The Oblivious Devout Keep Christianity Chugging Along, Part 2
In my article of the same title, published here 22 November 2024, I described several ways in which the devout churchgoers manage to ignore basic realities that put their faith in huge jeopardy. Now I want to focus on one of the most damaging aspects of Christian history: the horrible outcomes of being devoted to, obsessed with, Jesus. Especially after the church achieved political power. Let’s look at a few of the consequences, a few of the things that the devout should work hard to bring within their horizons of awareness.
"How the New Testament Writers Used Prophecy," An Excerpt from "Why I Became an Atheist" pp. 353-59.
Heads up! I'm fairly excited for my upcoming 9,000 worded paper, "Did Virgin Mary Give Birth to the Son of God?" It's to appear on my page at the Secular Web within a couple of weeks. [The following essay was first published in December 2023]
"How the New Testament Writers Used Prophecy" by John W. Loftus.
One of the major things claimed by the New Testament in support of Jesus’ life and mission is that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (Luke 24:26–27; Acts 3:17–24). If God cannot predict the future as time moves farther and farther into the distance, as I questioned earlier, then neither can any prophet who claims to speak for God. As we will see with regard to the virgin birth of Jesus, none of the Old Testament passages in the original Hebrew prophetically applied singularly and specifically to Jesus. [In chapter 18, "Was Jesus Born of a Virgin in Bethlehem?"]. Early Christian preachers simply went into the Old Testament looking for verses that would support their view of Jesus. They took these Old Testament verses out of context and applied them to Jesus in order to support their views of his life and mission.9
Labels: Excerpts, Monday Mornings, Virgin birth
Robert Conner Shared THIS!
Bertrand Russell’s Celestial Teapot Is More Credible than the Christian God
There’s been a cartoon floating around on Facebook for a while, depicting a Christian woman asking a man, “What’s it like being an atheist?” He replies, “Do you think Zeus is real?” Her answer is “No”—to which he answers, “Like that.” Zeus is one of thousands of gods that have been invented by human beings, and embraced with varying degrees of enthusiasm. It has been so easy to jump to the god-conclusion; in the Book of Acts, chapter 28, we find the story of the apostle Paul arriving on Malta. As he was lighting a fire, a viper landed on his hand, which he shook off into the fire. But the locals were amazed: “They were expecting him to swell up or drop dead, but after they had waited a long time and saw that nothing unusual had happened to him, they changed their minds and began to say that he was a god.” (v. 6)
The Blasphemy of Heliocentrism
The Pareto distribution of bible verse citations
If you’ve listened to many church sermons, you may have noticed that they often cite verses from the church’s preferred translation of the bible, or allude to verses indirectly. If you were to write down all these verses, over time you’d build up quite the list. But you might need a lot of sermons before you could reconstruct an entire bible that way. That’s because many verses in the bible sound a bit problematic to modern ears, and don’t feature in a lot of sermons. Instead you might notice that your pastor is like a long-time touring musical act, well past its hitmaking heyday, which keeps on playing its hits. What people liked in the past, they can probably like again. A cynical or perhaps realistic observer might note that the most important skill for any church pastor is fundraising (“No bucks, no Buck Rogers”), and some bible verses work better than other verses for separating the marks I mean congregants from their money. Among the more successful pastors - in terms of attracting congregants and extracting money from them - we have Joel Osteen, whose preaching style, or so I’ve read, leans heavily into “uplifting” and away from “challenging.” Thus we wouldn’t expect to see successful pastors like Osteen engaging seriously and frequently with bible difficulties, as these seem to be bad for business.
Labels: Galileo, Science and Christianity
The Oblivious Devout Keep Christianity Chugging Along
Many years ago I was the pastor of a small church in a small town in Massachusetts. I did the baptisms, marriages, and funerals. When a middle-aged woman in the congregation died, I officiated at the funeral, then at the burial. It was a beautiful day, sunny with a scattering of clouds. I so vividly recall that a sister of the deceased proclaimed, “She’s up there already, pushing the clouds around.” I was struck by the naivete of this comment. Was she just joking? I don’t think so. Here was a woman who apparently accepted the concept of the cosmos embodied in the Bible: we’re down here, and god is up there—somewhere—on his throne above the clouds. And because of this close proximity, the Christian god can keep a close watch on everyone and everything. He knows how many hairs are on our heads, he monitors all of the words we utter, and even knows what every human is thinking (how else would prayer work?) There are Bible verses to back up all of these ideas about god.
