Check out the awesome resource that is SINergy - the home of all the media associated with the various members and contributors to the Skeptic Ink Network (SIN). You can see great interviews, debates and lectures among other things. Whether it be video, radio or written media, there is a plethora of great resources and it will hopefully continue to grow. LINK.
A Comparison of Doctrinal Beliefs of the Five Remaining Book of Mormon Sects
In 1844 the thirty-eight year old founder and revelator of the Latter Day Saints, Joseph Smith, Jr. (along with his brother Hyrum) were murdered at the Hancock County jail in Carthage, Illinois by an angry mob in retaliation for Joseph Smith having ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper edited by a former Church member for revealing to the outside world Smith's secret doctrines of polygamy and polytheism as well as for exposing Smith’s ambition to use politics to advance his theocratic agenda.
I Have This Quote Engraved on a Plaque in My Study
WE MUST DEVELOP UTTER HONESTY ABOUT THE TRUTH, WE MUST DEEPEN OUR CARE FOR EACH OTHER, AND WE MUST LEARN TO RESPECT THE PLANET THAT IS OUR HOME. NOTHING ELSE MUCH MATTERS.
ROBERT W. FUNK 1926 – 2005 (FOUNDER OF THE WESTAR INSTITUTE AND ITS JESUS SEMINAR)
ROBERT W. FUNK 1926 – 2005 (FOUNDER OF THE WESTAR INSTITUTE AND ITS JESUS SEMINAR)
Amazing Bible Verses: The Secret to Long Life!
Okay fellow atheists, can we just admit when we are wrong? I mean, all along we’ve been claiming that the Bible is not a scientific book - that it's the product of superstitious ancient men, not an all-knowing God, and yet here is clear proof that we have been mistaken! In light of this discovery, I have no choice but to relinquish my unbelief.
In this short passage, quietly tucked away in Deuteronomy, is the very key to what so many scientific researchers are pursuing; the secret to extending the human life span.
Labels: Amazing Bible Verses, j. m. green
A Shoddy Literary Creation in the Gospel of Matthew Exposes a Jesus of Faith Who Never Was
Jesus is presented in the anonymous work known as the "Gospel of Matthew" (18: 15 – 18) instructing his disciples on how to reprove a sinful fellow believer:
Original Sin - answering Thomas L. McDonald
I was recently sent a link to Thomas L. McDonald's piece "The Origin of Man, Original Sin, and Why It’s All Your Fault" on his Patheos blog. There is much to talk about in this attempt to reconcile Catholic doctrine with science. My opinion is that he fails in multiple ways to do justice to any such reconciliation. That said, there are some interesting and 'original' attempts.
I will look to expose some of the issues found in the essay in this post.
Gimme a Sign!
Humans are pattern-seeking creatures. Religious people have found divine communications in the strangest places – from an appearance of the Virgin Mary on a cheese sandwich, to the likeness of Jesus on a tortilla.
Popular evangelical pastor Louis Giglio has wowed audiences with a sermon based on the ‘revelation’ that in scientific drawings, the protein molecule Laminin is shaped like a cross. Of course, the actual electron microscopic image of Laminin hardly looks like a cross – more like a deformed swastika, but that did not quell his audience’s enthusiastic cheers and clapping.
Popular evangelical pastor Louis Giglio has wowed audiences with a sermon based on the ‘revelation’ that in scientific drawings, the protein molecule Laminin is shaped like a cross. Of course, the actual electron microscopic image of Laminin hardly looks like a cross – more like a deformed swastika, but that did not quell his audience’s enthusiastic cheers and clapping.
Labels: j. m. green
Ken Ham: Intolerant Atheists Viciously Attack Christian School

I think you’ll find this eighteen minute interview with Creationist Ken Ham informative as to what Evangelical Christianity really fears.
David Marshall’s Use and Abuse of Anthropology: Émile Durkheim and Australian Aborigines
![]() |
Émile Durkheim |
In his
recent debate with
Richard Carrier, David Marshall made the following claims (Debate video):
“Not only is Christianity reasonable in that it
makes practical sense to believe it, and that Christians have always reasoned
to and for their faith. There are also good reasons to believe -- good
evidences -- that Christianity is true. Let me give three, briefly. (1)
Miracles. (2) Anthropology, a God that transcends particular cultures. (3) New
Testament criticism -- the person of Jesus” (apx. 10:18-10:32 on
YouTube video).
