What’s Your Back-Up Religion? If LGBT Activists Are Right, Then Christianity is False

By John Zmirak Published on July 18, 2017

Every week it seems that a new pastor or prominent Christian adopts the LGBT party line. Some are bending like reeds in the wind. They’re convinced that the gale of the Zeitgeist is the breath of the Holy Spirit. Some are indulging in misguided compassion. It’s what the saintly Mother Angelica called the “reigning sin of our age.” They give their gay friends bibles with the offending passages snipped out, in the same spirit they might hand out free, clean needles to addicts.

Others are doubtless confessing heresies which they have long believed, but been too timid to say. Another group are same-sex attracted themselves. Their theological “discoveries” are really just a jump out of the closet. It’s not for me to say. I can’t read souls. Thank God.

Papal advisor and Scorcese-whisperer Father James Martin, SJ, has donned the rainbow sash. Recently handpicked Cardinal Joseph Tobin flaunts it too. So does a long list of high-profile evangelicals. They talk at great length about “compassion,” “welcoming,” and “accompanying the sinner.” It’s all very heartwarming and Christianish. These folks are doing exactly what a secular unbeliever who’d once watched the musical Godspell would think that Jesus might do.

If the LGBT Folks Are Right, Then the Bible Is Wrong

But I don’t see such people mustering “compassion” for Alt-Right white supremacists. Few visit prisons to “accompany” people convicted of hate crimes — or any crimes, for that matter. I don’t hear many calls to “welcome” the arrant souls of the Westboro Baptist Church to a dialogue. No, your typical theological liberal is perfectly willing to judge like the harshest Pharisee — when the sin involved is one that really offends him. When it’s something he actually thinks is … sinful.

Pro-LGBT advocates simply don’t think that same-sex intercourse is wrong. But that’s what the whole Christian tradition, and the whole Jewish tradition before it, taught. This wasn’t some stray belief imposed by the secular world, that the tradition struggled with and transformed before abolishing it, like slavery. Nope. Leviticus taught that sodomy is an abomination and St. Paul said it would keep you out of heaven. No orthodox rabbi, pope, Reformer, or major figure in the whole Judaeo-Christian enterprise thought to say otherwise. For thousands of years. Not until gays hitched their wagon to the civil rights movement, and claimed that having such proclivities was exactly the same as being a racial minority.  

So if gay intercourse is right, Christianity is wrong. And not wrong about something minor, secondary, or negotiable. No, sex is fundamental. It’s what put all of us here in the first place. It’s one of our strongest drives. If we’ve been telling people falsehoods about that and threatening them with hellfire for nothing for the whole time our religion has existed, it has zero credibility on any other subject. If the Church can’t get sex right, why would we trust it on politics?

Do the Decent Thing and Disappear

The Mainline Protestant churches and liberal Catholic religious orders have already faced this “fact.” Having embraced the LGBT agenda, those organizations are doing the decent thing and simply disappearing. Within our lifetime, their last sad remnants will have shuffled off the stage, to be forgotten.

So if one agrees with them, one ought to be honest. No more Jesus, no more Yahweh. 

Back-up Religions

So what’s your back-up religion?

This is the fun part. If you buy the whole gay agenda, it’s time to stop picking up fragments of shredded bibles or broken statues in hollowed out shells of churches. That’s just pathetic. Get out there in the marketplace of world religions and find something else that appeals to you. You can figure out later if you can somehow make yourself believe that it’s really true. Anyway, the whole idea of only assenting to a religion because you can affirm it in that sense … that’s really a Jewish-Christian thing. Pagans are much more flexible. Postmodern, if you will.

So here’s my consumer’s guide to alternative religions. It lists the gods I would worship, should I come to agree with Father Martin and Cardinal Tobin, in ascending order of preference. I also offer the pros and cons of each, because picking an outmoded pagan creed to replace Christian faith is a deeply important and personal decision, which should be left between a woman and her reproductive health care provider. Wait a minute, I got confused there. But you know what I mean.

So here are my top five replacement gods.

#5 Myself

JZ minPros: I know myself fairly well. I can meet my own demands. And when I can’t, I can lower those standards until they’re easy to reach. Yeah, self-worship is a religion that comes with an elastic waistband. And those are really comfy, let me tell you.

Cons: It’s pretty hard, shy of the fourth shot of meszcal, to work up a sense of awe at myself. And the fifth shot always turns that to loathing and Slavic melancholy. That’s a pretty narrow window in which to operate. Not sure this cult has legs.

#4 Jennifer Connelly

Pros: This cult does have legs. And gorgeous blue eyes, porcelain skin, with jet black hair. Awe will not be a problem.Jennifer_Connelly_2012

Cons: She’s married to someone else. She’s mortal, and will someday die. If I bring her burnt animal offerings or other sacrifices she will just slap me with a restraining order. (Again.) That makes her too distant and uninvolved a deity, like the “Prime Mover” whom Jefferson reluctantly acknowledged.

#3 Tezcatlipoca

Pros: He is the Aztec god of war, placated by human sacrifice. The priests annually choose a young man to be him. He lives like a god, with four wives, the best food, eight slaves, and his every whim catered to. Then the priests kill him and eat him.

Tezcatlipoca_3Cons: Like all the other Aztec gods, he depends on human blood for survival. Without regular sacrifices, he’ll fade out and disappear. That’s too needy and fragile for me to really worship. I like a god who can stand on his own.

#2 The Flying Spaghetti Monster (see main image)

Pros: He’s funny. He’s flexible. He plays well on college campuses. Even the name his followers picked is fun: “Pastafarian.”

Cons: His services draw the same kind of people as Renaissance Faires: Bizarrely nerdy, veal-white guys and girls who giggle desperately at every joke. The kind of people who learn and speak conversational Elvish. And Klingon.

