with Christianity, if they did not pre-date it.

As for Martyr’s actual words, the verse Martyr quotes, Genesis 49:11, is vague at best.  It’s in the prophecy given by Jacob about each of his twelve sons whose families became the twelve tribes of Israel.  Martyr’s point about the vine might make sense, but the verse he quotes says nothing about ascending into heaven or being the son of God.  There are other out of context pseudo-prophecies used for ascension, but none of them are very specific (see the previous section on messianic prophecies).  The virgin birth was also dealt with earlier.

There are differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic texts of the Old Testament.

There are differences between the Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Septuagint text of the Old Testament.  The Masoretic text is used in the U.S. Protestant Bible; however the writers of the New Testament used the Septuagint text.  Some of the verses have different meanings.  For example:

Isaiah 29:13
And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men, (Septuagint).
———————————————————
And the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw nigh unto me, and with their mouth and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment of men which hath been taught them… (Masoretic).
———————————————————
Farrell Till said of the above verses, “There are similarities in the first half of each text, but the last halves are markedly different. Nothing is said in the Masoretic text (which inerrantists say is so close to the “original autographs” as to make variations irrelevant) about the vanity of worship that is taught after the commandments and doctrines of men. If this was not in the Masoretic (original?) text, why did the Holy Spirit guide Matthew to quote it this way? Inerrantists need to explain this. (Source: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4jerem90.html)

Did the Holy Spirit want us to use the Masoretic text or the Septuagint?  Because there are certainly some differences, and while they may not absolutely change the meaning of the passage, it weakens the idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God because modern apologists claim that the Masoretic text is the correct text, but the writer’s of the gospels quoted the Septuagint.  Which version did the Holy Spirit want us to use?  If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then should we not use the Septuagint?

The evidence for Jesus’ life and resurrection is based only on the Bible; it has no backing in history.

There are currently no historical documents, other than the Bible, that verify the claims made by Christianity.  Christianity as a religion is mentioned, but the actual miracles, from the feeding of the multitudes, to the healings, to the virgin birth, and the resurrection (see my other article on the resurrection for more information on this), have no historical documentary or archeological evidence.  Many of the persons and places in the gospel accounts and Acts have a place in history.  Most of the rulers, the high priests, the cities, etc. have confirmation outside the Bible.  John the Baptist is spoken of by the Jewish historian Josephus, as is James the brother of Jesus, though we don’t know who that Jesus actually was.  Jesus’ supposed miracles are absent from the historical record however.  There are other miracles recorded in ancient historical documents, so it is not a prejudice against miracles that would cause them to be left out.  Actual direct references to Jesus himself are sparse as well.

Josephus, the Jewish historian, supposedly wrote a paragraph about Jesus and Christianity in which he claimed that Jesus was the Christ and that he had done wonders and risen from the dead.  It is know as the Testimonium Flavianum.  The authenticity of the passage is highly debated, as the early church father Origen said that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the messiah and as there are other copies of the same paragraph that do not contain the specific references to Jesus’ alleged resurrection.  (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus)

The historical credibility of the gospels in general is highly suspect, despite the Christian apologists’ constant claim of the contrary and their constant appeals to authority by quoting “scholars.”  We have no actual eye-witness reports of Jesus’ life and deeds.  The view that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels is supported only by early church writings which were written many decades later.  So the claim of eye witness testimony of Jesus is very weak.  We don’t even have reliable second hand accounts from personal interviews made by ancient historians, even the gospel writers don’t claim to have spoken to eye witnesses.

Luke and Matthew copied from Mark extensively.  Mark made several geographical errors that Matthew corrected.  Matthew and Luke both added the virgin birth and the post resurrection appearances of Jesus, as neither of those concepts is in Mark.  All the verses after Mark 16:8 are not considered original.  John is the least reliable gospel.  It changes the entire style and timeline of the gospel story.  So basing a religion on unverifiable first century C.E. religious pamphlets intended to persuade uneducated and superstitious people is, in my opinion, quite ludicrous.  (For more information on the reliability of the gospels see: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jesus.html#sources)  The fact that that non-biblical history is almost completely silent about Jesus’ life speaks volumes about the veracity of Christianity.

