Christianity, for most of the Christian meatheads out there, rests upon just a few
really dumb arguments. These arguments are not very good, but they've become
very popular, simple arguments to appeal to simple minds. For
that reason I would like to answer them here, rather than keep emailing the same
answers to the same dumb arguments. --Mark
Smith
****************
Only Christians Can Comprehend The Bible
A stock argument used by some Fundies is that Christians, and Christians only, can really understand what the Bible is trying to say. These Fundies teach that unless one has "the holy spirit" it is impossible to know what the Bible is teaching. But this leads to the following absurdity:
Before knowing the Bible, you have to know Jesus.
But before knowing Jesus, you have to know the Bible.
The end result is that no one can know either Jesus OR the Bible, and this Fundy dog ends up in a unsuccessful chase of its tail for all eternity.
Another logical conclusion to be drawn from this Fundy belief is that they REALLY believe in the insufficiency of scripture, which is actually one of the foundation stones of Catholicism. The Catholics believe that having just the Bible is not enough to guide one in their Christian walk, one must also have an official interpreter. The Catholics believe this to be the Church; Fundies would believe this to be their "still inner voice" which differs from man to man, which is why there are thousands of different Protestant churches all teaching different ways to get to heaven. Division seems to be the end result of abandoning an objective standard for religious dogma.
Christians who email me this argument seem to think it is just soooo clever, but, sorry to disappoint you, it's always seemed pretty stupid to me- even when I myself WAS a Christian. Why? It is too easy to answer. Ready? Here goes:
| Myth | Harmful Side Effects of the Myth |
| Santa | None |
| Christianity | Religious wars in the Balkans.
Religious wars in Ireland. Religious wars in Africa. Discrimination against women, gays, and non-Christians. Used to justify slavery in pre-civil war America. Blow up clinics, shoot doctors and nurses. Turns families against each other, forbids marriage outside of group. This list could go on for pages. If you really need to see more detail, then visit my pages:
|
As you can see, the difference is this: a HARMLESS myth such as Santa doesn't hurt people much. However, a HARMFUL myth such as Christianity needs to be fought against. If Christians would treat the Biblegod myth the same as the Santa myth, there wouldn't be any evangelical Atheists, just like there are no organized "anti-Santa" movements.
And the final sword to finish off this stupid Christian line of reasoning: The Aztecs used to do human sacrifices to the tune of sometimes over a thousand a day, all based on a myth- their pagan religion. If you destroy their myth, you destroy their religion. My question to modern Christians: IF there were still practicing Aztecs today, would you ignore them, or would you rather battle their myths with everything you've got???
Christianity is a Relationship and Not a Religion
|
||||||||||
Mark Smith here} "Religion" as defined by the dictionary is "the service and worship of God or the supernatural" (Webster's). Christianity certainly fits the definition- they serve and worship their imaginary Biblegod.
As to why Christians seem ashamed of being a religion, I don't know. Their own New Testament admits quite openly that they ARE a religion: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27 KJV) Of course, since 99.9999999% of all the people in the world who call themselves Christians don't live up to James 1:27, in fact, don't even try to, maybe Christians aren't good enough to be called a religion, and that's why they are shy about the name.
It is not about church, not about missions, and ceremony it is about Jesus, who most of us have had a encounter with. I myself was an atheist up unto the age of 16, but I had a personal encounter with christ myself,
Mark Smith here} This person no more had a "personal encounter" with Jesus than a Jehovah Witness actually witnessed Jehovah. What- did this person have lunch with Jesus the other day? Did him and Jesus watch a football game together? No. His "personal encounter" with his imaginary friend all took place within his head.
but if you research enough you will find all kinds of things that can only be explained through the existence of a higher being. Healing when doctors ahve given up, and even newspaper clipping of people being healed.
Mark Smith here} Claimed healings are common to many religions. If healings are proof that Biblegod exists, then they are also proof that the Mormon gods exist, the Hindu gods exists, and Apollo and Zeus also exist. Is he willing to grant the existence of these other gods? Hell no, he is a confirmed Atheist when it comes to any gods other than Biblegod.
