Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

Refuting Christianity

"The Christian Holy Bible" by Vexen Crabtree (1998)

Adam and Eve: Incest...

I, personally, don't think that they had to participate in incestual relations. If you read Genesis 1:26-28 it reads "Then God said, 'Let us make people in our image'...God patterned them after Himself; male and female He created them... God blessed them and told them, 'Multiply and fill the earth..." Then, Genesis 2: 7-8, reads "And the Lord God formed a man's body from the dust of the ground and breathed into it the breath of life. And the man becamse a living person. Then the Lord God placed a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he placed the man he had created."
So, I think that really, God made a bunch of people to begin with, and spread them throughout the world, THEN He made Adam and Eve and placed those two in the Garden of Eden.

As for Noah and his wife, how can you say that God wouldn't be able to create more wives for Noah's grandchildren? God created the world, the universe, it wouldn't take much for God to create a couple more wives and husbands for Noah's grandchildren. Which would mean that Noah and his family had the responsibilty of teaching these newly created people God's word, etc.

So yeah, just thought I'd bring in another perspective.

Re: Adam and Eve: Incest...

It's probably worth reading
Which is where the quotes come from. It notes the possibility that God created extra people aside from Adam and Eve, however, this answer isn't acceptible for Christians. Ask yourself: Did God create these additional people in a fallen state, or not? If so, then the Adam and Eve story does not work as a reason for us being fallen, when God actually directly creates fallen people. If he creates them as non-fallen, then then are perfect and remained in the Garden of Eden. If he created them perfect *outside* the Garden of Eden, then why are we the ancestors of Adam and Eve, and not these "other" perfect people? It doesn't make sense to add extra people without breaking the concept of original sin.


Dearest whoever. I was brought up in a christian home in the bible belt. But Im a Theistic Satanist as I have been for 8 years. In my opinion the bible is garbage. But if You really want to break it down. Alot of it is true. But alot of it is false. In this day and age, you have to be blind to say that the prof. in the bible are not coming true. All that is left to be fullfilled is the Dome Of The Rock will be destroyed and the Jews will return to Isreal. Everything else is happened already. Then there are the things in the bible that people keep trying to disprove. They find something, then they think they have disproved it, but only because that is what they want to do. People need to stop trying to do this. They are wasting their time and making themselves look stupid. What they need to do is admit that their enemy is real and fight against it. Its not going to be much longer before people can no longer deny this. When this time comes, the people who give in first will be those people that are constantly trying to convince themselves that this is not real. They are still captive to this powermad god. In order to be free from this, You have to admit it to Yourself. Its like the drug addict that wont admit that there is a problem. You are getting no where. You cant fight the problem, if You wont admit that it exists. You are just putting Your self more and more in its grip. Hail Satan , Shamhamforash, From Mia Kou Yang

Re: christians

o real good worship the devil, die, suffer for all of eternity for not worshipping the real god....your sick god is not a powerhungry god satan is and u WILL suffer for being so stupid

Re: christians (Anonymous) Expand
Re: A Big Lie (Anonymous) Expand
Re: christians (Anonymous) Expand
Re: christians (Anonymous) Expand

Non-Christian Founding Fathers of the USA

Non-Christian Founding Fathers ( is a web site that lists some 'enlightening' quotes from or about the first Presidents of the USA. They were NOT christian...


Forgot to do something first...
Solving the problem of evil still does not prove God's existence so lets get to that first.

Proof of God's Existence.
First...The universe is subject to time, hence the Principle of Causality. Second, God is not subject to time, and therefore it is impossible to have a cause(before).

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else.
3. Therefore the universe was caused by something else (a Creator).
Scientific Evidence:
Both scientific and philosophical evidence can be used to support this argument. According to the second law of thermodynamics, in a closed, isolated system, such as the universe is, the amount of usable energy is decreasing. The universe is running down, hence cannot be eternal. Otherwise, it would have run out of energy long ago. Things left to themselves, without outside intelligent intervention, tend toward disorder. Since the universe has not reached a state of total disorder, this process has not been going on forever.
Philosophical Evidence:
Time cannot go back into the past forever, for it is impossible to pass through an actual infinite number of moments. A theoretically infinite number of dimensionless points exist between my thumb and first finger, but I cannot get an infinite number of sheets of paper between them no matter how thin they are. Each moment that passes uses up real time that we can never again experience. Moving your finger across an infinite number of books in a library would never get to the last book. You can never finish an infinite series of real things.
If this is so, then time must have had a beginning. If the world never had a beginning, then we could not have reached now. But we have reached now, so time must have begun at a particular point and proceeded to today. Therefore the world is a finite event after all and needs a cause for its beginning.
1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.
2. If an infinite number of moments had to elapse before today, then today would have never come.
3. But today has come.
4. Therefore, an infinite number of moments have not elapsed before today(i.e., the universe had a beginning.)
5. But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else.
6. Hence, there must be a Cause(Creator) of the universe.