For
his anthropological evidence, Marshall principally cites the claims of Émile
Durkheim (1858-1917), the putative father of modern sociology, on the religion
of Australian aborigines.
Having
received my undergraduate degree in anthropology, and having undertaken a year
of graduate work in anthropology, at the University of Arizona, I was curious
to see what Marshall’s powerful “anthropological” argument would be.
Not
surprisingly, I found that Marshall blatantly misrepresented Durkheim. In addition, his discussion of Durkheim
shows that he is poorly read in the anthropological debates surrounding the
nature of the religion of Australian aborigines.
In
particular, I will show that:
A.
Durkheim did not claim that all cultures believe in a Supreme being.
B.
Durkheim did not even claim that all Australian cultures believed in a
Supreme Being.
C.
Durkheim’s interpretations were challenged from the beginning, and are now
widely rejected.
D.
Christianization or misinterpretation of native terminology remains a viable
explanation for the reports quoted by Durkheim that show any belief in a
“Supreme God.”
E.
Multiple cultures, or even all cultures, having similar concepts of God does
not demonstrate the perception of some transcendent reality.
Another Christian Review of "God or Godless"
I will admit that John does do a great job. A lot of his points ultimately go back to the problem of evil...when John talks of how the Biblical God commanded genocide and does not care much about women or slaves, he makes good points. The honest Christian ought to admit this is a huge difficulty. If there really were a good God, wouldn’t God command people not to have slaves? Wouldn’t God command people in patriarchal societies to treat women much better? What good is a God who can’t command the heights of morality? Randal does admit that this is a difficulty and presents as decent an answer as can be expected. Such challenges as John brings up ought to cause any Christian to pause....[But] even were John to convince me with his arguments, I would not join him in atheism. Perhaps I would move to a more liberal Christian perspective, or at most become some sort of Deist. In the same way, if I were already an atheist, Randal might not convince me to become a Christian, but his arguments go far in showing the shortcomings of a godless world and might lead me to think there is something out there. In other words, my (certainly not unbiased) verdict would be that this book is convincing in pointing to a God while offering enough flaws in the Bible to stop short of it being the Biblical God. Link
Dr. Randal Rauser and I Will Debate in June
Randal and I will be squaring off for three days of discussion/debates in June. I'm flying to Edmonton, Canada, for these public events:
June 3: Calgary (@ Renfrew Baptist Church)
June 4: Red Deer (@ Unity Baptist Church)
June 5: Edmonton (@ Taylor Seminary)
There will be an audio available afterward. I'll be a lion in the Christian's den. :-)
June 3: Calgary (@ Renfrew Baptist Church)
June 4: Red Deer (@ Unity Baptist Church)
June 5: Edmonton (@ Taylor Seminary)
There will be an audio available afterward. I'll be a lion in the Christian's den. :-)
My Interview On The Malcontent's Gambit
Enjoy. I really liked Alan's closing examples and arguments!
Silly Sayings of Jesus: God Decides, Sparrows Die.
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. Matthew 10:29-31 (NIV)Nice try Jesus*. I suppose you meant this little ‘gem’ to be comforting, but I have to say it fails badly. This is just the sort of ridiculous, crappy platitudes that many of your followers spout whenever bad things happen.
Labels: j. m. green, Jesus, Silly Sayings of Jesus
Amazing Bible Verses: Hands Off, Ladies!

Anyone who has taken a stroll through the Bible soon encounters the fact that Yahweh is creepily interested in men’s junk. For starters, he required penile surgical alteration as a condition of male membership to the Jewish faith:
Labels: Amazing Bible Verses, j. m. green
I’m Right and You’re Wrong: Christians Converting Christians to “True Christianity”

In Christianity one thing is for sure, belief in the saving power of Jesus IS NOT the real dogma in Christianity any more than a football is the real dogma in the game of Football! Theological reality proves it’s which sect or denominational team you are a member of and pulling for.
From the outside, Christianity appears to offer a very simple theology in that one only needs faith in Jesus Christ to get him or her to Heaven, but reality proves this raw faith is usually considered worthless (or even damnable) before God. Thus, when the doorbell rings and the unsuspecting person is facing two Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons or Evangelical Christians (with their sect's exclusive Gospel (Good News)) then he or she soon learns that a hard choice must be made apart from simple faith in Jesus.