Christian Scholarship Led me to Reject Christianity
[First Published in Nov. 2006] One of the reasons I have rejected Christianity is that I studied the Bible. That's right. I studied the Bible. As I did so, I didn't just read works published by Zondervan or InterVarsity Press. I read the works by Christian scholars from a wide variety of scholarly sources. I didn't read atheist works about the Bible so much as I mainly read scholarly Christian literature. What Christian scholars wrote led me to reject Christianity. For those of you who read my first self-published book in a "Letter to Dr. James Strauss" you know some of the books I read, and almost every book I mentioned (and there were plenty I didn't) was written by a Christian, or someone within the Christian tradition.
(1) [Brown discusses the agreements between Matthew and Luke’s gospels, but those are obvious and not part of my point]
(2) Matthew and Luke disagree on the following significant points. In chap. 1, the Lucan story of John the Baptist (annunciation to Zechariah by Gabriel, birth, naming, growth) is absent from Matthew. According to Matthew, Jesus’ family live at Bethlehem at the time of the conception and have a house there (2:11); in Luke, they live at Nazareth. In Matthew, Joseph is the chief figure receiving the annunciation, while in Luke, Mary is the chief figure throughout. The Lucan visitation of Mary to Elizabeth and the Magnificat and Benedictus canticles are absent from Matthew. At the time of the annunciation, Mary is detectably pregnant in Matthew, while the annunciation takes place before conception in Luke. In chap. 2 in each gospel, the basic birth and postbirth stories are totally different to the point that the two are not plausibly reconcilable. Matthew describes the star, the magi coming to Herod at Jerusalem and to the family house at Bethlehem, the magi’s avoidance of Herod’s plot, the flight to Egypt, Herod’s slaughter of Bethlehem children, the return from Egypt, and the going to Nazareth for fear of Archelaus. Luke describes the census, birth at a stable(?) in Bethlehem because there was no room at the inn, angels revealing the birth to shepherds, the purification of Mary and the presentation of Jesus in the temple, the roles of Simeon and Anna, and a peaceful return of the family to Nazareth.
(3) None of the significant information found in the infancy narrative of either gospel is attested clearly elsewhere in the NT. In particular, the following items are found only in the infancy narratives. (a) The virginal conception of Jesus, although a minority of scholars have sought to find it implicitly in Gal 4:4 (which lacks reference to a male role), or in Mark 6:3 (son of Mary, not of Joseph), or in John 1:13 (“He who was born . . . not of the will of man”—a very minor textual reading attested in no Gk ms). (b) Jesus’ birth at Bethlehem, although some scholars find it implicitly in John 7:42 by irony. (c) Herodian knowledge of Jesus’ birth and the claim that he was a king. Rather, in Matt 14:1–2, Herod’s son seems to know nothing of Jesus. (d) Wide knowledge of Jesus’ birth, since all Jerusalem was startled (Matt 2:3), and the children of Bethlehem were killed in search of him. Rather, in Matt 13:54–55, no one seems to know of marvelous origins for Jesus. (e) John the Baptist was a relative of Jesus and recognized him before birth (Luke 1:41, 44). Rather, later John the Baptist seems to have no previous knowledge of Jesus and to be puzzled by him (Luke 7:19; John 1:33).
(4) None of the events that might have been “public” find attestation in contemporary history. (a) There is no convincing astronomical evidence identifiable with a star that rose in the East, moved westward, and came to rest over Bethlehem. In Matthew’s story this would have happened before the death of Herod the Great (4 b.c. or [Martin 1980] 1 b.c.). There have been attempts to identify the star with the supernova recorded by the Chinese records in March/April 5 b.c., or with a comet (Halley’s in 12–11 b.c.), or with a planetary conjunction (Jupiter and Saturn in 7 b.c.; Jupiter and Venus in 3 b.c. [Martin 1980]). (b) Even though the Jewish historian Josephus amply documents the brutality in the final years of Herod the Great, neither he nor any other record mentions a massacre of children at Bethlehem. Macrobius’ frequently cited pun (Sat. 2.4.11) on Herod’s ferocity toward his sons is not applicable to the Bethlehem massacre. (c) A census of the whole world (Roman provinces?) under Caesar Augustus never happened, although there were three Augustan censuses of Roman citizens. It is not unlikely that Luke 2:1 should be taken as a free description of Augustus’ empire-cataloguing tendencies. (d) Luke’s implication that Quirinius was governor of Syria and conducted a “first census” (2:2) before Herod’s death (1:5) has no confirmation. Quirinius became legate of Syria in a.d. 6 and at that time conducted a census of Judea, which was coming under direct Roman administration because Archelaus had been deposed (Brown 1977: 547–56; Benoit DBSup 9: 704–15). (e) Although this item differs somewhat from the immediately preceding one, Luke’s idea that the two parents were purified (“their purification according to the Law of Moses”: 2:22) is not supported by a study of Jewish law, whence the attempts of early textual copyists and of modern scholars to substitute “her” for “their” or to interpret the “their” to refer to other than the parents.