You are right, that if the problem of evil was solved, it would not prove the existance of God. It would disprove a refutation of the existance of an all-good god. At present, the problem of evil tells us that God either doesn't exist, or is not all-good, or not all-powerful: In short, that the "white light" definition of God is wrong.

"The Universe" is a body that includes time. It is not true that the Universe is "subject to time", but that the spacetime continuum /as a complete object/ developed from the big bang. Physically, time is not seperable from space. The SpaceTime continuum as a whole is not subject to "time", because it includes time. By your own argument, that the object that is not subject to time is also accountable for it's own existence, the Universe accounts for it's own existence and requires no creator.

Argument 1)
1. This is not known. The universe may be an infinitely recurring series of big bangs and big crunches. The Universe may have existed forever, but the big bang then occured at some particular point, due to uncertainty and the law the energy cannot be created/destroyed combined with the observer affects.

2. I agree.

3. Disagree, on account of point 1 being doutable.

Your point on the 2nd law of thermodynamic is wrong. The universe will not "run out of energy". The irreversible increase of entropy is the decrease of the amount of energy /available to do work/. This means that (as we observe) as the Universe increases in size, as it is doing so at many more times the speed of light, entropy increases. It is not that energy "runs out", but that interactions and reactions decrease over time, eventually leading to a "cold" universe where nothing happens. The Universe could then remain in this state infinitely. There is no argument from 2nd Thermodynamics that the Universe is not eternal, or that the Universe is not an infinitely recurring cycle of big bangs/big crunches.

Philosophical Evidence/Time
Time itself was created with matter and space with the big bang, no scientific model requires time to go back forever. SpaceTime had a combined beginning with the big bang, the big bang theory is both a theory of the beginning of time and of space.

1. Big bang doesn't require infinite regression of time.
2. I agree.
3. Disagree. SpaceTime is a single object, today is always now, the past and future do not exist, so that even over infinite time there is still changing space and matter. Today has not "come", "now" is merely the present state of space, and that there could be an infinity before or afterwards is irrelevent.
4. Disagreed. There might have been infinite events before now, but our own spacetime continuum, as a result of the big bang, is the only part of reality that we can know.
5. The Universe might be infinite, hence requiring no creator. Also, the Universe is a self created SpaceTime continuum, as a whole existing outside of time, and therefore not requiring (by your own argument) a creator.
This contains a brief introduction and links to three pages on related topics (First Cause, logic, the need for a creator, the creation of the universe, etc)

Re: Forgot... (Anonymous) Expand
Re: Forgot... (Anonymous) Expand
Re: Forgot... (Anonymous) Expand
Mhm. (Anonymous) Expand

"Errors" In the Bible

OK...After the nice long discussion of the "Problem of Evil" lets start one on the bible.
By the way, you may want to get comfortable.

7 Day Creation
The idea of Creation in seven actual days is actually more conceivable than evolution. First, evolution does not explain "jumps" in the chain. Second, if gradual evolution does actually happen, then the idea of a fish becoming a reptile is biologically impossible. In order for a fish to become a reptile it has to go through some major system changes. All these changes must occur simultaneously or blood oxygenation will not go with lung development, will not match nasal passage and throat changes, autonomic breathing reflexes in the brain, thoracic musculature, and membranes. Gradual evolution cannot account for this. If you accept the idea of evolution is spurts you are more supporting the idea of Creation over time than actual evolution. God could have created over an "age" and this would account for the jumps in fossil records. Speaking of fossil records, the idea of Adam and Eve putting the oldest human records ca. 4000 B.C. is erroneous because there could be gaps in the genealogy and therefore put the time back further. The problem of human fossils going back much further than this can be solved with a look at human fossil records. The decomposition rate of fossils can be great or small, depending on atmospheric conditions, pressure of the mud/rock on the bones and the like. Many times has carbon dating proven to be very inaccurate and unreliable.

This can be solved in a very simple sentence: God is all-powerful.
If God is all powerful, he can overstep the “incest problem” until the earth has been populated enough to the point where he no longer has to guide it. (The same applies to Noah’s Ark)

The New Testament
Correct. This is by far the most important.