How Long Does it Take for a Myth to Grow?
I was planning to address in greater this oft-repeated claim about the alleged "two generations" that are needed for a myth or legend to be established. However, Kris Komarnitsky at The Bible and Interpretation website has done a good job explaining why it is flawed. Here is the first paragraph:
"One major topic that impacts on the reliability of the Gospels is the rate at which myth or legend can grow over time and displace the historically accurate accounts of events. Some argue that the Gospels cannot be mostly legend, as many scholars have proposed, because that would require a myth growth rate that is implausibly high given their relatively early composition in relation to the events they claim to recount. For example, New Testament scholar William Lane Craig says, “One of the major problems with the legend hypothesis…is that the time gap between Jesus’ death and the writing of the Gospels is just too short for this to have happened."
You can read the rest at: Myth Growth Rates.
What is Cultural Relativism?
One of the objections to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is that when applied to morality it leads to cultural relativism, which conjures up unpleasant notions of a world where anything goes. I argue in my book that such an objection is an illegitimate one. You can catch a glimpse of my response from this post. I go on to argue that rejecting the OTF because it leads to cultural relativism (if it does) is like rejecting arguments to the existence of God because they lead us to the unpleasant conclusion that there is no afterlife. One cannot legitimately reject an argument merely because it leads to an unpleasant conclusion. Just bite the bullet. But let's say a consistent application of the OTF leads to cultural relativism anyway. Then I argue we should try to understand what cultural relativism is. Here is a good explanation of it from Renato Rosaldo, who is one of the world's leading cultural anthropologists. See, it's not so bad as supposed.
Randal Rauser On "Facing Evil: Why Christians and Atheists Need Each Other"
This is the title to Rauser's Beliefnet article to be found here. He doesn't understand that our respective problems with regard to evil are not equivalent. For me evil is suffering/harm, especially unnecessary suffering/harm caused by human beings (who are moral agents). I don't need an absolute unchanging standard for identifying suffering/harm. The truth is, neither does he. Like other theists Rauser embraces progressive revelation, that his God continues to reveal moral truths just as he does theological truths. That means the Christian morality of yesterday was true for them, as is the morality of today for him, as will be the morality of tomorrow for others. That's moral relativism, plain and simple. At no time in the past, present, or future can any Christian theist say, "This is God's unchanging objective moral truth." Concerning the moral standard of love (one proposed unchanging standard), it has always been qualified by questions like, "who is my neighbor?" "who is deserving of our love" and "how should we show our love to people?" Those qualifiers have changed throughout the centuries too.
“God or Godless” is Reviewed by Jr. Forasteros
Here are some salient excerpts:
We don’t have many examples of civil, truth-seeking dialog with the Other, especially in the realm of religion. Until now. We can do better than this. A lot better.
Randal Rauser is a Christian who teaches history and theology. John W. Loftus is a former-evangelical minister-turned Atheist apologist. These two men are friends and colleagues who deeply, passionately disagree about fundamental truths. And yet they’ve co-authored a brief, fun, profound book that can and hopefully will serve as the basis for bridges between Atheist and Evangelical communities. In other words, each chapter is short, sweet and packed with rhetorical goodness. Both Randal and John are experts in their field, so their arguments are tight, clear and very accessible (though a few of the later chapters sent me scrambling to Wikipedia to look up one term or another).
God or Godless?gives us a clear model for moving forward in honest, truth-seeking relationships across the religious divide.
What makes the book really good is the quality of the questions both John and Randal bring to the table. Sometimes Randal is the clear winner; other times it’s John. Always, both men have clear, well-thought-out positions and treat each other with kindness and respect (excepting the occasional fun snark).
I’m currently rereading the book with a group of 20-somethings. Some of us are Christian, some are atheist or agnostic. But reading and discussing God or Godless together is helping us to build transformative friendships founded on mutual love and admiration. Plus, it’s a lot of fun. LINK.
Labels: GoG Reviews
Countering Vic Reppert's Divine Hiddenness Arguments
I think there is a counter-argument to Divine Hiddenness arguments. Vic argues God must hide himself. He also argues God knows the appropriate distance to keep so people can still reasonably choose to believe.