Mark Smith here} Uhhhh, actually, Jesus is NOT historical, and that's been one of the main problems of the religion. There are NO (zero, zip, nada) legit historical references to Jesus whatsoever from ANY historian- Roman or Jewish- who lived when Jesus is claimed to have lived. Of course, for someone who supposedly did ALLLLLL those miracles, you'd think there'd be at least one tiny reference somewhere in the thousands and thousands of pages of Roman history- IF Jesus really lived. But there isn't. This does not PROVE he never lived- most people who live then or now never register a blip on the radar screen of historians. But then, most people never do the kind of miracles that Jesus supposedly did, and THAT fact, combined with the LACK OF historical reference to Jesus, proves an embarrassing problem to the xtians.
it is also historical that he was crucified on the cross, it is also historical that his disciples fled from him and denounced him after his death. My question is if this undenyable facts occurred, why does christainity excist at all. Should it have died with Jesus, but it didn't.
Mark Smith here} The FACT that a religion exists in no wise PROVES it is true. Hell, if existing were the sole qualification for a religion being "true" then every religion that exists nowadays, even the Universal Life Church, would be a true religion.
The disciples all of a sudden came out of hiding for three days and started to preach Jesus, and every one of them were killed. Why did they get so brave all of a sudden?
Mark Smith here} This claim that all the Apostles died for their faith is pure horseshit. It is based on a book by William McBirnie entitled The Search for the Twelve Apostles. The book itself admits time and time again that these claims of martyrdom are contradictory, one Apostle may have several different stories as to how and where they died, and these claims are based on nothing but pure myth and speculation. One quick example: Simon the Zealot died in England via crucifixion AND he also died in Persia by being sawed in two!!! Such horseshit as this is NOT history, but rather Christian gossiping run amok.
I think it is almost undisputable that Jesus had to rise or Christainity would ahve died with him. But it is the biggest religion in the world today, and growing all the time,
Mark Smith here} Since when does the SIZE of a religion have anything to do with the RIGHTNESS of a religion? By this kind of "logic" Christianity was a FALSE religion for at least the first fifteen hundred years. And also by this same kind of "logic", since billions of flies eat shit, we should too: after all, billions of flies can't be wrong!!! Another point to bring up: Jesus HIMSELF said that "many are called but few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14), so how in hell could ANY religion that had a BILLION people in it be Jesus' religion???
because he still lives and his tomb is still empty,
Mark Smith here} Of COURSE the damn tomb is empty- the Christians came in and stole the body!!! (see my essay: The Roman Soldiers- "We Were There!" ) All an empty tomb proves is that the early Christians were good thieves!!!
if you need more physical proof I can show it to you, I ask you to stay open minded to my point of view and I will stay open minded to anything you want to refute or say in response. Sir I take this very seriousy, there is too much at stake to be wrong, so I hope to hear a response.
Hurt Feelings Resulted in Your Leaving the Church
|
||||||||||
Hi Mark,
I was going through your site and I just have one question...Why or what makes you think the way you do? From my deductions, you seem to have had a bad experience with the church or someone that represented the church.
Mark Smith here} You would not BELIEVE the number of Christians who believe the ONLY way someone could POSSIBLY leave their religion is if they were somehow nuts, mental, screwed up or "hurt". If I were to blame my leaving your religion on BAD TOILET TRAINING as a child, would that make you feel safer in your myths??? Fact is, I left your religion because the founder of your religion, Jesus, was a FALSE PROPHET. But you can't handle the fact that people- GOOD people- oft times leave your religion every day and for damn good reasons- not stupid "hurt feelings" or some such trite cause.
Were an ex-Mormon or ex-Jehovah's Witness join your church, would you blame their leaving their old church on mere "hurt feelings" or "crying over spilt milk"??? No, you would extol their moral and theological courage and pat them on the back for a job well done. Knowing this, why can't you grant US the same benefit of the doubt, and assume (unless and until PROVEN otherwise) that we likewise left for good reasons??? Must you ALWAYS assume the negative???