Virgin Birth
The word that was used here was ‘almâ’. The translation is considered to mean young married or unmarried woman. The word ‘bethulah’ is supposed to mean virgin. But out of the many verses in the Bible that refer to married women, not once does it use ‘almâ’. Instead, the word ‘bethulah’ is used. The word ‘almâ’ is used several times as virgin(Gen. 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalms 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, and Song of Solomon 1:3 and 6:8)

The Census.
This is true, a census should not have required them to return to their hometown. But recently a stone slab has been found which tells Roman citizens to return to their homes if they are away that they may be registered. This makes it entirely possible that Mary and Joseph were required to do so as well.

“Conflicting” Accounts
The word for governor that was used in this text can also mean leader, and at the time, Quirinius was leading expeditions in Syria. The actual date of Christ’s birth is around 6-5 B.C. The calendar that was created in the 14-1500's (dates?) was off by 4 years due to conflicting ideas of when certain events ended.(Everything was So and So years after Such and Such event.) The final date that was decided was actually 4-6 ahead of when Christ was born.(Also the Date December 25th is off, Christ was born in the Spring!)

The Guiding Star
The Romans did not care about the stars. They rarely looked to the heavens for much. The Chinese on the other hand, kept excellent astronomical records and have recorded a large “star” in the west which stuck out above all. The “star” may not have actually had to have been a star, it is believed that it was a comet, not too outstanding but enough where someone who actually studies the stars would wonder what was going on.

King Herod: Killing Male Children
King Herod ordered all male children in Bethlehem to be killed. This would only be about 50-100 children considering the size of the town. In the Roman empire, 50-100 people is not much of a loss. There were more important things to record, wars, diplomacies, foodstuffs, explorations, etc. Something like this would be insignificant whereas today, if 1 kid were to die because of this type of event the whole world would know because of our media controlled lives.

Re: "Errors" In the Bible

And the rest of it...The Messiah
The idea of Emmanuel meaning “God with us” is a little off. Emmanuel can also mean “God is with us”, he may not be called Emmanuel but people will say Emmanuel when he is in their presence. The verses you have cited have no specific mentions to the messiah doing this, except for his return. This is not the same generation...if it says so later in your prophecies section I will address it there.

Matthew was writing to the Gentiles. For him to include the virgin birth and such would be ridiculous. They couldn’t care less about the prophecies that the Jews adhered to. Also, the lineage that Matthew states is from David to Joseph. Luke, on the other hand, was writing to the Jews so it is VERY important that he include all the parts about Christ’s birth that deal with the prophecies(also as a side note, because it is not in one, does not mean that its not true, if they conflicted, then we have a problem). The lineage in Luke is a matriarchal lineage. He records the Lineage from David to Mary, to show that, even though Christ’s father is the male in the lineage of David, Christ is still in the lineage of David through Mary.

Born of a Virgin....See Above

Descendent of Abraham.....See Above
through Isaac.....See Above
and Jacob....See Above
of the tribe of Judah.....See Above
of the family of David.....See Above

Called Immanuel...You said it yourself he was called Immanuel by the Jews who believed he was The Messiah then(Immanuel means “God is with us”)

A prophet.....He predicted his future events...spoke from God....etc

A priest.....A priest is anyone who teaches the Scriptures which Christ did many times

A king......Called king of the Jews....But this prophecy refers to his kingship in heaven, the Kingdom of God
Stricken, Smitten and Spit upon......Jesus was hated by Jews for claiming to be God

Crucified with Thieves.....This is another misconception...Because one does not include what one has does not mean they are a contradiction. Don’t forget......4 different perspectives, and the gospels were written for different audiences.

Buried in a Rich Man’s Tomb....During that time, if you had a tomb you were fairly wealthy, the man’s tomb that Jesus was buried in was his personal tomb, to give this up, he would have to build another, he would have to be rich in order to do such.
Rise from the Dead.....See Crucified with Thieves

Re: "Errors" In the Bible (Anonymous) Expand
Re: "Errors" In the Bible (Anonymous) Expand