#1 Thor

Pros: He’s big and bad. He kills Frost-Giants for fun. It’s just his hobby. His followers aren’t taken in by open borders, the welfare state, or multiculturalism.Thor

Cons: He’s pretty much an amoral killer. Plus his modern devotees listen to horrible “Death Metal” music. And, you know, are kind of … Nazis. Also, after Ragnarok he and all the other gods will be destroyed, along with all of Creation. So there’s no long-term payoff for worshiping him.

Out of Options

Apparently there’s no really good alternative to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jesus. Drat. Sorry, Father Martin. I’m just going to have to stick with my “rigid,” “unfeeling” dogmas. But hey man, you go right ahead. Whatever floats your loafers.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Hmmm…

    Heard a national Christian teacher talking about listening to a man interview a couple of nationally known Christian leaders, all these being bible based truth seekers, the subject being homosexuality. The secular interviewer asked didn’t Jesus go about teaching love and acceptance … Both of the Christian leaders said, er, uh, why yes … That sounds right, doesn’t it; how else could it be? But it’s what the secular crowd says when they want you to agree with their sin. The teacher watching this experienced the unsettling of the seeming trap with no out, but he prayed. Wow! What a thought! After spending some time in the Gospels to take a direct look at what Jesus actually went about preaching and teaching — Wow again! — he discovered there in black and white that Jesus went about teaching repentance and the Kingdom of God. He loved and accepted no one’s sin. He never compromised. He never blinked. The rich young ruler who was so close to being a follower, had that in his heart, was disqualified because he had his wealth and accumulation higher in his heart. The account said Jesus loved him. But he did not compromise what he knew about the man’s heart. The man’s treasure was where his heart really was.

    • Johnnie Incog

      Many point out His comment to the crowd about to stone the woman, but always leave out His words to the woman after all the accusers left.

      • Hmmm…

        So true.

  • SophieA

    To whom shall we go? Jesus is the only one who has the truth of eternal life.

  • Gary

    Of the alternatives listed, I would pick Jennifer Connelly. She offers something pleasant to look at, at least until she gets old and wrinkled. That would be more valuable than any of the other alternatives, imo. No, she wouldn’t talk to me, but I could admire her from afar.

    I enjoyed reading the article. It reinforces the fact that Christianity and homosexuality are irreconcilable. And, that if the Bible is wrong about homosexuality, or creation, or many other things, then it is fit only for the trash heap. You either accept what God says and does, or you reject it all. I do think it is hypocritical of the Catholics to allow heretics to remain Catholics, but they do.

    • Ronky

      Actually Catholic Canon Law says that anyone who espouses heresy is AUTOMATICALLY excommunicated. He is still a Catholic, but if he receives Communion or takes any other active part in a Catholic sacrament without repenting of his heresy, he is only adding to his sin. We don’t and can’t kick him out of membership of the Church because once you’re baptised you can’t be unbaptised. Whilst he lives, there is still a chance that he may repent, and we hope and pray for that.

  • Paul

    John, thanks for not blurring the line.

  • Deacon Keith Fournier

    Dear John

    Another brilliant, insightful and important contribution to help us in the challenges we face in this corrupted culture.

    Christianity is TRUE.

    And, we are called to live and proclaim that Truth to an age which has fallen for lies – and are worshipping new golden calves.

    We are living in a new Missionary Age.

    Please, keep using that keyboard to expose and oppose the lies. But, remember, we also need to present the One who is the TRUTH, Jesus the Christ.

    We need to bring all men and women to the Cross, where they can encounter the heart of Christianity, Jesus, and in that encounter, be born anew in Him.

    The lies of this age are similar to the lies of the first and second century.

    But, Remember, a small band of men and women, in love with Jesus, followed the New Way and turned their age around. Jesus Christ is Alive. The Holy Spirit has been poured out. We are the messenger of Good News. Let’s shout it from the housetops.

    Your brother, Deacon and friend

    • Jennifer Hartline

      AMEN!! It’s all true, or to heck with it. Well done, John. And the image just cracked me up.

  • lindenman

    I’m going to be a Druze. That means I’ll get to go and live in the Chouf mountains. “Chouf” makes a really cool sound effect, as does “Walid Jumblatt,” the name of the man would be representing my interests in the Lebanese government.

    • Zmirak

      That’s a good plan.

      • lindenman

        We’ll save you a space in the khalwat.

  • James

    “If we’ve been telling people falsehoods about that and threatening them with hellfire for nothing for the whole time our religion has existed, it has zero credibility on any other subject. ”

    And people have come to precisely this conclusion and left the Church as a result.

    • Hey, atheism is a great belief system. Here are the articles of the faith:

      1. We got here by a series of accidents (unintentional events) going back 13.8 billion years, or maybe even longer.

      2. We’re just animals with bigger brains.

      3. We don’t have free will—we are controlled by our genetics, environment and current stimuli. Atheists Sam Harris in particular and Michael Shermer, Jerry Coyne et al have been vigorously promoting that perspective.

      4. Although we may be able to temporarily come up with some kind of rationale on our own for a while, there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to our lives.

      5. We die dead and that’s the end—it doesn’t matter to ourselves any more whether we did much good, even at great personal cost, or great evil. Adolph Hitler, Oskar Schindler, Pol Pot, and Nelson Mandela no longer exist for themselves. Nothing matters personally to them now.

      Of course the “Con” argument is that most people need to have a lot of self-loathing to think that way about themselves.

      • James

        Just because something feels good doesn’t make it true and just because something is unpleasant doesn’t mean it is false.

      • GPS Daddy

        Well, Ralph, those are honest “articles of faith” of athieism. Most atheists I have encountered have fought those assertions tooth and nail. I like that you stated these as “articles of faith” for they are base assumptions with no evidence for them.

        • James

          Most “Atheists” are really pantheists who don’t want to be thought of as bunch of hippies.

      • James

        Let’s go through the “articles of faith”:

        1. Given the size of the universe, this is possible. Even conceding that the chances of life evolving randomly are slim and implies the need for a creator, this only gets us to the uninvolved, impersonal god of deism, not Christianity.