Well then, I have argued there isn't a bad "personal" reason to reject the faith of his God. I made this argument in four parts. Read them in reverse chronological order. What then of Vic's claim that God hides himself appropriately so we can still reasonably choose to believe in him? LINK.
Well then, I have argued there isn't a bad "personal" reason to reject the faith of his God. I made this argument in four parts. Read them in reverse chronological order. What then of Vic's claim that God hides himself appropriately so we can still reasonably choose to believe in him? LINK.
C. S. Lewis and the Case of the Missing L’s.

When I was a Christian, I was overly impressed with the writings of C. S. Lewis, and in particular, his ‘trilemma’, as presented in the book Mere Christianity:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
While I still enjoy Lewis’s writing style, I can now see how he stacked the deck by limiting the options regarding Jesus to Lord, liar, or lunatic. One doesn't have to be much of a detective to see that there are a couple of missing L’s.
Labels: C. S. Lewis, j. m. green, trilemma
Jesus’ Resurrection and Marian Apparitions: Medjugorje as a Living Laboratory
In a previous post, “Craig versus McCullagh,” I argued that William Lane Craig’s tests for historicity could be satisfied by other events that he might otherwise reject as historical. See: Craig v. McCullagh
As DC readers may recall, I was responding to Travis James Campbell’s “Avalos Contra Craig: A Historical, Theological, and Philosophical Assessment,” in a book titled Defending the Resurrection. I henceforth abbreviate Campbell’s chapter as ACC.

In particular, I contended that the experiences at Medjugorje satisfied McCullagh’s criteria for historicity used by Craig in the case of the resurrection of Jesus. Medjugorje amply illustrates how people can use the most objective and physical language to describe encounters with persons others would regard as non-existent.
I am an anthropologist by training, as well as a biblical scholar. So, I am always looking for good living examples from around the world of phenomena that apologists for the resurrection deem to be not credible or comparable.
Medjugorje offers a living laboratory for these reasons:
A. The alleged witnesses are still alive.
B. The Marian visions reported there have been better documented than any in history. Reports were audio-recorded and written down almost immediately after the first events. Audio-visual documentation overall is abundant.
C. A Scientific team examined the visionaries during some of the alleged apparition events. No such systematic and thorough scientific study ever been performed for prior famous Marian apparitions (e.g., at Lourdes, Fatima).
D. Millions of believers were produced within a decade.
I published a study of these apparitions in my article “Mary at Medjugorje: A Critical Inquiry,” Free Inquiry (1992). An abbreviated version appears on-line at: Avalos on Medjugorje.
I believe that they have a natural explanation. However, here I will show how I could easily defend their claimed supernatural character if I used some of the theological assumptions and biblical concepts that Campbell, Craig and other Protestant apologists use to defend the resurrection of Jesus.
Labels: "Avalos"
Sinner, Do You Know Jesus?
"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4: 12
A Pragmatic Approach to Evangelicals, Calvinists, and Presuppositionalists
There are various perspectives among people who criticize religion. 1) There are critiques of religion coming from within each one of them over specific doctrines; 2) There are critiques coming from former believers of a specific religion; 3) There are deistic critiques of all "revealed" religions, 4) There are agnostic critiques of all metaphysical claims; 5) There are atheist critiques of all religion, and with it faith itself.
My present perspective is represented by (2) and (5). But I have embraced all five of them in my intellectual journey from believer to atheist. So, being the pragmatist that I am, let me introduce just a few selected Christian works on biblical issues that should shake most evangelicals, Calvinists, and presuppositionalists to the core, representative of (1) above.
My present perspective is represented by (2) and (5). But I have embraced all five of them in my intellectual journey from believer to atheist. So, being the pragmatist that I am, let me introduce just a few selected Christian works on biblical issues that should shake most evangelicals, Calvinists, and presuppositionalists to the core, representative of (1) above.
Labels: Mere Christianities, presuppositionalism
Jesus Versus Paul: The Greatest Love?
According to the famous Whitney Houston song, the greatest love of all is to love oneself. Travelling back in time long before Grammy awards were handed out, we find that Jesus, (according to the Gospel of John), had a different idea:
“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13 (NIV)
The Apostle Paul (not-surprisingly) had his own take on it:
Labels: j. m. green
Victor Reppert Argues That Sufficient Evidence for Faith is a Bad Thing!