The Bible is not clear on how to be saved.

It seems that the most important doctrine of Christianity, how to be saved, would be the clearest.  It is not.  There are many that argue that if you take the Bible as a whole the doctrine is clear.  That is flawed, however, because one cannot take the Bible as a whole.  Paul’s letters were written around the 50’s C.E.  Mark, the earliest gospel, was not written until 65 C.E. at the earliest.  (See the note below.)  The other 3 gospels were written after this, with John being the last.  Each of these documents was written to different groups of people.  A few of the letters of Paul reference each other, but many of them do not.  It cannot be assumed that just because one group had something that all others would have it as well.  So each gospel and individual letter should contain its own description of how to be saved and these descriptions should match.  If the gospels are true, then their record of Jesus’ words should be the clearest example of the plan of salvation.  That is not the case.

NOTE: There is an argument that since Acts doesn’t mention Paul’s death and the fall of Jerusalem, it must have been written prior to those events.  Thus, since Acts is based on Luke and Luke is based on Mark, then Luke and Mark must have been written well before 64 C.E., the year that Paul died.  Therefore the dates of Luke and Mark can be pushed back so that Mark was written within 20-25 years of Jesus’ death.  However Acts ends by saying in 28:30-31 “And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.”  This isn’t very definitive.  Since Paul dwelt for two years, then Acts was written after those two years.  It would seem plausible, as plausible as the above argument used by apologists to force the gospel dates as close to Jesus’ life as possible, that at the end of those two years something changed, perhaps Paul was executed.  So to assert that Mark was written within 20-25 years of Jesus’ death based upon this is a rather shaky argument.  It assumes far too much.  For more information on the dates the gospels were written see: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/gospeldate.html

There are no instructions on how to be saved in the book of Mark.  There is Jesus’ supposed prophecy about the fall of Jerusalem and him telling his disciples that he will return before their generation dies; according to Mark 13:13, those who endured to the end, which seems to be after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., would be saved.  I’m not sure how that relates to today.  There is also a very good possibility that the book of Mark was written after Jerusalem fell in 70 C.E.  So the details of the prophecy are suspect, as they might be a post-dated self-fulfilling prophecy.  These passages also demonstrate the continuous dilemma Christians face in the fact that Jesus himself said he would return in the lifetime of his disciples, not some random time in the next few millennia.  Some might claim Mark 16:16 as the salvation plan.  It says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”  The first problem with this is the fact that it requires baptism, which many Christians do not believe or practice as a requirement of salvation.  The second problem, and the most important, is that everything after Mark 16:8 is an interpolation, meaning it was added later.  The oldest manuscripts of Mark end at verse 16:8, even Christian scholars admit this.  So the original “gospel” of Jesus Christ doesn’t even tell how to be saved.  This is definitely a problem.

In Matthew your righteous must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, you must do the will of the Father, you will be justified or condemned by your words, you will be rewarded according to your works, you must become like a little child, the Rich Young Ruler had to keep the commandments, the rich will have difficulty getting into heaven, you must endure until the end of the of the fall of Jerusalem, and you must help the thirsty, homeless, naked, sick, and prisoner.  Look in Matthew 5:20, 7:1, 7:7-8, 7:21, 10:22, 12:37, 16:37, 18:3, 19:17, 19:23-24, 22:14, 24:13, and 25:34-36.

In Luke Jesus tells a lawyer that he could live if he loved God with all his heart, soul, strength, and mind and loved his neighbor as himself.  It says woe to the rich as they have already received their consolation; this seems to imply that the rich cannot be saved.  Jesus tells the rich young ruler to keep the commandments, sell all his possessions, and follow Jesus.  It says to save your life you must lose it.  If you’re ashamed of Jesus and his words, then he’ll be ashamed of you to God.  See Luke 6:24, 6:37, 9:24, 10:26, 17:33, and 18:18-27.