        2. That this makes people uncomfortable does not mean it is not true.

        3. Free will is the strongest argument against pure atheism, however, this does not necessarily imply Christianity. Free Will can exist without a personal God.

        4. That this makes people uncomfortable does not mean it is not true.

        5. I find the possibility of no afterlife far less troubling than the possibility of hell. In both cases, that this makes people uncomfortable does not mean it is not true.

        • Thank you for getting back to me, James.

          “Given the size of the universe, this is possible. Even conceding that the chances of life evolving randomly are slim and implies the need for a creator, this only gets us to the uninvolved, impersonal god of deism, not Christianity.”

          A. The origin of life by accident is possible. Yes, in the sense that it’s possible you could buy just one ticket to each one of the next 100 Powerball lotteries and get all the numbers right for every single one. That’s quite a weak defense of atheism.

          B. One doesn’t need to get any further than “the uninvolved, impersonal god of deism” to dispose of atheism.

          • James

            There’s not that much difference between an absent god and the absence of a god.

          • Ronky

            Actually there’s quite literally a world (and more!) of difference between an absent, though real, God, and an unreal “god” that’s a figment of people’s imaginations (which you call “the absence of a god”.)

          • James

            Not sure what the difference is between praying to a god who is not there and praying to a god who is not listening. Either way the prayers go unanswered.

          • Ronky

            We’re not talking about praying, we’re talking about the truth or falsity of atheism. Its so tiresome that atheists almost invariably jump on to a different subject as a smokescreen whenever the irrationality of their position is pointed out. And then have the nerve to call themselves “rationalists”!

        • One more, James.

          “I find the possibility of no afterlife far less troubling than the possibility of hell.”

          I find the possibility of no justice after this life far more repugnant than the possibility of hell. Especially when thinking of people like Mao Zedong, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Nero, etc.

          • James

            One’s view of hell is generally inversely proportional to one’s take on the chances of ending up there.

          • “One’s view of hell is generally inversely proportional to one’s take on the chances of ending up there.”

            That’s very true, James, and confirmed by Psalm 10:

            2 In his arrogance the wicked man hunts down the weak,
            who are caught in the schemes he devises.
            3 He boasts about the cravings of his heart;
            he blesses the greedy and reviles the Lord.
            4 In his pride the wicked man does not seek him;
            in all his thoughts there is no room for God.

            6 He says to himself, “Nothing will ever shake me.”
            He swears, “No one will ever do me harm.”

            11 He says to himself, “God will never notice;
            he covers his face and never sees.”

            13 Why does the wicked man revile God?
            Why does he say to himself,
            “He won’t call me to account”?

    • Ronky

      Yes, that is logical on the part of the small number of people who have done this.
      However a much larger number of people have accepted the “LGBQ etc.” claims and simultaneously, illogically and contradictorily continue to describe themselves as “Christian”, even some who hold leadership positions in churches!

  • Ineverleavecomments

    It’s 2017, Mr Zmirak, and the casual anti-Jedi sentiment in this piece is deafening. Why wasn’t Jediism presented alongside the other alternate religions? For shame!

    (The internet is super weird so let me add this: I’m trying to be funny with my comment by mentioning a fictional religion from the Star Wars movies that was not mentioned in this essay at all).

    • Hannah

      I was honestly impressed (and equally disappointed) that I didn’t notice that Michaelangelo’s “Adam” was not all my initial once-over thought it to be. Well played, John….well played.

  • James

    Yes, it is either one or the other.

    By what criteria would you admit that the other side is right and you are wrong? If you are an orthodox Christian, then what would LGBTQ activists have to prove to change your mind? If you are a LGBTQ supporter, then what would Christians have to prove to change yours?

  • Zoe Carlson

    I don’t know about the rest of you but if my Christian faith goes belly up I choose the seven gods of Westeros. They have a well thought out system of belief, a holy text, places to worship and your choice of seven heavens or seven hells. And since GRRM based the,faith of the Seven on the medieval Catholic church it’s not that much of a leap.

  • jacky

    After talking w a heretic,after the second rebuff stay away from him..

  • “If the LGBT Folks Are Right, Then the Bible Is Wrong”

    But we already know that the Bible is wrong. Yahweh demands genocide and supports slavery in the Old Testament. We don’t do that today because we think that’s wrong. A popular apologetic is to say that God was simply working with the customs of the times and that he didn’t actually think slavery was OK. Alright—if that’s the game we’re playing, then just say that the Old Testament’s anti-gay statements are yet more customs of the time that God didn’t agree with.

    “Pro-LGBT advocates simply don’t think that same-sex intercourse is wrong. But that’s what the whole Christian tradition, and the whole Jewish tradition before it, taught.”

    And the pastors in the South before the Civil War pointed out that they were being biblical by supporting slavery. The Southern Baptist Convention broke away to declare this very thing. They’ve changed their mind on race (good thing), and hard-line Christians are also changing their mind on homosexuality.

    “Leviticus taught that sodomy is an abomination”

    Right. It’s in there with the kosher food laws and other ritual abominations that the New Testament rejected.

    “So if gay intercourse is right, Christianity is wrong.”

    Does consensual heterosexual intercourse cause harm? No? Then consensual homosexual intercourse is in the same bin.

    “No, sex is fundamental. It’s what put all of us here in the first place. It’s one of our strongest drives.”

    Uh huh. Homosexuality has been observed in 500 other species but homophobia in only one. Which one is unnatural?

    “If we’ve been telling people falsehoods about that and threatening them with hellfire for nothing for the whole time our religion has existed, it has zero credibility on any other subject. If the Church can’t get sex right, why would we trust it on politics?”

    It got slavery wrong, which strikes me as an even more obvious blunder. Society, not the Bible, put us on a course that today we think is more humane.

    • “But we already know that the Bible is wrong. Yahweh demands genocide and supports slavery in the Old Testament.”

      Hi Bob:

      Depending on your views of inspiration, you may have the genocide part right. However the slavery situation is more nuanced than a lot of people realize.