Vic commented saying that the perspective of the Outsider's Test for Faith unreasonably requires that "God would virtually have to write his name in the heavens in order to make any belief in him believable." No, not at all. I have previously indicated the kinds of evidence that would convince me Christianity is true. Vic goes on to say:
Another Review About "God or Godless?" (Co-written with Dr. Randal Rauser)
One reviewer on Amazon said:
I don't know who initiated this book. If it was John, he chose a lightweight opponent, if it was Randal, he took on a fighter two leagues above. 'Winning' is not actually the aim of such discourse, but here, Randal is knocked k.o. in every round. John gives amazingly rich arguments in short space with facts and quotes while Randal is telling silly stories on the intellectual level of an 8 year old. Link.Check the other reviews out for yourselves: God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions.
Labels: God or Godless, GoG Reviews
The Shallowness and Stupidity of a Brain on Faith
On Facebook I had placed this quote from Aldous Huxley: "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Wes Skolits commented: "What evidence does he have for *that*? methinks he overstates." Not to be outdone my Christian philosopher friend, Dr. James Sennett, sarcastically commented: "Don't question, Wes. Just believe." Whether this is an rhetorical overstatement or not, it is both shallow and stupid not the see the evidence for Huxley's claim. Anyone want to help them out? I've linked this post to their comments.
The Duplicitousness of David Marshall
I don't mean to pick on my apologist friend Marshall, but he provides so much fodder it's hard to resist. On the one hand he rates my book, "The Outsider Test for Faith," with two stars over at Amazon, saying it's "Interesting but [has] fatally flawed arguments, yet on the other hand in a recent article for Touchstone with a title that says it all, he argues, Into All the World: Testing John Loftus's "Outsider Test for Faith" Shows Why There Are Billions of Christians Today. Which is it? Is the OTF fatally flawed or does the existence of billions of Christians show their faith passes the test? Rank-and-file Christians want to know.
Are Christian defenders this bad? What I've seen over the years is that Christians should not trust their own apologists to tell them the truth. I am not attributing any deliberate attempts by these apologists to deceive them (although in some cases I do wonder). It's just that educated Christian apologists are more, not less deluded. Education has a way of doing that to them in most cases, if for no other reason than that they have more invested in defending their faith. They become like defense lawyers who are experts at finding loopholes, and since there will always be at least one loophole they can find room for their faith. But because the rank-and-file have "trust issues" with atheists and seek to confirm their faith rather than honestly investigate it, they will read what their apologists say rather than what we write almost every time. This is cyclical, unending and maddening.
Are Christian defenders this bad? What I've seen over the years is that Christians should not trust their own apologists to tell them the truth. I am not attributing any deliberate attempts by these apologists to deceive them (although in some cases I do wonder). It's just that educated Christian apologists are more, not less deluded. Education has a way of doing that to them in most cases, if for no other reason than that they have more invested in defending their faith. They become like defense lawyers who are experts at finding loopholes, and since there will always be at least one loophole they can find room for their faith. But because the rank-and-file have "trust issues" with atheists and seek to confirm their faith rather than honestly investigate it, they will read what their apologists say rather than what we write almost every time. This is cyclical, unending and maddening.
The Slavery of ‘Revealed Truth.’
I would like to present a few thoughts on the marked difference between the fundamentalist view of truth and the scientific pursuit of truth.“God said it. I believe it. That settles it!”
Christian bumper sticker
“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell... And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”
Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) member of the House Science Committee
“In this respect fundamentalism has demonic traits. It destroys the humble honesty of the search for truth, it splits the conscience of its thoughtful adherents, and it makes them fanatical because they are forced to suppress elements of truth of which they are dimly aware.”
Paul Tillich
Labels: j. m. green
A Question on Historical Reality
The Illusive Search for Truth in the Biblical Foundations of Judaism and Christianity
Christian apologists will find themselves relying of on faith, theological dogmas and outright denials as they attempt to deal with the following facts.
Plus (to further prove my case) I have then listed 295 sacred Jewish and Christian texts of which the bulk of these are Jewish works which were produced at the very time the Jesus myth was emerging. While the Jews could only present their God in terms of past events, Christianity quickly learned that miraculous present events won converts.
