FreeThinkingAtheist.com

     I have to admit that what started me down the path of an becoming and Atheist is the Bible itself. The Bible forms the whole basis for Christian belief. Without credibility and validity to me, there can be no belief. From this point I ventured into doubt despite people telling me to just trust God. But in all reality, you cannot force yourself to believe in something you don't think is true, without going to drastic measures. Christians make it seem like I chose this path or something. Actually, it came quite naturally. It's the Bible that I probably dislike about religion the most. 

    Believe in whatever God you want. But do not trust a 2,500 year old book of folklore, that misleads the rest of your life into thinking you have to "serve" ANYBODY. Do not trust this very book that seems to heavily conflict with what is real, like science. If you have a need for a God in your life, it doesn't have to be the Christian God. Do you really trust the corrupted people who put the Testaments together in the first place? If God's word was intended to be in the Bible, his word has most surely been corrupted beyond belief at this point. Humankind is greedy, remember? Sure it's not really God's fault, it's the fault of humans. That's why you should not trust the Bible. Believe in what you want, but do not pour your very lives into the words of this untrustworthy book. 

Any reasonable human being should question what they believe in on a regular basis. I know I do. Just as Thomas Jefferson said: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

 Now, the Contradictions:

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that are quick to point out in criticism. For instance:

- Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors.

- The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark–is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones?

- The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem–a couple of days or a whole year?)

- All four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection.

- The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father.

Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

Of the various methods we've seen to "explain" these, the most common excuses are:

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD–which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want…

2. "There was more there than…." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a AND b", which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a AND b." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining that they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?

4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right–I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact. Right.

6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

Popularity: 45% [?]

Taken from the so-called "good book" that supposedly teaches good morals. Links to the actual passages are provided. And don't give me that "oh, it's taken out of context" nonsense. 

    1. Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she's yours. — (Deuteronomy 21:11-13)

    2. Find a prostitute and marry her. — Hosea (Hosea 1:1-3)

    3. Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock. — Moses (Exodus 2:16-21)

    4. Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal. — Boaz (Ruth 4:5-10)

    5. Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife. — Benjaminites (Judges 21:19-25)

This is actually kind of funny, yet at the same time, it is not. It makes you think twice before thinking about bring your child up a Christian and making them actually READ the Bible.  

Popularity: 46% [?]

Christian theology has Jesus of Nazareth willingly go to his death to pay for the sins of all mankind. After his death, he goes to Hell for a couple of days before returning from the dead and then ascending into Heaven. What really happened? Did he die for the sins of man or was he executed as a traitor and rabble rouser? Did he really rise from the dead or was his body stolen? When one steps out of the theology and looks at the death of Jesus from another point of view, things seem clearer.

First of all, Jesus was executed by the Romans because he proclaimed himself to be the Messiah. Jewish tradition held a Messiah would come to liberate them and he would wander into Jerusalem on a donkey. Christ followed this tradition and played himself up as the Messiah. Since most Jews believed the Messiah would be a military leader, and since Jesus went Chuck Norris on the money changers in the temple, the Romans had to take note. Did they have a revolutionary in their midst? Was this the next Spartacus?

Next, Jesus' welcomed and consorted with outsiders. He was not your typical Corporate Holy Man of the 1st century. Instead, he advocated for the weak and those without hope. He tried to redeem prostitutes and those of low character. Jesus even comforted lepers. He provided a voice for those without a voice. He was a man of the people. Jesus advocated for the poor. A modern equivalent might be Martin Luther King Jr. whom advocated for garbage men on the eve of his death. Both men were a threat to order.

To the Jewish leaders, Jesus posed a threat to their power and their control over their religious doctrine. To the Romans, Jesus was cultivating the lower orders for his insurrection. Jesus of Nazareth had to go.

So, Jesus goes on trial and is convicted. Pontius Pilot orders his execution. It is unlikely Pilot pleaded with Jewish leaders for his life. This was probably thrown in the Bible by later writers to either distinguish between Jews and Christians or by someone that was anti-Semitic and wanted the Jews to look bad. Pilot was a Roman governor and would not have had any qualms about executing a potential Spartacus.

Jesus is then crucified. Crucifixion is both painful and humiliating. The victim gets to die in front of anyone that passes by. Jesus lasted three agonizing hours on the cross before expiring. In a gesture designed to keep the Jews happy during their holy time of year, Pilot allows Jesus' body to be removed. Usually, the bodies remained on the cross and withered. The bodies of the Spartacan Rebels stayed along the Via Appia for years. Christ's body was removed and buried.

Now things get interesting. According to scripture, he returns three days later. However, this is unlikely. Crucified people do not return from the dead. Most likely, the apostles removed the body from a tomb in common and placed it in a family plot. Then, they went around telling everyone that Jesus came back. Another possibility is the resurrection was a metaphor. Jesus' body died, but his spirit and message lived on through the Apostles. Jesus' teachings were resurrected by the Apostles, so Jesus himself came back from the dead.

This is not meant to denigrate Christian religion. It is meant to come from a Roman Perspective and how they would have viewed events in the first century. That being said, most Romans outside of Judea would not have known or cared about the Jesus Movement.

Popularity: 43% [?]