In John you must be born again of the spirit, you must believe in Jesus, you must do good, the Father must give you to Jesus, and you must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus.  There are many verses in John that speak of believing in Jesus for salvation, and John is the primary gospel used to argue that salvation is by faith.  John is, however, the newest gospel.  Matthew, Mark, and Luke all existed before John and they do not say that you must believe to be saved.  The chronology and style of John are different than the other three gospels as well.  So John agrees with the Pauline theology of belief, though Paul did write in several cases that one will be judge by one’s works.  The book of James however disagrees with this several times.  See John 3:3, 3:5, 3:16, 3:18, 3:36, 5:24, 5:29, 6:37, 6:53-54 for that book’s take on salvation.

In Acts you must call on the name of the Lord and believe.  In the Pauline letters of Roman, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, it’s rather vague.  Paul says most of the time that we are justified by faith, but he does say on occasion that we are judged according to our works.  In Hebrews 11:31 it says that Rahab was saved at Jericho because of her faith; in James 2:25 Rahab is justified by her works.  James argues that faith alone is not enough.  You must have works as well.  See James 2:14, 2:17, 2:20, and 2:24-26.  There is some conjecture that Paul and James did not get along because of their conflicting theology.  In Acts, James is the head of the Jerusalem church and the Jerusalem church followed Jewish law.  Paul taught faith only, and is considered by some to be the true founder of modern Christianity.  It has been conjectured that the book of James was a polemic against Paul’s faith based salvation.  (For more information visit: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paultheology.html#contra)

The verses on the following web pages provide more information.  Read what these verses actually say, not what you’ve been told they should say.  I used to think that there must be verses and facts I didn’t know, there aren’t.  As I look more closely into the issues I find that what you see is what you get.
• http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html
• http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/saved.html

Jesus’ return was to be soon after his death not millennia later.

Christians must deny this constantly.  They believe that Jesus’ statements about his imminent return were figurative.  This is not based upon any fact; it just smoothes over the difficulty of Jesus’ statements.  As I stated earlier, this is the only salvation option available in Mark.  I guess we missed it.  I am not going to write a lot on this subject, as most Christian that have read the passages in question will remember the doubts that ran through their mind when they initially read them.  Read this article for a longer treatment on this topic: http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=86

A random curiosity, was early Judaism polytheistic?

There are several times in the Old Testament that God says something and uses “we” instead of “I”.  Most Christians write this off as a reference to the Trinity.  The doctrine of the trinity is quite weak if you look at it closely.  It was voted into existence in 325 C.E. at the Council of Nicaea.  It is not strongly supported by the Bible, which you will see below.  So if God is not three persons then why does he use the word “we” to refer to himself?

Below is a list of ten of a hundred reasons against the doctrine of the trinity put forth by a Christian document written in 1827.  (Read the complete list here: http://www.harvestherald.com/onehundred.html)

1. Because Jesus Christ is represented by the sacred writers to be as distinct a being from God the Father as one man is from another. “It is written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one who bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.” John 8:17-18.
2. Because he not only never said that himself was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” John 17:3. This language our Saviour used in solemn prayer to “his Father and our Father.”
3. Because he is declared, in unnumbered instances, to be the Son of God. “And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:17. Can a son be coequal and the same with his father?
4. Because he is styled the Christ, or the anointed of God. “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.” Acts 10:38. Is he who anoints the same with him who is anointed?
5. Because he is represented as a Priest. “Consider the… high Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.” Hebrews 3:1. The office of a priest is to minister to God. Christ, then, as a priest, cannot be God.
6. Because Christ is Mediator between the “One God” and “men.” “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” I Timothy 2:5.
7. Because as the Saviour of men, he was sent by the Father. “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.” I John 4:14.
8. Because he is an apostle, appointed by God. “Consider the apostle… Christ Jesus, who was faithful to him that appointed him.” Hebrews 3:1-2.
9. Because Christ is represented as our intercessor with God. “It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” Romans 8:34.
10. Because the head of Christ is God. “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” I Corinthians 11:3.