      Deut. 23:15-16, If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

      If the US Constitution had incorporated that concept, instead of including the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3), the United States probably wouldn’t have had the Civil War.

      The New Testament doesn’t support your conclusions either:
      1 Tim. 1:9-10, We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

      That’s an interesting juxtaposition–calling out both sexual immorality and slave trading right next to each other.

      • Hi, Ralph. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

        However the slavery situation is more nuanced than a lot of people realize.

        I’ve studied slavery in the Bible and written quite a lot. I think I understand the issue.

        Deut. 23:15-16, If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

        Lev. 25:44-46: “[God said,] ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.’”

        The Old Testament has the same divisions that slavery in America had: indentured servants (same tribe as us, limited duration) and slaves for life (look different than us, permanent).

        If the US Constitution had incorporated that concept, instead of including the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3), the United States probably wouldn’t have had the Civil War.

        Yes, if slavery was purged from the West earlier than the 1800s, American history would be much different. But the pastors in the South had the better biblical argument.

        The New Testament doesn’t support your conclusions either

        Jesus said nothing about the institution of slavery. I’m guessing that’s both because (1) he didn’t think it was wrong and (2) he felt the End was coming soon, and so it didn’t matter. That’s the impression you get from Paul—don’t bother getting married, don’t worry about getting free of slavery, etc.

        We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

        What’s a “slave trader”? I’m guessing someone who kidnaps other Jews and sells them as slaves. Paul (or whoever wrote 1 Tim.) did nothing to demand an end to slavery.

        • BlackMamba44

          Jesus did explain how to beat your slaves. Many blows if they intentionally did wrong, but few blows if they unintentionally did wrong. :).

          That one is stuck in my head.

          • “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.” (Luke 12:47)

            “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.” (Ex. 21:20-21)

            This ends the reading for the day.

          • Thank you for the feedback, Bob.

            “What’s a ‘slave trader’? I’m guessing someone who kidnaps other Jews and sells them as slaves. Paul (or whoever wrote 1 Tim.) did nothing to demand an end to slavery.”

            No need to guess:
            STRONGS NT 405: ἀνδραποδιστής
            ἀνδραποδιστής, ἀνδραποδιστου, ὁ (from ἀνδραποδίζω, and this from τό ἀνδράποδον — from ἀνήρ and πούς — a slave, a man taken in war and sold into slavery), a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer, i. e. as well one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery, as one who steals the slaves of others and sells them: 1 Timothy 1:10. (Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato, Demosthenes, Isocrates, Lysias, Polybius)

            You seem to be positing an “ethical slave dealer,” one who was somehow disconnected from the processes by which slaves were obtained.

            Hardly anybody is willing to try to understand subtleties nowadays, but Philemon is a tract against the concept of slavery–probably the best Paul could do under the circumstances at the time.

          • Hi Bob:

            You quoted Luke 12:47, “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.”

            You’re intelligent enough to to know that this is an illustration which anyone in that area back then would have recognized as based on things that commonly happened in that world. And also that it was not a recommendation of behavior.

            You’re also capable of reading the context (Luke 12:42-48) and realizing that the servant in question was an overseer who was beating the servants he was in charge of. He was reaping what he had sowed. Psalm 7:16 The trouble they cause recoils on them; their violence comes down on their own heads.

            Don’t try to outsmart Jesus, Bob. You’ll lose every time.

          • I quoted Luke to provide a reference for BlackMamba’s comment.

            Don’t try to outsmart Jesus, Bob. You’ll lose every time.

            Sounds like we could take that in a lot of directions. But just a quick comment: I’m an atheist, and I find that the Bible can say just about whatever you want. “Jesus” is a figure in the story who says whatever the author of that gospel wanted him to say.

          • Thank you for the additional feedback, Bob. I’m so glad you came back after saying, “This ends the reading for the day.”

            “‘Jesus’ is a figure in the story who says whatever the author of that gospel wanted him to say.”

            Since you can’t prove that, your statement is based on a faith, one that you may need to protect your worldview. By the way I also tried atheism for a while–here are some other things I would have assented to back then:

            * We got here by a series of accidents (unintentional events) dating back 13.8 billion years, or maybe even longer.

            * We’re just animals with bigger brains.

            * We don’t have free will—we are controlled by our genetics, environment and current stimuli. (Sam Harris in particular and Michael Shermer, Jerry Coyne et al have been vigorously promoting that perspective lately.)

            * Although we may be able to (and have to) come up with something on our own for a while, there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to our lives.

            * We die dead and that’s it—it doesn’t matter to ourselves any more whether we did much good, even at great personal cost, or great evil. Adolph Hitler, Oskar Schindler, Mao Zedong, and Nelson Mandela no longer exist for themselves. Nothing matters personally to them anymore.

            If I were still an atheist, what could I have done when I was very moved by seeing something really neat in the creation—a great landscape up and down the coast, a crystal clear starry night up in the mountains or out in the desert, fruit orchards in bloom, a beautiful hummingbird in my back yard? I suppose I’d have to tell myself something like: “Get a grip—it doesn’t mean anything. It’s just an accident—relax, those feelings will pass.”

            I’m not saying that an atheist couldn’t experience those things in a very moving way. To the contrary, if this life truly is all that ever will be, the experiences should be even more intense for them because they will come to an absolute end relatively soon.

            Blessings.

          • “‘Jesus’ is a figure in the story who says whatever the author of that gospel wanted him to say.”
            Since you can’t prove that, your statement is based on a faith, one that you may need to protect your worldview.

            It’s a conclusion based on evidence.

            * We got here by a series of accidents (unintentional events) dating back 13.8 billion years, or maybe even longer.
            * We’re just animals with bigger brains.

            Yep.

            * We don’t have free will

            I have no opinion on this one.

            * Although we may be able to (and have to) come up with something on our own for a while, there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to our lives.

            Agreed. I see no ultimate meaning (who would give it?), and I see no evidence objective morality (just the regular kind, as defined in the dictionary).