A review of the implication of nos. 1–4 explains why the historicity of the infancy narratives has been questioned by so many scholars, even by those who do not a priori rule out the miraculous. Despite efforts stemming from preconceptions of biblical inerrancy or of Marian piety, it is exceedingly doubtful that both accounts can be considered historical. If only one is thought to be historical, the choice usually falls on Luke, sometimes with the contention that “Those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (Luke 1:2) includes Mary who was present at the beginning of Jesus’ life. See Fitzmyer Luke I–IX AB, 294, 298, for the more plausible interpretation that it refers to the disciples-apostles who were eyewitnesses from the beginning of Jesus’ public life (Acts 1:21–22) and were engaged in a preaching ministry of the Word. There is no NT or early Christian claim that Mary was the source of the infancy material, and inaccuracies about the census and purification may mean that Luke’s infancy account cannot be judged globally as more historical than that of Matthew.
--------------------------------
[For Richard Carrier's assessment of the date of the Nativity in Luke see here.]
The Role of the Bible in Damaging Christian Faith
Mark Twain once stated the dilemma: “It is not the things which I do not understand in the Bible which trouble me, but the things which I do understand.” How many of the laity throughout Christendom have made this same troubling discovery? And Twain was also right when he said that “faith is believing in something you know ain’t true.” How many of the faithful just shut their eyes, close their minds, stifle curiosity—and decide to trust what their clergy teach about god? Very few of the clergy, from the pulpit on a Sunday morning, will give this assignment: “Please, every one of you, read the gospel of Mark—all of it—this week. Read it carefully, critically, and write down the questions about it that occur to you. Be brave, even the toughest questions are welcome.”
Dr. Richard C. Miller Joins Our Manifesto
Johno Pearce on the triumph of the feels, low information people, messaging, and why Trump won.
This one by Dale McGown [also on "Only Sky"] is deserving of a wider reading too, about temporary dictatorships: LINK
How Much Horrendous Suffering Can Christian Theology Tolerate?
During my recent stay in London, I visited The Wiener Holocaust Library, which is an easy walk north of The British Museum. For a long time I have been following it on Twitter and—more recently—on Facebook, and wanted to see it in person. I have always been stunned that there are holocaust-deniers, because the evidence for this crime against humanity is massive. The Nazis themselves kept detailed records, confident that their elimination of Jews was an important contribution to the world, and they could hardly cover up the stark realities of the concentration camps. On this, see especially Martin Gilbert’s book, Atlas of the Holocaust (1993, 254 pages). Moreover, there is an abundance of survivor memoirs.
David Fitzgerald’s Toolkit for Dismantling Christianity
One of the biggest examples of deceit is this practice of Bible editors: printing the words of Jesus in red. Mainstream Bible scholars know the problem here: none of the Jesus-script in the gospels can be verified. The red print amounts to a claim that is not justified by any evidence. The gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus; their authors do not identify their sources; they never cite contemporaneous documentation (letters, diaries, transcripts) that would give us confidence that we’re reading real words of Jesus. Apparently, Bible editors couldn’t care less. Fundamentalist/evangelical editors insist that the Jesus-script was divinely inspired, so the red print is entirely in order. But then they have to write books, articles, doctoral dissertations to explain away the awful Jesus-script, e.g., the hate-your-family verse (Luke 14:26); I didn’t come to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34-36); drinking Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood are magic potions for achieving eternal life (John 6:53-57). There are so many of these.