i disagree with everything u say that disproves christianity

my name is joe, and i am a sophomore at a public school, most importantly a beliver of God and i was doin some surfing and i came across ur "Bane of Monotheisim" while i was board

~~~~~~~~~~~"No man who has been castrated or whose penis has been cut off may be included among the Lord's people. No one born out of wedlock or any descendant of such a person, even in the tenth generation, may be included among the Lord's people."
[ Deuteronomy 23:1-2 ]
"I bring punishment on those who hate me and on their descendants down to the third and fourth generation. But I show my love to thousands of generations of those who love me and obey my laws."
[ Exodus 20:5-6 & Deuteronomy 5:9-10 ]
"I keep my promise for thousands of generations and forgive evil and sin; but I will not fail to punish children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generation for the sins of their parents."
[ Exodus 34:7 ]

all of these verses are from the OLD testament. God thought highly of man kind and told them not to eat from the forbidden tree. man ate, God got mad. God is humble, but he can be infuriated. the ten comandments are the old covenant. God made rules, and if u broke them u go to hell, (and this was the OLD covonent). such as having children out of wedlock and stuff. to be forgiven, you had to sacrafice animals. some times, you couldnt do that and be forgiven because the sin was too great. all sins lead to death, but there are more sevear ones then others. such as adultry and murder. you couldnt be forgiven and you were gona burn for the rest of ur after life.( THE POINT WAS NOT TO DO THEM BECAUSE OF THE CONSEQUWNCES)this all changed when Jesus came. everything was changed, and the rules. when Jesus hung on the cross and died, he died for our sins, and this became the NEW covenant. and because of that, we can go to heaven. the deal is that, u have to belive that he is the only god and that he is the allmighty. if u dont, ur gona burn for all of eturnity. now, if u make a sin YOU ASK TO TRUELY BEFOREGIVEN AND YOU WILL IF U MEAN IT FROM THE BOTTOM OF YOUR HEART, AND YOU TRY UR ABSOLUTE BEST, NOT TO DO IT AGAIN.
my belive that so many religions exsist of the world is that people are scared of GOD and/or dont like the idea that something can manipulate their lives.
God is scary, and if u make him mad, he can be deadly. in history, he got realy pissed at 2 cities, (Sodom and Gomorrah), and wiped it off the face of the earth. but is also a very loving god. so loveing that he sent his only son to hang on a peice of wood and impaled by 3 stakes and be humiliated with also having things thrown at him( such as rocks and food) and spat apon. even after this he still loved everyone because he pittied them because they didnt know who he realy was,and what a blessing it was to be there with him and witnessing his coming. even though alot of people do not belive in him, he still loves them because if he didnt, he wouldnt of sent is son to die. he wants to know everyone, and not only that, but PERSONLY know everyone, including you. you may bash christianity and call my God false, but one day u will be judged after his 2nd coming and u will have to awnser to him,why u didnt belive in him and lived for him. hopefuly, this can and will be prevented by coming to know him and his good word.
i have sinned many times, many times more then i can count and i know for afact that if that Jesus didnt know, i would be in hell right now along with everyone on this earth. we blew it the 1st time by eating from a tree while before told not to, and he is giving us a secound chance. dont be dumb and miss the greatest opritunity of the world. if u have any q's or coments, email me at if u have an intrest in knowing God, ask me ~Joe

Re: i disagree with everything u say that disproves christianity

I really don't like the sound of your God, I think I'll let you keep it to yourself!

Well guys, I've read most of that, and I have to tell you I'm still a Christian. This will probably annoy you to death, but I will pray for you.
Despite all your objections, Christianity still stands, and is smiling at you - and so is Jesus.
God bless,


I am a Christian, but I despise Christians who use the "Jesus Loves You" approach to converting people, it is idiotic and does not stand, defend your faith get a book on apoligetics and actually learn something.

(no subject) (Anonymous) Expand

Histocricy of the NT documents

I've decided to skip the authorship test since you seem to agree that the Gospel authors were not made up.

First we need to establish a date, the common theory is that the Gospels were written after 70 A.D. because the temple was destroyed and Christ "predicted" it.
Another theory is that after about 40 years, the disciples wrote not just history, but mythical facts that they believed to be true.

If the authorship is correct (Matt wrote Matt, Mark-Mark etc) then the date is limited to their lifetime. Most were killed early.

1. Paul died c. 65 A.D., and rome was set on fire in 64 A.D.. The book of acts neither records Paul's death nor the burning of Rome, which is extremely unlikely if either of these events have taken place yet.
a. Acts must have been written before then, and since Luke is part 1 of Acts, Luke was written even earlier.
b. Paul quotes from Luke and calls it scripture.
1) you can't quote from a book that isn't written yet
2) Paul can't get away with calling something "Scripture" unless it is common accepted as Scripture.
2. The commonly accepted theory is that Mark was written first, then Matthew, then Luke-- so this pushes the dates of Mark and Matthew back even closer to the events.
a. The literary style of Mark shows it to have first been an oral preaching (Mark is recording Peter's words)
b. this would mean that this same message of Christ was being spread before it was written down not just invented later.