With these reasons against the Trinity in mind, we must go to Genesis 1.  It is the first version of the creation story.  Version 2 is in Genesis 2.  Genesis 1 refers to God as elohim, which can be singular of god, but it can also be plural.  Genesis 2 uses Yahweh.  The phrase “the gods of the nations” is the ‘elohim’ of the nations.  “I am the Lord your God” is I am the Yahweh your elohim.  So elohim does not necessarily refer to the monotheistic God of the Hebrews.  Now in Genesis 1 there is a verse that states: “And God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’”  This verse is always attributed to the Trinity.  Now if the doctrine of the Trinity is shaky and elohim is a plural of the word god and does not necessarily refer to Yahweh, then can we possibly conjecture that Genesis 1 tells the story of many gods creating the world?

Also, read the story of the tower of Babel.  In Genesis 11:7 god says “let us go down” and confound their language.  How can one god be “us”?  It’s interesting that god needed to stop men from building a tower to heaven, seeing as we now know that such a thing is impossible.  Even if they got outside the atmosphere, they would have all suffocated, as there is no oxygen in space.  Also, in verse 6 god is worried that men will be able to accomplish anything if they work together.  Thus “they” confound man’s speech.  Why was Almighty gods, I mean god, worried about finite men?

The Doctrine of Hell

If you look into the opposing viewpoints of hell, you find that it is a doctrine that cannot be proven.  On my path to liberty, I explored many facets and sides of Christianity.  The Christian Universalists argue that salvation is for everyone; just that some will be punished before they are saved.  Annihilationists argue that non-believers will be destroyed, but believers will live forever.  Since many Atheists believe there is no afterlife, then I doubt this arrangement would bother any of us.  The arguments for and against the hell doctrine are nebulous.  The hell debate is kind of like the permanent versus losable salvation debate so common between Baptists and Pentecostals; both sides have some scriptural evidence, but neither can prove their side absolutely.  The difficulty that comes for the fire and brimstoner are the verses that tell that salvation is for everyone.  For example (the emphasis is added in each example):

“So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One shall the many be made righteous” (Rom.5:18,19)
“For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in Him should all the fulness dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens” (Col.1:19,20)
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. Yet each in his own order; Christ the firstfruits: then they that are Christ’s at his coming; then the end. The last enemy that shall be abolished is death” (1 Cor.15:20-26)

I find it interesting, that as I research some of these alternative Christian theories that Strong’s concordance will have arguments against them in its notes.  Apparently Strong’s was written by eternal hell believing fundamentalists.  It says that the above word is used in an exaggerative context.  As in: if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?  Obviously the speaker doesn’t mean everyone, just a lot of people.  If you look at other verses the word is used in however, some of them support this, and others do not.  In the end, like so many other Christian doctrines, we are left to wonder.  The gap caused by the Ancient Greek the Bible was written in sometimes makes absolute meanings difficult.

I find it interesting as well that in Adam all die, though no one post Adam has a choice.  Even so in Christ all, meaning everyone that adheres to Christianity, will be made alive.  That is rationally inconsistent.  If Adam damned us all, then Christ should save us all.  Or are the actions of a mere mortal superior to the actions of a god-man?

For more information on Universalism and Annihilationism visit:
1) http://www.christian-universalism.com/links.html (Universalist)
2) http://www.christian-universalism.com/articles/Kirk1.html (Universalist)
3) http://www.harvestherald.com/challenge.htm (Annihilationist)

The Immorality of Hell

The doctrine of hell is innately immoral.  The basic idea that people who only spend a short lifetime sinning will be eternally punished for those finite sins is horribly evil.  At this point the Christian has condemned me by thinking that it is presumptuous to attempt to morally judge god.  Well, if we are created in the image of god and he created logic and morality and placed them in us by making us in his image and giving us a conscience, then our morality and logic are merely expressions of god’s morality and logic.  So if only the most mentally deluded of people can enjoy the pain and suffering of another human being, then it is safe to conclude that god does not like the suffering of human beings.  If our consciences, which are used as an argument to prove the existence of the Christian god, tell us that willfully causing prolonged harm to another person is evil, then that judgment must be from god.  Therefore an eternally torturing hell cannot be the creation of god.  And if god has reasons that we cannot know, then we cannot have free will, because we are forced to blind obedience, as a rational belief based on known facts becomes impossible.  That would also make life quite hopeless, as we could never be sure of salvation, since the Bible is quite vague on the subject.