Breaking the Grip of Indoctrination
Brainwashing is a disaster
Franky Schaeffer's Warning: The Theocrats Are Coming!
The High Vulnerability of Christian Belief
How many Southern Baptists drive by Catholic Churches on the way their own churches? And vice versa? Does it never cross their minds that there are major differences in their versions of Christianity? They can’t both be right. Yet these believers trust the priests and ministers who have taught them since their earliest years. When we broaden the perspective, it’s obvious that the problem becomes more extreme: there have been thousands of different religions—and all of them teach as absolute truths their own ideas about god(s). Religions push the importance of taking it all on faith. “Please don’t think about it: you must trust that your priest or minister has a firm grasp of the absolute truth.”
See, Al Gore Told You So.
Labels: climate change, denialism, fact-checking, science
‘It’s mindblowing’: US meteorologists face death threats as hurricane conspiracies surge
Will Humanity Ever Escape the Grip of Religion?
Here's A Link To My Debate On Horrendous Suffering with Don McIntosh
"How to Be an Honest Life-Long Seeker of the Truth" by John W. Loftus
Labels: Excerpts
The Stupidity Factor in the Survival of Religion
Mike Pence has declared that he doesn’t believe in evolution, but has also said that, when he dies, he’ll asked god if evolution is fact or fiction. This represents a special brand of stupidity, fortified by colossal ignorance. The literature on evolution is vast—is Pence just unaware of it, and can’t be bothered by curiosity? And does he really imagine that a creator deity with billions of galaxies under supervision will take the time to sit down for a chat with him about stuff he should have learned about before he died? Of course, when such a prominent Christian voices his rejection of evolution, this gives permission to the devout to embrace the stupidity and ignorance. I personally witnessed another special brand of stupidity a few years ago—I’ve told this story before, but it’s worth repeating: ten days after the Sandy Hook school massacre in December 2012 (20 kids and 6 adults murdered), a devout Catholic woman offered this explanation: “God must have wanted more angels.” Not even the pope is stupid enough to say such a thing—although the stupidity level at the Vatican is incredibly high.
About the Vice-Presidential Debate Last Night
Reasonable People Cannot Believe!
When Theology Collides with Science and History
For thousands of years, humans have been imagining and inventing gods. Once ideas about gods have been locked into human brains, fierce loyalties and certainties develop. People who claim privileged knowledge of the gods emerge—the priestly classes—and they do their best to enforce “correct” beliefs and behaviors. Today we call them clergy, and there are thousands of different brands, all of whom are confident of the “truths” they advocate.
Seth Andrews VS. God: Who is the Better Intelligent Designer?
Buy my book here!
Horrendous Suffering Reduces the Probability of a Loving God to Zero
Darrow: “Do you ever think about things that you do think about?”
THERE IS NO ROOM FOR POLITICAL VIOLENCE!
Now I have a personal request. I want everyone to watch this YouTube video linked below. The lesson is clear and absolutely important:
The Desperate Embrace of Abusive Religion by the Devout
Clint Heacock’s new book shines a bright light on this reality
McIntosh and Horrendous Suffering
[This article is forthcoming in the Trinity Journal of Natural & Philosophical Theology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (Fall 2024) in collaboration with the Trinity Graduate School of Apologetics and Theology. The version presented here is slightly different in formatting from the print version. Used with permission.]
Why Religion Is Being Held Strictly, Bluntly Accountable
The Obsession of Religion with Eternal Life, the Ultimate Scam
Beware Furious Christians on the Warpath to Defend Their Faith
By the time my first book, Ten Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief, was published in 2016, its Facebook page was up and running. I decided to do paid boosts on weekends to promote the book. I selected my preferred target audiences carefully: atheist, agnostic, humanist, secularist— but was surprised to find out that the boost had also appeared on the newsfeeds of devout Christians. This was not a happy event: there was an outbreak of Christian hate as they responded to the ad. I was called all sorts of names and was accused of never having been a real Christian. I was assured that I was going to hell. After a while I discontinued the paid boosts. The biggest irritant, actually, was that not one—not a single one—of the furious Christians chose to engage in any of the ten issues I raised in the book, any one of which is enough to falsify the faith. They were interested in lashing out, not learning.
"Man is the Measure."