Of course, I know alot of preachers slander anyone who becomes an Atheist, claiming (without foundation) that the ONLY reason someone would DARE to leave their religion of birth is if they wanted to run wild and naked thru the streets raping and pillaging. The fact that study after study shows the opposite to be true- that Atheists actually behave better than Christians- this fact never seems to matter.
I do not share your opinions on the site and am interested to know why you think
the way you do. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and I enjoy my
walk with him each day...
Mark Smith here} Once again, the close personal relationship with an imaginary friend. Fact is, you NEVER met Jesus, never had lunch with him, never even talked on the phone with him. By definition, you CAN NOT have a "personal" relationship with ANY body that isn't there in the flesh!!!
Cant imagine life without Him... I respect people of all faiths even though I
may not believe in what they believe. Found it hard to understand your (seeming)
hatred.
Regards,
Mark.
Typical Christian Email}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Mark,
********************
So, What About Anger???
I get emails from Christians (see the above for a typical example), complaining that I come across "so angry" on my web site. Well, I'm not so sure that I really do. It may just be that most of these Christians, living in their little antiseptic home-school bubbles, isolated from reality as much as humanly possible, have never run across real criticism of their faith before. (Hell, alot of them have never even met a "real live Atheist" before!) But even if I am angry now and then, why is that so hard for Christians to handle, and how would me being angry possibly refute my arguments anyway? The logic and evidence still stand, their Jesus is still a false prophet and a liar, and pinning labels on me all day long won't change that- angry or happy the arguments and their conclusions still stand.
The really ironic thing about their complaints of my anger, though, is that they've really got no room to look down upon anger in others while their own Biblegod has a hair-trigger temper like Donald Duck. Their whole religion is based on the concept of "an angry god" as anyone who's read Jonathan Edwards classic essay "Sinners In The Hands of an ANGRY God" can see. Hell, the title itself ought to be a HINT that they worship one pissed off god. The very foundation of Christianity is that we've somehow angered this deity to the point he wants to kill us all- but not satisfied with that, he also wants to bring us back to life once he's killed us, so he can hurt us even more, TORTURE us for ever and ever- now THAT is alot of anger! He even let his only son get tortured, and somehow that made him hate us less- it cooled his hot head, made him smile. In light of this, ANY anger that I or other Atheists may manifest is nothing but "chump change" in comparison to THAT treasure trove!
In light of that then, if being angry is somehow inherently bad, or proves one wrong, or is something to criticize or look down upon, then Christians- please start with your own very angry Biblegod.
The Anger-Management Problems of Jesus PUBLIC BEATINGS &
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTYJesus got pissed off to the point of driving total strangers out of the temple by whipping them and throwing over their business desks (Gospel of John, 2: 14-17). Imagine if someone today were to walk into your church, pull out a bullwhip, and start whipping your mother in the face, you in the stomach, a little baby on his back, BOOM CRACK BOOM, and throwing all the furniture around, screaming and hollering about this not being your house. He'd be locked up for assault and battery and be forced to attend several months of Anger Management!!! Have I even ever come CLOSE to this level of anger? No! Regarding those I disagree with, I WRITE about them- I don't BEAT them or whip them when I become frustrated. Jesus did. And maybe some of these people later on picked Barabas to release rather than that mean and angry nutcase that hurt them. IF being angry is by definition a BAD thing, then Jesus leads the pack of being bad. The above email complained of me that "instead of making any sort of case for your position in a rational tone you are spending too much time yelling". Yelling, maybe, but at least I'm not BEATING anyone like Jesus did! And I wonder how RATIONAL Jesus came across as he was beating people and destroying the place??? Jesus ran out of arguments so he just resorted to violence. But does the email writer feel any need to criticize JESUS for being angry? Of COURSE not!!! IF being angry is such a sin, certainly Jesus is a bigger sinner than I.
RIGHTEOUS ANGER -or- MENTAL CASE?