            * We die dead and that’s it—it doesn’t matter to ourselves any more whether we did much good, even at great personal cost, or great evil.

            Of course it matters. Do we care about Hitler today? Do I care about my deceased relatives?

            If I were still an atheist, what could I have done when I was very moved by seeing something really neat in the creation—a great landscape up and down the coast, a crystal clear starry night up in the mountains or out in the desert, fruit orchards in bloom, a beautiful hummingbird in my back yard?

            How do Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists see beauty in nature differently?

            To the contrary, if this life truly is all that ever will be, the experiences should be even more intense for them because they will come to an absolute end relatively soon.

            Precisely. The Christian has forever to study that subject or memorize that poem or apologize to someone. What’s three score and ten years here on earth when you have eternity in the afterlife? Who much cares what you do? The atheist has a few precious years to get the most out of life and leave things a little better.

          • “‘Jesus’ is a figure in the story”

            By the way Bob, I just found the efficient takedown of your after-the-fact fabrication narrative at a web page titled: No Naysayers at NASA: Responding to Bob Seidensticker.

          • Hi Bob:

            “But the pastors in the South had the better biblical argument.”

            Not true at all. In their self-serving ways, those pastors failed to recognize the crucial point that Jesus had abolished the tribalism of the Old Testament. And that Paul had expanded on the new understanding in multiple very compelling passages.

            By the way, thank you for helping me better understand the flaws of this common slur against Christianity.

          • “But the pastors in the South had the better biblical argument.”
            Not true at all.

            Read the OT. It provides clear support for slavery for life. This is not hard.

            In their self-serving ways, those pastors failed to recognize the crucial point that Jesus had abolished the tribalism of the Old Testament.

            How? He tells the disciples not to bother with the gentiles and to focus instead on the Israelites/Jews.

            The Bible fails the most basic moral test: what should we do about slavery? You can perhaps see why outsiders reject the claim that the God described is all-benevolent.

          • Hi Bob:

            “Read the OT. It provides clear support for slavery for life. This is not hard.”

            It’s especially not hard–actually it’s easy–when you ignore all the indications in the gospels that they really transcended the tribalism of the Old Testament. An easy search on just two words–Gentiles and nations–provides the following. (Since some of them are quotes from the Old Testament, the latter actually transcended its own tribalism at times.)

            Matthew 10:18 “On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.”

            Matthew 12:18 “Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.”

            Matthew 12:21 “In his name the nations will put their hope.”

            Matthew 24:9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.”

            Matthew 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”

            Matthew 25:32 “All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”

            Matthew 28:19 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

            Mark 11:17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations”? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.'”

            Mark 13:10 “And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.”

            Luke 2:30-32 “For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all nations: a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel.”

            Luke 24:46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”

          • It’s especially not hard–actually it’s easy–when you ignore all the indications in the gospels that they really transcended the tribalism of the Old Testament.

            Show me where Jesus commands everyone to stop slavery.

            Here was the guy who truly understood morality, and yet he didn’t know the problem slavery (let’s focus on just that one) would cause in the world, even to this day. He was part of the Trinity. Surely he could’ve stopped it. Or, if it didn’t please him to do so, make clear that it was wrong—he made other moral statements, why not this one?

            Or, the obvious option: the words of Jesus were just an invention of people who didn’t think that slavery was a moral problem.

            An easy search on just two words–Gentiles and nations–provides the following.

            I’m missing how this is interesting. Show me where Jesus said, “Whoa—time out, people! No slavery, OK? I know my Father forgot it in the Ten Commandments, but let’s put that behind us. Free all slaves now, and don’t do it in the future.”

            Matthew 25:32 “All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”

            Huh? This is the parable of the sheep and the goats. This is where Jesus makes clear that works, not faith, is what gets you into heaven. Shouldn’t you be pretending that this doesn’t exist?

            Matthew 28:19 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

            Matthew 10:5-6 “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.”

            So going back to what I said before about your claim that the southern pastors had the better scriptural argument for slavery–not true

            Leviticus 25:44-46 “[God said,] ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.’”

            The SBC broke away because God was A-OK with slavery. Here’s one contemporary source:

            If we prove that domestic slavery is, in the general, a natural and necessary institution, we remove the greatest stumbling block to belief in the Bible; for whilst texts, detached and torn from their context, may be found for any other purpose, none can be found that even militates against slavery. The distorted and forced construction of certain passages, for this purpose, by abolitionists, if employed as a common rule of construction, would reduce the Bible to a mere allegory, to be interpreted to suit every vicious taste and wicked purpose.

            Source: George Fitzhugh, Cannibals All! or Slaves without Masters (Richmond, VA, 1857)

          • “Show me where Jesus commands everyone to stop slavery.”

            Way too easy, Bob. Luke 10:27b, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” That’s incompatible with slaveholding. And then to make it very clear that the command also applied outside of the tribal community, contrary to your previous claims, Jesus immediately launched into an illustration featuring a member of the despised Samaritan outsiders.

            Don’t try to outsmart Jesus. You’ll lose every time.

          • “Show me where Jesus commands everyone to stop slavery.”
            Way too easy, Bob. Luke 10:27b, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” That’s incompatible with slaveholding.

            Surely a member of the Trinity could be a little clearer and expansive than that. How does that overturn all the pro-slavery stuff in the OT?

            But to your example, “neighbor” means “fellow Jew.” (1) The slaves for life permitted by Lev. 25:44-46 continue, and (2) people of the time would think that fellow Jews who were in indentured servitude should be treated fairly—just like they’d like to be treated if it were indentured servants themselves.

            Those little words that men have such a hard time saying? For some, it’s “I love you” and for others it’s “I was wrong” but for Jesus apparently it’s “Slavery is wrong.”

            Don’t try to outsmart Jesus. You’ll lose every time.

            Cute slogan, but you make Jesus into a tragically inept god. He can’t make clear his message? Or he can’t get it written down properly? Or he can’t get his disciples on board?

          • Hi Bob:

            “He can’t make clear his message?”