If Devout Folks Get to Heaven by Using Magic Spells and Potions…
Is Ethics without God Possible?
The Author of Mark’s Gospel Created Jesus Fantasies
Let's Highlight My Magnum Opus, WIBA.
Let's highlight my magnum opus, per a comment by Dr. Jim Sterba, Professor of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame: "I think your book 'Why I Became an Atheist' is unsurpassable." Amazon LINK.
Why Isn’t Membership in the Catholic Church Down to ZERO by Now?
Here we go again, from the Associated Press, 25 July 2024: Missouri lawsuits allege abuse by priests, nuns; archdiocese leader in Omaha among those accused. Here are three excerpts:
“Among those named is Omaha Archbishop George Lucas. A lawsuit filed Wednesday in St. Louis County Circuit Court said the unnamed accuser was 16 when he met Lucas at the now-closed St. Louis Preparatory Seminary in the late 1980s, where Lucas was a priest and dean of education. The lawsuit accused Lucas of sexually abusing the boy multiple times and offering better grades for sexual favors.”
If We Put It This Way It's Nonsense!
Christians Don’t Realize How Much They Disagree with Jesus
My Response to Dr. Don McIntosh On Horrendous Suffering
A List of Jesus's in the Time of "Jesus"
Maybe the historical Jesus was a real person, but given the nature of the so-called evidence no one can possibly know objectively.
Or a montage of real people, plural.
In the New Testament alone, there are at least four individuals named Jesus.
The Jesus worshipped, and another three individuals named Jesus, who are Jesus Barabbas, Jesus son of Eliezer, and Jesus called Justus.
Josephus mentions a few Jesuses [Jesus', Jesus's, Jesi?] too.
War
2:566 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.
3:450 Jesus, son of Shapat – Principal head of a band of robbers controlling Tiberias.
4:160 Jesus, son of Gamala – Best esteemed, with Ananus ben Ananus, of High priests.
4:459 Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun.
6:114 Jesus, no patronym – High priest, deserts to Vespasian.
6:300 Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple.
6:387 Jesus, son of Thebuthus – One of the priests, desert s to Titus.
Ant.
03:049 (& numerous other instances) Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun (successor of Moses).
11:298 Jesus, (son of Eliashib), brother of John – friend of governor Bagoses.
12:237 Jesus, brother of Onias III – High priest.
15:322 Jesus, son of Phabes – High priest.
17:341 Jesus, the son of Sie – High priest.
18:063 Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ. [Christian interpolation]
20:200 Jesus, brother of Jacob – Called the Christ.
20:203 Jesus, son of Damneus – High priest.
20:213 Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest.
20:234 Jesus, son of Josadek – High priest.
Life
1:066 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.
1:105 Jesus, no patronym – Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.
1:178 Jesus, no patronym – Brother of Justus of Tiberias.
1:193 Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend.
1:200 Jesus, no patronym – Galilean at head of a band of 600, sent to depose Josephus.
1:246 Jesus, no patronym – Owned a house big as a castle. Governor of Tiberias?
Apparently, Jesus was the sixth most popular name at the time.
The English name Jesus, from Greek Iēsous, is a rendering of Joshua (Hebrew Yehoshua, later Yeshua), and was not uncommon in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus. Popular etymology linked the names Yehoshua and Yeshua to the verb meaning "save" and the noun "salvation". The Gospel of Matthew tells of an angel that appeared to Joseph instructing him "to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins".
There's a handy coincidence.
Labels: "Jesus Never Existed", Jesus Mythicism
Best Method To Defeat Evangelical Apologists: The Ghost Buster Counter-Apologetics Technique, by Former Evangelical Gary
The Biggest Christian Scandal Has Its Roots in the New Testament
Chance are, no Catholic priest is going to pause in the middle of his sermon to say, “Oh, by the way, I want everyone here today to go to another church next Sunday. Pick another denomination—Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Pentecostal, whatever—and try to find out if their version of Christianity is better than ours. Is it the right one?” Nor are preachers from any of these other brands going to do this. The devout seem not at all bothered that there are many thousands of conflicting, bickering Christian divisions and sects; these reflect profound disagreements about Jesus, god, the best ways to get to heaven. If we could convene a meeting of theologians from each of the brands, they would never be able to agree—among other reasons, because the theologians who wrote the New Testament didn’t agree either. Even the very earliest Christians were arguing.