A Major Gimmick of Religions: The Promise of Eternal Life

But how to get it? New Testament authors didn’t agree

I recall how stunned I was, many years ago, when a devout Catholic women told me about sitting with her dying mother—who had drifted off to sleep, but was still breathing. The daughter was talking loudly to her, giving her messages to deliver to deceased relatives in heaven. I found this troubling on three levels: (1) Many devout people are sure that deceased relatives are “looking down on them”—monitoring their behavior. If so, why would they need messages from a new arrival? (2) Wasn’t this a breach of protocol? How would the god-in-charge feel about sneaking messages into heaven this way? (3) How could this pious daughter know for sure that deceased relatives had indeed made it to heaven? Isn’t that an unverifiable assumption? Was she totally unaware of the conflicting opinions in the New Testament about how to gain eternal life?

Honest Sermons on the Gospel of Mark: Chapter 10

Another mix of flimsy theology and cult propaganda

There are several different topics in this chapter, but the author’s agenda of cult promotion is transparent.
 
Condemning divorce 
 
At the outset (verses 2-12), Mark’s holy hero Jesus makes pronouncements about divorce, positioning his decree as superior to that of Moses. Pay careful attention to two Jesus-scripts in this section:
 
1.     “…from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh.Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (vv. 6-9)
 
2.     “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (vv. 11-12)

The Best Cure for Christianity Is Reading the Bible, Essay No. 4

Matthew 7: A good start, then cult severity and bragging

It might be a good idea to compile a list of the Top Ten Bible Texts that Christians Ignore—and, no surprise, these can be found in the gospels, especially in the Jesus-script. The final section of the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew 7, includes a classic example of ignored text:
 
“Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5)

Oh the Irony: Religion Is Shooting Itself in the Foot

Disbelief and atheism are on the rise

 
A few years ago I had the misfortune of attending a First Communion service at a suburban Rhode Island Catholic Church. The place was packed, parents and relatives eager to see the children going through this important ritual of the faith. I was not at all surprised to see that the clergy had mastered show business—performing the meticulous ceremonies in their impressive costumes. And the interior of the church was of unexpected grandeur for its suburban setting. Yet I found myself wondering two things: 
 
(1)  What percentage of the hundreds of adults who showed up actually believed the idea that the priests were pushing? Namely, that through the miracle of the Mass, the kids were getting to eat Jesus for the first time. These adults live, work, and survive in the modern world. Do they really accept the superstitions/magical thinking that the Catholic hierarchy still pushes? 
 
(2)  Why was anybody bothering to attend? Why isn’t membership in the Catholic Church down to zero by now? Why do people still show up, in the wake of the world-wide scandal of priests raping children; the most recent figure I have seen is that the church has paid more than three billion dollars in damages.

Honest Sermons on the Gospel of Mark: Chapter 9

A sorry mix of superstition, cult bragging, and bad theology

Baptist preacher William Miller predicted that Jesus would return on October 22, 1844. Thousands of people were psyched for this dramatic event, which turned into what became known as The Great Disappointment, since Jesus didn’t show up. Miller had calculated the date based on data—what he assumed was data—that he found in the Bible. He should have grasped that some Bible data is just plain wrong. Such as the opening verse of Mark 9: “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” 

 
We are entitled to wonder what was going on in the head of the author of Mark’s gospel—whoever that was. There is consensus among mainstream New Testament scholars that this gospel was written in the wake of the destructive First Jewish-Roman War (67-70 CE), during which Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed. This horror is reflected in Mark 13. The Jesus-script in Mark 9:1 might reflect this gap of four decades between supposed Jesus events and the writing of the gospel: “some standing here who will not taste death” until they see the arrival of the kingdom. Some maybe, likely very few.

The Best Cure for Christianity Is Reading the Bible, Essay No. 2

Matthew 5: Highly prized, but deeply flawed, Jesus-script 

 
Christian clergy and theologians—drawn to their profession by devotion to Jesus—are committed to the idea that the gospel accounts of their lord must be true. Hence they have no trouble claiming that the words of Jesus in the gospels were based on eye-witness accounts and/or reliable oral tradition. Yet there is no evidence—reliable, verifiable, objective evidence—to back up this claim.

Religion Survives Because Humans Live in Vast Bubbles of Ignorance

Reducing your own bubble requires determination, effort, and courage

It’s inevitable actually: when we are born, we know nothing about the cosmos, and as we grow up, we get so many signals from adults around us about what to believe: about what is true. Religion especially relies on massive ignorance to maintain its position and status in the world. Christianity probably deserves a Gold Medal for its Bubble of Ignorance. 
 
Major features of the Christian Bubble
 
Number 1: Devout Christians don’t know the origins of their faith.