            No, it’s very clear. Anyone with average intelligence or even less would see the incompatibility of loving their neighbors with enslaving them. And as I mentioned above, which you ignored, Jesus clearly indicated in the Good Samaritan parable that this love had to transcend a tribal perspective. Not to mention that he often rejected or rephrased Old Testament teachings.

            Jesus repeatedly pointed out that the problem really was not an inability to understand, it was people tragically not wanting to hear or understand what he was saying.

          • “No, it’s very clear. Anyone with average intelligence or even less would see the incompatibility of loving their neighbors with enslaving them.”

            History disagrees with you. Slavery has been a thing for thousands of years. (Here’s a tip: when they’re slaves, don’t think of them as “neighbors” but rather as “other.”)

            But saying, “God didn’t have to because it’s obvious” doesn’t get God out of the hot seat. He’s legislating all sorts of things, but slavery slipped his mind? Doesn’t sound very omniscient or benevolent to me.

            “And as I mentioned above, which you ignored, Jesus clearly indicated in the Good Samaritan parable that this love had to transcend a tribal perspective.”

            Right. Ignored it because it makes no case. If I made a similar argument where Jesus alluded to something that you didn’t like, you’d laugh at me.

            What’s hard here? Jesus can’t give us a single clear sentence forbidding slavery? I mean, I know he’s busy cursing fig trees, but slavery is important.

            “Not to mention that he often rejected or rephrased Old Testament teachings.”

            That’s great. He’s not bound by silly customs from the past. Then why doesn’t Jesus speak clearly on this subject?

            “Jesus repeatedly pointed out that the problem really was not an inability to understand, it was people tragically not wanting to hear or understand what he was saying.”

            Irrelevant. Jesus says nothing about abolishing slavery. If he can’t figure this one out (1) his no moral authority on anything else and (2) he looks make believe.

          • Thank you for using your real name, Bob. It’s nice to see that rather than someone hiding behind a handle like BlackMamba44.

            I’ve always wondered why some atheists spend a lot of time fighting Christianity. If I were still an atheist, I wouldn’t waste my time on religious believers. Life being too short, I’d want to fill it with as many more rewarding experiences as I could.

            And if I was still an atheist and had some empathy (although I did not have much back then), I might be OK with others having found something that worked for them. Leaving that aside, I could focus instead on finding things that worked for me.

            But if I felt threatened by others’ beliefs–if it was gnawing at me that I might be wrong–that would explain the preoccupation with others’ beliefs. It would also justify intense efforts to combat them: self defense, at the most fundamental level, would require it.

            Jesus said in John 15:18, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.”

          • Thank you for using your real name, Bob.

            It’s not always easy being a public atheist (I write the Cross Examined blog at Patheos), but I haven’t really had much of a problem being open about my name.

            It’s nice to see that rather than someone hiding behind a handle like BlackMamba44.

            I like people being open about their name when that’s convenient, but I don’t understand everyone’s situation, and I’m sure that being public won’t work for everyone. Some atheists aren’t out, and being an out atheist can have consequences.

            I’ve always wondered why some atheists spend a lot of time fighting Christianity.

            It’s not Christianity but Christians. Christians are the ones who don’t realize that the separation of church and state in the US is their friend, too. They’re attacking the wall that protects all of us (and then they complain about the threat of Sharia law).

            When Christians stop trying to get prayer into city council meetings and Creationism into public schools (and all the rest), I’ll find a different hobby.

            Life being too short, I’d want to fill it with as many more rewarding experiences as I could.

            To each his own. This is my small attempt to leave the world a better place.

            I might be OK with others having found something that worked for them.

            If someone finds hope in Christianity that they can’t find elsewhere, I don’t think it’s my place to rock their boat. Again, it’s Christians rocking society’s boat that’s the problem.

            But if I felt threatened by others’ beliefs

            Uh . . . you’re barking up the wrong tree here.

            if it was gnawing at me that I might be wrong–that would explain the preoccupation with others’ beliefs.

            I read with amusement Christian articles helping fellow Christians with their doubts. Atheists don’t usually have analogous problems.

          • Hi Bob:

            “I read with amusement Christian articles helping fellow Christians with their doubts. Atheists don’t usually have analogous problems.”

            God save us from people who claim to never question anything they think or do. If they’re not being dishonest, they are fanatics. And fanatics can be very dangerous.

            “Christians are the ones who don’t realize that the separation of church and state in the US is their friend, too.”

            That’s an overly broad generalization. Some Christians do understand that quite well. I recently read a very good book on the Anabaptists, who were persecuted very viciously hundreds of years ago for their opposition to the the idea that church and state should be coterminous. See The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Dissent and Nonconformity) by Leonard Verduin.

            On the other hand some people try to use the concept of “separation of church and state” as a bludgeon to restrict others’ freedom of religion. Honestly it’s not to going cause any harm if the county of Los Angeles where I live still has a Spanish mission with a cross and an image of the goddess Pomona on its seal. And if Muslim or Christian bakers would prefer not to do a cake for a gay wedding, there are plenty of other bakers around.

          • God save us from people who claim to never question anything they think or do. If they’re not being dishonest, they are fanatics. And fanatics can be very dangerous.

            I’ve heard of people who claim to have had sex with extraterrestrial aliens—some sort of experiment, apparently. I tentatively reject this hypothesis, and I have no cause to reconsider my position. And you know what? I sleep like a baby. Doubt on this matter doesn’t cause a bit of anxiety.

            I immerse myself in the Christianity/atheism debate, and, here again, I think I’ve backed the right horse. As I mentioned, I read with interest articles helping Christians with their doubts and note that their experience is quite unlike my own.

            That’s an overly broad generalization. Some Christians do understand that quite well.

            Yes, that’s true.

            On the other hand some people try to use the concept of “separation of church and state” as a bludgeon to restrict others’ freedom of religion.

            It’s conceivable that we’re not using the term the same way. Any examples come to mind? That will help illustrate your point for me.