Some Christians state that people chose hell by not obeying god or by not doing good things.  I am born a sinner according to the Bible, but I am somehow damned because of my choice?  I had no control over the actions of Adam, and yet I am condemned for his actions unconditionally.  Where does my choice come in again?

I have become an Atheist because my close study of the information available provided no proof of Christianity; it, in fact, provided the opposite.  Some might say that I have been “sent a strong delusion that I would believe a lie.”  Well, I had the “peace that passes understanding” concerning my “salvation.”  I was fully in the fold.  Did god suddenly decide that I deserve hell?  Does reason, a supposed creation of god, cause evil?  Does being skeptical make you worthy of eternal, never-ending torture?  And if it does, do Christians serve a loving and good god, or an evil monster?  I have simply judged Christianity by its evidential fruits, which the Bible says we should do, yet I am damned.

For those that are Calvinists or believe in predestination, which is the idea that god picked who would go to heaven and who would go to hell when he created the world, you most definitely believe in an evil monster.  In Calvinism, there is no choice involved at all.  God simply chooses some to horribly torture for eternity.  This causes any attempt to rationalize based upon free-will or choice to fail completely.  God must be evil or life must be pointless because we are slaves that are incapable of understanding god’s reasons and we have no hope of anything because it would be impossible to tell who is saved and who is not.  It makes the Bible quite irrelevant because god’s already picked his favorites and if you’re not on the list, it doesn’t matter how closely you follow Christianity, you will still go to hell.

I have read many attempts to rationalize the problem of hell.  None of them make sense.  They usually appeal to the “who are you to judge god” idea.  I addressed that with my argument about our morality reflecting god’s.  If my argument is not true and we are incapable of making moral judgments of any sort, then non-believers should be unable to intentionally do anything good.  If we are incapable of making moral judgments then we are unable to be saved without god stepping in and saving us, as we would be unable to “see the light” via the Christian teachings, thus god would still be ultimately responsible for humans going to hell, and all is hopeless.  If we are capable of making flawed moral judgments, that are right sometimes, then what is the standard of morality on which we can base moral decisions since we cannot know it innately (so much for free-will)?  The Christian would respond that the Bible is.  Well, the second greatest commandment Christ gave is to love your neighbor.  Jesus illustrated this with the story of the Good Samaritan.  Jews and Samaritan’s hated each other.  So the story of the Good Samaritan says to love your neighbor even if they hate you and you hate them.  He also advocated not harming others by telling his followers to turn the other cheek.  So loving your neighbor, according to the Bible, cannot include hurting them.  So if the ultimate moral standard says to love your neighbor even if you hate them, and loving them cannot mean hurting them, then god cannot love us because damning us to eternal torture for hating him by our sinful actions is not loving us per the Biblical standard.  One might still cry that god would have his own reasons.  So does god have standards that are different than the standards he gives us?  If the standards he supposedly put forth in the Bible are holy, and he is holy, then it would seem that he would abide by his own standards, if he has his own separate standards, then he is a liar.  If you want to keep trying yourself, you can, but at this point the pool is so murky and the argument so circular I simply left it alone.  If you want to argue that hod has a standard that we cannot even know, then there is absolutely no hope whatsoever because I cannot follow what I do not know.  And arbitrary rules with no meaning created to give us something to do to avoid hell, even though the standards we are judged by are not the standards given, ends in tyranny and hopelessness.

Hanging by a Thread; the Remaining Reasons to Believe.

One might ask me if I am scared of hell.  Well, one of the original reasons I held onto my faith, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, was that I was scared of being wrong and damning myself and my family to eternal hell.  It seems that you cannot “truly” believe, as Christians say, by being scared of hell.  The very idea of fear based belief seems to violate the precepts of New Testament Christianity, which teaches that “God is love” (1 John 4:16) and that there is “no fear in love” (1 John 4:18).  Ironically enough 1 Peter 2:17 says “fear God.”  The Greek word fear is the same in both passages, once in the verb form and once as the noun.  The verb “Fear” in 1 Peter 2:17 is only translated as reverence one time.  It is translated as fear or afraid 90 times according to Strong’s concordance.  The noun is translated as fear or terror 44 times, and is never used in the context of reverence.  The one use of the verb form as reverence seems like an attempt to sanitize a doctrinally harsh point.  The verse it’s used in is Ephesians 5:33, “…the wife see that she reverence her husband.”  In other words, wives are to be afraid of their husbands and the passages in 1 John and 1 Peter are talking about actual fear.  So the implication seems to be, from 1 John 4, that fear-based belief is impossible, though the passage is not entirely clear on what “loving” gets you.