Honest Sermons on the Gospel of Mark: Chapter 8

This is a mediocre blend of magic folklore and cult promotion

It would seem that the author of Mark’s gospel was obsessed with Jesus’ magical powers to make food appear out of nowhere. In chapter 6 we saw that Mark’s holy hero fed five thousand people, somehow making five loaves of bread and two fish turn into enough food to satisfy them all. And now, at the opening of chapter 8, he produces enough food to feed four thousand. It would also seem that Mark had no trouble disclosing just how stupid the disciples were. Jesus proposes feeding this second huge crowd, “…they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat. If I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way…” (vv. 2-3)

Why Do Christians Keep on Being Christian?

There is so much wrong with their version of reality

 
Of course, there’s something seductive, irresistible, about believing you’re on splendid terms with the creator of the Cosmos. How great it is to be able to communicate—through meditation and prayer—with the force that guides the affairs of the world. But it’s an uphill battle to maintain that this is not delusional. It’s the gimmick that clergy of so many different religions have convinced their followers to embrace. Christianity is especially guilty.

Careful Bible Study Shows It’s Not a Divinely Inspired Book

If it is, god must have had a lot of really bad days
 

Especially among evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, this remains a deeply cherished claim: that the Bible is true and trustworthy because it was dictated by god. In Caravaggio’s 1602 painting, an angel directs the hand of Matthew as he writes his gospel. But even the most pious conservative Christians must have their doubts when they come across Bible verses that are alarming, cruel, barbaric. Clergy and theologians—who have perfected the art of making excuses—try to rush to the rescue. Careful Bible study by the curious faithful is probably their biggest fear.

"How to Become a non-Christian" by James Aames is a Brilliantly Conceived Book!

I met James Aames at the 2025 American Atheists National Convention where I learned of his book. I wish I had thought of such a thing. In it Aames takes believers through the fears they might have--whether real or imagined--that keep them away from rejecting their religious faith. It has 301 pages of good advice using an extremely good approach! It's brilliant! He's allowed me to share the last section in his book, below. Go get it at Amazon! 

An Honest Sermon about the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 5

More episodes of pious superstition to boost holy hero Jesus

It would seem that one of the primary goals of the author of Mark was to promote the idea that Jesus was a superior being from the spiritual realm. Indeed the Christian church would eventually claim that Jesus is a part of god himself, that is, he is one of the persons in the Holy Trinity. And Mark told stories to make this seem vividly real—stories that are clearly rooted in ancient superstitions. 
 
For people with the least grasp of how the world works—even devout Christians—Mark 5:1-20 has to be an embarrassment. It is a patch of scripture they can do without, because it’s just too deeply rooted in beliefs that can no longer be defended.

Religions Survive Because Magical Thinking Thrives

The devout don’t seem to notice or care

In my article here last week I mentioned the Catholic sacrament known as the Eucharist, in which the wafer and wine—through the miracle of transubstantiation—actually become the body and blood of Jesus. So the church claims, based on really creepy Jesus-script in John 6:53-58. We’re dealing here with magical thinking, that is, the body and blood become magic potions that guarantee eternal life. Holy Water, which supposedly has healing power because it has been blessed by a priest, also reflects magical thinking. Hence baptism also falls into this category: the sprinkling of blessed water on an infant while reciting sacred words, protects the child’s soul. In 1981, following the assassination attempt on Pope John-Paul II, the pope had one of the bullets added to the crown of the Virgin Mary at Fatima. He was sure that Mary, Queen of Heaven, had diverted the bullet to miss an artery. This is crazy, illogical magical thinking: why didn’t the Heavenly Queen Mary divert the bullet to miss the pope altogether?

On Quoting The Consensus In Order to Support the Consensus

David Pallmann is a young interesting evangelical Christian apologist who is willing to question beliefs based merely on the consensus of scholars. Given that on Facebook he shared a picture of the three big conservative apologists, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, and William Lane Craig [on the left], I take it he's aiming for them:

--------

"In any field of research, but especially in biblical studies, be very careful about uncritically accepting something as true just because it is widely assumed to be true within that discipline. Unjustified ideas can become cemented within scholarship and then reinforced by peer pressure within subsequent generations of scholars. What I've found is that many of the individuals within various fields accept the consensus uncritically. When called upon to defend the consensus, they will often just refer back to the consensus to support the consensus. Either that, or they will list some stock arguments for the conclusions of the consensus. But when asked to defend those arguments against criticisms, it often becomes clear that they are incapable of doing so.

This is one of the main reasons why I dislike the modern fad, with which so many Christian apologists are infatuated, where one stresses that their arguments for, say, the resurrection of Jesus, are based upon scholarly consensus. The assumption seems to be that if the arguments are based upon scholarly consensus, then there must be good evidence for the premises. But that's simply a bad assumption. Scholarly consensus is frequency based upon the flimsiest and most vapid reasoning I've ever seen. What's more, scholarly consensus is generally not terribly friendly to Christianity. For this reason (and many more) Christian apologists would do better to challenge the scholarly consensus, when appropriate, rather than constantly cozying up to it."

--------

I couldn't have said it better. Now let's see some consistency. The whole history of Christianity is basically quoting from one theologian to another, to another, based on theological consensus.