            Honestly it’s not to going cause any harm if the county of Los Angeles where I live still has a Spanish mission with a cross and an image of the goddess Pomona on its seal.

            You’re an easygoing guy. Let’s replace the Christian infractions with Muslim ones. Instead of “In God We Trust,” what if the city or county council chambers had “Allahu Akbar” in Arabic on the wall? Or if some of the prayers when the chamber opens its meeting were Satanic?

            You can see where I’m going with this, and I’m sure you can imagine more examples.

            And if Muslim or Christian bakers would prefer not to do a cake for a gay wedding, there are plenty of other bakers around.

            And if Muslim or Christian bakers would prefer not to do a cake for a mixed-race wedding, there are plenty of other bakers around—are you OK with that as well? Or does the concept of protected classes make sense in some cases?

          • Hi Bob:

            “if the city or county council chambers had ‘Allahu Akbar’ in Arabic on the wall? Or if some of the prayers when the chamber opens its meeting were Satanic?”

            Freedom of religion really means freedom of religion. If I want freedom for my religious beliefs, I have to be OK with people of other religions having comparable freedoms. And I am.

            “And if Muslim or Christian bakers would prefer not to do a cake for a mixed-race wedding, there are plenty of other bakers around—are you OK with that as well?”

            Apples and oranges–race is genetic, homosexuality isn’t.

          • Freedom of religion really means freedom of religion. If I want freedom for my religious beliefs, I have to be OK with people of other religions having comparable freedoms. And I am.

            Good to hear, though my vote is to instead keep religion out of government.

            Apples and oranges–race is genetic, homosexuality isn’t.

            Apples and apples—race and homosexuality are both inherent and unchangeable.

            So let’s get back to the example. Are you OK with Muslim or Christian bakers rejecting mixed-race couples who want wedding cakes?

          • Hi Bob:

            “race and homosexuality are both inherent and unchangeable”

            That’s a quite common but very debatable claim, regardless of how many would like it to be so. It’s an example of the fallacy of Proof by Assertion– a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam).

            My response to your assertion without providing any evidence: check out the article in The Atlantic titled: No, Scientists Have Not Found the ‘Gay Gene’ – The media is hyping a study that doesn’t do what it says it does.

          • “race and homosexuality are both inherent and unchangeable”
            That’s a quite common but very debatable claim

            Is it? Ask a black man and a homosexual and see if they don’t agree.

            The tricky thing is that sexuality is on a spectrum. Someone might be more properly bisexual, get some sort of Christian guilt over his homosexual activity, “convert” to heterosexuality, and be in a happy relationship with a woman. But someone who says that he’s homosexual and has been so his whole life sounds pretty unchangeably homosexual to me.

            To say, “Yeah, but we don’t know for sure why people are homosexual” is true but irrelevant. You don’t have to know about the smallpox virus to know that smallpox exists. You don’t have to know why Einstein was so smart to know that Einstein was smart.

          • Thank you for the interesting dialogue, Bob.

            race and homosexuality are both inherent and unchangeable

            That’s a quite common but very debatable claim

            Is it? Ask a black man and a homosexual and see if they don’t agree.

            Try asking a representative sample of black men and women about homosexual efforts to culturally appropriate their struggles in this country. See The People’s District: 5 -Reasons Gay is Not the New Black.

            Subjective claims by people who have reasons to be biased don’t trump a large number of previous studies based on quality research that contradict the gay gene hypothesis. I don’t know what your competence with research methods and statistics is, but the technical critique of the Ngun study in The Atlantic is devastating.

            A few rounds back you claimed to be agnostic about free will. That really didn’t help. Saying you don’t know if you have free will is very nearly as problematic as saying you don’t have it at all. The experience of almost all humanity is that we do have free will, even though a few claim otherwise to try to maintain coherence with their other ideological beliefs. Legal systems throughout the world are based on a recognition that people can control their behavior, with mental incompetence being the allowed exception.

            But now you are going with the idea that genetics controls people.

          • Try asking a representative sample of black men and women about homosexual efforts to culturally appropriate their struggles in this country.

            You’re saying that the civil rights struggle for blacks and homosexuals isn’t identical? I agree. But my point remains. Race and homosexuality are both inherent and unchangeable.

            a large number of previous studies based on quality research that contradict the gay gene hypothesis.

            Sure. Why someone is homosexual isn’t the point, so let’s not get off track.

            A homosexual isn’t a heterosexual (ignoring the spectrum of bisexuality).

            A few rounds back you claimed to be agnostic about free will. That really didn’t help. Saying you don’t know if you have free will is very nearly as problematic as saying you don’t have it at all.

            Not my point. I’m saying that I don’t care about the free will debate. Have it without me, since I haven’t thought about it enough to have anything useful to say.

            But now you are going with the idea that genetics controls people.

            And you’re saying that the homosexual who says that he knew he was different since he was a child is . . . what? Just lying? Confused? I tend to believe them.

      • CruisingTroll

        If the US Constitution had incorporated that concept, instead of including the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3), the United States probably wouldn’t have had the Civil War.

        You’re right, because the United States wouldn’t have survived long enough to reach the 1860s. The compromises around slavery in the Constitution were there for two reasons: 1) Without them, there would have been no Constitution, and the new country would have fallen apart. 2) Slavery was withering away in America, as it wasn’t really economically viable. The great (in size) slave plantations of the New World were SUGAR plantations. Tobacco wasn’t big enough, cotton was way too much work to turn into fiber, and geography/climate dictated that competing against the Caribbean and Brazilian sugar plantations was a fools errand. BOTH the “free” states and the slave states recognized this in 1787. What neither side counted on was a clever fellow by the name of Eli Whitney.

        • Hi CT:

          “United States wouldn’t have survived long enough to reach the 1860s”

          Perhaps it wouldn’t have survived, but you can’t be very certain of hypothetical outcomes. However my reason for bringing this up is to point out that the Constitution conflicted with some very relevant Biblical teachings on the subject of slavery.