Plus (to further prove my case) I have then listed 295 sacred Jewish and Christian texts of which the bulk of these are Jewish works which were produced at the very time the Jesus myth was emerging. While the Jews could only present their God in terms of past events, Christianity quickly learned that miraculous present events won converts.
"Reason on the Bayou" Was Awesome!
Last Sunday I was among a very nice line-up of speakers for the first ever secular rally in the state of Louisiana, held on the campus of LSU. It was put together by Chad Thibodeaux along with several helpers, and executed very well. Here is a link to the write-up in The Daily Reverie, a campus newspaper. Below are some pictures from this awesome event:
I'll Be Live On "Atheists Talk" Sunday, April 21st
"Atheists Talk" is produced by Minnesota Atheists. I'll join them this Sunday, April 21st at 9AM central time, to discuss my newest book, The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True.
This book seeks to help readers view religion from an outside perspective, to better understand the irrationality of believing in one god (or set of gods) over all others. And it encourages believers to apply the skepticism they have toward other religions to their own. LINK.
Richard Carrier vs David Marshall - "Is the Christian Faith Reasonable?"
Of this debate Dr. Hector Avalos said to David Marshall: "I’ve seen your debate with Carrier, in which you were clearly outmatched intellectually, theologicaly, historically, and scientifically." Having seen it myself I agree.
My Second Major Post at DC on the Bible Will be Up by This Weekend
Tentative Title: Embarrassing Facts About Christianity’s Biblical Birth and Foundation
Nathan Phelps (Apostate Son of Fred Phelps) On Faith
Here's what I don't understand. When pressed reasonable religious folks concede that faith is what justifies their notion of god. But they all spend sooo much time learning and regurgitating all these biblical arguments that "prove" god. It seems to me if you're going to invoke faith, just stop there. No need to reason it out or rationalize. In fact a more consistent position would be to spout some gibberish then end with "therefore god!" Am I wrong?
Belief in Angry God Associated with Poor Mental Health
I have encountered a number of angry Christians over the years here at DC. They happily condemn me to hell. They think it's Biblical to treat me with utter disdain, since after all even God will cast me into hell (no, I do not choose to go there if hell exists). Guess what? One study shows the kind of God one believes is based on one's personality and the angry Christians have mental health issues.
According to the researchers...overarching beliefs about the dangerousness of the world can influence mental well-being: "Belief in a punitive God... facilitates threat assessments that the world is dangerous and even that God poses a threat of harm, thereby increasing psychiatric symptomology." LINK
The Bad Shepherd

Labels: j. m. green
Alexander the Great, Jesus, and David Marshall: A Simpleton's Approach to History
![]() |
Alexander Mosaic at Pompeii (ca. 100 BCE?) |
Those
who cite Alexander the Great often assume that his acts are so well established
historically that doubting them is a sign of undue skepticism. And if you doubt
that Alexander the Great performed certain feats, then any doubts about Jesus’ supernatural activities can be dismissed because of similar undue skepticism.
This
essay will show that those who think that Jesus’ activities are as well
established as those of Alexander simply don’t know Alexander scholarship well.
In addition, I will show that many or most of Alexander’s exploits cannot be
verified because they depend on secondary and tertiary sources whose claims are
difficult to corroborate.
Labels: "Avalos"
Publishers Weekly: "Atheists, the Next Generation: Unbelief Moves Further into the Mainstream"
LINK.
Some General Observations on Christianity:
A. This superstitious belief system is the default setting for any mind that refuses to be objectively educated about reality. In short, it’s a reward for mental laziness.
Quote of the Day, by Dr. David Heddle
"I have always admitted I have no way to distinguish my faith from insanity."
Really? Please tell us more. ;-)
Really? Please tell us more. ;-)
Sermon: Why Jesus Can NOT Answer Your Prayers ?
There are many Christians who come to this blog seeking answers to spiritual questions that have vexed their soul. Indeed, while most of the posts here are on the secular level, I want to address a perplexing question with an important message all praying Christians have had to face at one time or another: Why doesn’t Jesus answer my prayers?
I've Got Something to Say, Song by Starfiel
Listen to the agony expressed in this Christian song. I was there at one time. I remember crying out to a God who never answered. It's very painful to leave what you've believed for all of your life. Although I argue against faith I know what it feels like very well. This song made me feel like it was only just yesterday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)