Over the weeks of writing and revising this document, I became about 99% free of the fear of hell; I am now completely free of it.  My fear of hell decreased as I realize the irrationality of hell and the hopelessness of trying via the standards given by Christianity.  The fear of “you might be wrong” that was indoctrinated into me as a small child still pops up occasionally, but I believe that it will one day disappear completely.  If it returns I simply remember that the brain I have is what convinced me that Christianity was wrong.  If there is a god that gave me that brain, then he apparently wanted me to stop believing in Christianity.  If that god is the Christian god, then he either doesn’t care what you believe and the Bible is wrong or he has condemned me to hell for being discerning and intelligent, which is a very cruel and vindictive act.  If god exists and is cruel and vindictive, then is there is no hope at all.  If god is cruel and vindictive then he cannot be the modern Christian god, which makes the whole point irrelevant.

There remained only one reason to believe after fear: self-delusion.  I had not attended church gatherings for some time before my de-conversion.  Many would blame my lack of attendance for my loss of faith.  Attending church and reading the Bible daily are self-indoctrination methods.  Athletes think about their sport all the time to keep themselves motivated and dedicated.  They are essentially brainwashing themselves.  Intentionally using this on oneself to achieve one’s desires and goals is not necessarily a bad thing.  Deceitfully pushing this as a method of salvation and freedom is a slight of hand used by Christian tyrants (also known as church leaders and preachers) to control their followers.  Adolf Hitler said, “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”  That is the reason churches push attendance and Bible reading with great fervor, for without them, their donators might think for themselves.  If they think for themselves, they might realize what is going on and leave the church.  If they leave, then the pastor’s power over his parishioners and his cushy job will be no more.  (Please note that I do not believe that most preachers know what they are doing; they are simply willfully ignorant.  I just wanted to point out one of the possible reasons they do not seek the truth.)

Conclusion

There are many other facts that further weaken Christianity, but the details contained in this document are what initially convinced me.  I cannot deny the facts.  I am always open to new information.  I still read pro-Christian web sites as I come across them, but I have yet to find anything new or helpful.  The prophecies used by the New Testament authors are not what they claimed they were.  History denies the existence of Jesus.  The inconsistencies in a supposedly divine document cannot be denied, except through self-delusion.  All these things are why I am no longer a Christian.  If you are a Christian, please consider this information and decide for yourself.  A de-conversion to Atheism is the most freeing thing you will ever experience.  The world gets bigger and more beautiful in an instant.  A realization that this life is all we get motivates you to do your best and care for yourself and your own happiness more than anything else.  So if you chose to follow me in de-conversion, then I’ll see you in hell…just kidding.

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”
–Thomas Jefferson

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
–Thomas Jefferson

For more information visit:
Against Christianity:
I must note that I do not agree with everything presented on these websites.  Many of them include political sections that I do not agree with.  I am an Anarcho-Capitalist.  I believe the principles of Austrian economics as put forth by Ludwig von Mises and Fredrich A. Hayek.  I am not a leftist, Marxist, or Socialist.  The information I agree with, for the most part, on these websites is the information that specifically relates to the Christianity debate.
• http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html
• http://www.infidels.org/library/subjects-kiosk&book.html
• http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm
• http://www.theskepticalreview.com/MainMenu.html
• http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/ChristianityIndex.html

For Christianity:
I must warn you that some of these Christian responses are very difficult to follow.  I found no in between: you have pro-Christian sites that are mind-numbingly simple and you have pro-Christian sites that are ridiculously convoluted.  I have only included the convoluted sites.
• http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/ChristianityIndex.html
• http://www.leaderu.com/menus/theo-apol.html
• http://www.leaderu.com/menus/apologetics.html
• http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
• http://www.tektonics.org/