    • Katherine

      ‘Homosexuality has been observed in 500 other species but homophobia in only one’. This is said so solemnly but it strikes me as quite silly. I take it these would be 500 species on the verge of extinction? Would that be agenda-driven research, by any chance? And how would we know about the ‘homophobia’ (let’s pretend that’s a real word): do the other squirrels make nut cakes for the gay squirrel weddings? I believe there are some lady spiders who eat their partners after the wedding night: that could furnish inspiration for a broad-minded girl…

      • Why would they go extinct? Either there’s a lot of bisexual sex (bonobos, for example), or homosexuality being better than nothing (think of one male getting a harem and the other males getting nothing), or a tiny fraction of the population is homosexual (as is the case with humans and maybe other groups). Where’s the risk of extinction?

        how would we know about the ‘homophobia’

        We’ve observed homosexual activity widely. We’ve only observed homophobia in one species, ours. The point, obviously, is to rebut the claim, “Yeah, but homosexuality is unnatural!” In fact, it’s seen quite widely in nature.

        • Katherine

          The danger of extinction is a light-hearted reference to the fact that any population of animals where a substantial proportion of individuals are exclusively homosexual would pay the massive ‘evolutionary’ cost of compromising its reproductive potential. But you know that.
          Of course homosexuality occurs in nature. The word ‘unnatural’ is an oblique reference to homosexual activity being at odds with the biological purpose of sexual organs. The whole kit is designed for the purpose of producing new individuals. (Don’t be nervous of the word ‘designed’. Atheists wouldn’t hesitate to say stomach acid is ‘designed’ to digest food; the heart is ‘designed’ to pump blood). And homophobia (continuing to pretend this is a meaningful word) certainly occurs in nature. Don’t you consider humans natural? Where else do you think they came from?

          • I’m not sure what’s confusing. Do you really need an explanation, or are you just making a point?

            If just humans do something, then you could indeed say that that’s natural by definition. Nevertheless, some people look at homosexuality and say, “You don’t see that in nature! It’s unnatural.” My point is that you do indeed see it in nature (that is, the not-people part of nature), so this argument fails. What you don’t find in nature is the pushback against it.

  • Pat Payne

    An alternative for #1 could be Thor… as in the Marvel Comics Thor.

    Pros: Hung out with Jack and Stan back in the day. Knows Tony Stark. Beats up criminals for fun and justice. Sometimes he hast that most wonderful Shakespearean dialect. Who else rocks a winged helmet? You could do a lot worse for your deity than Chris Hemsworth (the, uh, Thor or Star Trek ’09 Hemsworth. Not the Ghostbusters ’16 Hemsworth) — not Jennifer Connelly by any means, but still… Hates Nazis (though in a out-of-continuity story was still fooled by them)

    Cons; Gets the keys to his godhood taken away by Papa Odin every so often for being a total jerk. A little wobbly sometimes on just WHO we’re worshiping (Is it Donald Blake? Eric Masterson? Ororo Munroe? Jane Foster? Rogue? Thor Odinsson? Steve Rogers?). Has been derailed by recent writers into a shadow of his former self. Then there’s the whole “frog incident”. They picked Tony Hopkins and not the gloriously hammy BRIAN BLESSED to play Odin in the movies.

  • Katherine

    Very funny, thank you John. I believe C.S. Lewis said when asked which religion brought most ‘happiness’ that the religion of worshipping yourself was the best (“while it lasts”, he darkly added). One of the reasons I don’t accept the LGBT agenda is that it’s on the wrong side of history, in my view. It relies upon a contempt for biology and and a sort of gnostic exaltation of the individual which could only have arisen in a highly urbanised, extremely wealthy, historically ignorant and morally bankrupt society. As that society crumbles, so will it.

  • Katherine

    Hi Bob
    I understood you to be saying: Homosexuality occurs in nature, so it must be fine, and homophobia doesn’t, so there must be a problem with the humans who have it. Among the things wrong with that position, it seemed to me, was a superficial and sentimental view of what nature is (everything except humans?), how humans relate to it (somehow not part of it, perhaps less nice?) and an anthropormorphising way of thinking about animal behaviour. Your statement jumped out at me in the list of comments because of its comic potential – whether someone else claimed there is never homosexual behaviour in non-human species I don’t know – certainly I wouldn’t claim that, and wouldn’t defend it. Lots of disordered and pathological behaviour happens among animals, particularly if they are deprived of particular input during sensitive periods of development, or if they are in captivity or other stressful situations. What we would call theft, infanticide and cannibalism happens. But it might not be a great idea to derive ethical norms from animal behaviour – our ethics might have to come from elsewhere. Neither ‘nature’ nor most animals care about the current wealthy Western mania for individual self-fulfillment. What matters is doing what you are designed to do: following that instinct which almost always prioritises finding a mate and producing more of what you are. This is why they get so busy at springtime. They’re not gnostics, like some of us.

  • Boris

    The Bible is already false on so many levels. Evolution by Natural Selection has been taught in Christian colleges and universities for over a century. So the Christian academic community admits the religion is a complete sham but still teaches the lies of Christianity is their theology classes. Crazy. We know the Passover event is a complete fiction as are all of the Exodus events. This debunks all three monotheistic religions absolutely. It’s becoming pretty common to find people who do not believe Jesus Christ really existed which is due mostly to the age of information which tells us that with regard to Jesus there isn’t any information. None at all. Genetics tells us that there were never less than 12,000 humans on the planet so there goes the original sin nonsense another thing that sinks Christianity’s ark. No evidence for any arks either, floating or otherwise. Neuroscientists have used experiments and demonstrations to prove human fee will is an illusion. Without free will there’s another thing that sinks the Bible and Christianity. Herod’s slaughter of the innocents didn’t happen. I could go on and on. How many holes have I punched in this fairy book already, in just this paragraph? You have a lot more to worry about than the LBGT or whoever people you happen to be hating this week.

Inspiration
Greater Purpose
Paula White-Cain
More from The Stream
Connect with Us