CUSSING OUT A FIG TREEFruit is seasonal. Oranges ripen in one season, apples another. If apples aren't ready for picking until the fall, it would be childish to get pissed at an apple tree for not having apples in, say, the spring time. In fact, getting pissed at ANY inanimate object is childish (unless that object is a computer, of course. Or a VCR. Or a dead battery in a car). It would be beyond childish to actually CURSE at the tree for just doing what nature is set up to do, especially if you're the supposed architect of mother nature itself. In fact, by Jesus doing this, is proof enough he wasn't the creator or knew anything about it. But anyway, when Jesus, the "Prince of Peace" lost it over a friggin' fig tree for not having figs in the NON-fig season, lost it to the point of actually CURSING the tree (he must have REALLY had his heart set on figs!), don't tell me THAT was a case of "righteous anger" like that tree DESERVED to be cursed. If anybody else had done what Jesus did, it would have been labeled an adult temper-tantrum. (Mt 21:18,19)
And let us not forget the Apostle Paul who, in Galatians 5:12, got so angry at anyone advocating circumcision that he wished they'd maybe slip with their knives in the ceremony and cut off more than just the foreskin! AND he even put this in WRITING and it ended up in the New Testament! Angry? Yes. But why don't I ever hear a condemnation of Paul from modern "anti-anger" Christians??? Oh, I forgot: the old double standard. It's ok for Biblegod, Jesus, and Paul to blow a fuse, but not ok for an Atheist.
Summation:
IF any Christian wants to condemn me for writing in anger, let him FIRST condemn Biblegod, Jesus, and the Apostle Paul. As for the old excuse that Biblegod's anger is ok because it's a "righteous anger", maybe my anger is too- somebody has to stand up for the truth. The Bible says that judgment is to start in the house of God. Condemn the anger inherent in your own religion first, then maybe I'll take what you say about my anger more seriously.
Regardless of how much of the context I put in, always and forever until time ceases to exist the Christians will complain that I take things out of context. In my essay Matthew 24 Verse by Verse I put in the WHOLE DAMN CHAPTER, all 51 verses, but even with this these rocket scientists still accuse me of "taking things out of context".
- If I were to do a paper on Mt 24:34, and only had that verse in the essay, they'd complain I should have included the verse before and after.
- If I were to do a paper on Mt 24:34, and included those THREE verses, they'd complain I should have included the verse before and after those three.
- If I were to do a paper on Mt. 24:34, and included the whole damn chapter LIKE I'VE ALREADY DONE, they'd complain I took the verse out of context.
- If I were to do a paper on Mt. 24:34, and typed in the whole Gospel of Matthew- all 28 chapters, they'd STILL complain I hadn't included any other gospels.
- And if I were to do a paper on Mt 24:34, and typed in the entire Old Testament, the entire New Testament, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and all the volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica, THEY'D STILL COMPLAIN!!!!
Why? I'll tell you why: because they don't have the slightest idea of what "taking out of context" means!!! It's just a "knee-jerk" reaction that pops up anytime they run into an argument they can't deal with. And even though I'm tired of telling them what it means- because they don't listen anyway- here goes once again...
Taking something "out of context" does NOT mean quoting one verse or statement without quoting those around it. Rather, taking something "out of context" means to isolate and/or arrange the statement or words in such a way that its meaning has been changed from what the writer or speaker intended.
Example:
Original Statement} John Kerry in a speech last night said "If I were to support George Bush on tax cuts, they would say that I am crazy."
Out of Context Usage of Statement} Fox news in our never ending and eternal support of George Bush just learned that John Kerry in a speech last night finally admitted what many Republicans have long suspected: that he is crazy. In his own words, and I quote, John Kerry said to the nation: "I am crazy".
Taking something out of context does NOT mean isolating a statement by itself. Were that its meaning, nothing could ever be quoted from a book without quoting the ENTIRE book. Were that to happen, quoting in writing would cease, for who could afford to quote even the shortest verse in the Bible, "Jesus wept", if it meant he'd have to throw in THE ENTIRE BIBLE in the process??? Yet this is the definition most Christians seem to have in their minds.
No, taking something "out of context" means you've isolated a portion of a complete statement so that its meaning has been changed, not just that you've isolated something. Isolating WITHOUT changing meaning is NOT taking something "out of context".