Result- the Gospel was circulating early enough that plenty of enemies of Christianity who had seen Jesus themselves were still alive and could protest any inaccuracies. No such protests have ever been found.
The closer they are to the event the more reliable of a source they are.
Next we look at the accuracy of the manuscripts.

Re: Histocricy of the NT documents

Accuracy of the Manuscripts
Common Theory- the copies we have today are way off from the originals, and there is no real way to check.
We have over 5700 ancient Greek manuscripts to compare
There is a 97% match
The other 3 % consists of:
Word order -meaning not affected
Spelling-meaning not affected
Sections that are well known were omitted in certain copies (end of Mark, John 8 etc.)
Result- The copies we have match the originals

Common theory- The original authors were incorrect in what they first wrote down
1. Would they have remembered Jesus' teachings?
a. The standard practice for the Jews: any student of any rabbi had to memorize his teachings
b. Most Jews had the entire Old Testament memorized
c. Over 90% of Jesus' teachings are in forms that are easy to remember
1) Hebrew figures styles of speech
d. They weren't idiots
1) Matthew was a tax collector- good record keeping is a necessity.
2) Luke was a doctor, doctors aren't usually dumb.
3) The Jews at that time needed to know at least 3 languages fluently (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic)

2. Did they make up teachings and stories of Jesus?
a. Hostile witnesses would have pointed out inaccuracies. This never happened.
b. This is the Jews we're talking about here! They did not call someone God unless he really is.
1) As C.S. Lewis states: " One attempt consists in saying that the Man did not really say these things, but that His followers exaggerated the story, and so the legend grew up that He had said them. This is difficult because His followers were Jews; that is, they belonged to that nation which of all others was most convinced that there was only one God- that there could not possibly be another. It is very odd that this horrible invention about a religions leader should grow up among the one people in the whole earth least likely to make such a mistake."
2) The Jews held God's name to be so sacred, they would never say it(they misspelled it so that they could say it), but you have the Greek equivalent of YHWH (I AM) given to Jesus- esp. John 8:58.

Result- It is fall too unlikely that any Jew, much less thousands of them, would be willing to put Jesus on the same level as Yahweh God unless it were true.

If the stories of Jesus were made up to make Him look like God, the authors did a poor job. They'd have left these parts out if their intent was to fool people, rather than to report what happened.
1) Jesus is called "good", and then says "Why call me good? Only God is good." (Mt 19:17; Mk 10:18; Lk 18:19)
2) Jesus doesn't know when he is going to return (Mt 24:36; Mk 13:32)
3) Jesus' miracle doesn't 'work' on the first try. (Mk 8:22-26)
4) Jesus' power appears to be limited by people's lack of faith (Mk 6:5)
If the apostles made up what happened, why didn't they leave out all the material that made themselves look like idiots?
1) Peter was the leader and spokesperson, and wants to get people to follow him, and yet he include the stories of how Jesus called him Satan and of how he denied Christ? This, as a story, is highly unlikely.
If the words were made up, and if the authors fooled people into thinking their words were authoritative, then why were there so many immediate problems in the church?
1) Why not invent words of Christ to clear it up?
2) Why not suddenly claim to have a divine revelations to make it all okay?
Believe it or not, the reports in the Gospels area actually reasonable accounts.
1)C.S. Lewis:"When a man tells me that the Gospel accounts are myth legend, or romance, I should like to know how many myths, legends, and romances he has read, and how well he is trained in detecting them, for he would seem to lack literary judgment about the text he is reading. I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, and myths all my life. I know what they are like. And I know that not one of them is like the story found int he Gospels.

Result- It is highly improbable that the story was made up. for all the evidence points to it being true, and all possible results of a made up story are missing.

RE: Adam and Eve

Adam and eve's children did have incest. THis is both scientifically possible and not contradictory to anything in the bible.
First off, the command to not have incest doesn't come until the time of moses, because God knew that it would be nessessary to populate the earth.
As for the scientific factor:

Adam and Eve were created as the first two people, meaning they had perfect genes. The reason incest leads to defects, is because the children will have get the same defective pairs of genes. Normally, defects and mutations are trumped by the genes from the other person, who's defects are then trumped by the first again, minimusinze overall defects. If both parents had no defects, then their children wouldn't either, and be able to breed without mental or physical disabilities. Defects wouldn't have come until many generations later. Its a good try though... too bad science itself has proved you wrong.

If the Bible's instructions are moral absolutes then incest was wrong whenever it happened (i.e., not relative to culture or knowledge of the people involved - but absolutely wrong).

There is no theoretically possible set of "perfect" genes - genes need to adapt to the environment, "perfect" genes are a logical impossibility. Historically, ancient gene surveys do not show us that ancient bodies have "more perfect" genes.

what about...

the logical inconsisencies in the evolutionary theory? I was reading your refutation of the Noah account. Your entire argument was based on confronting the lack of wide genetic material for the propigation of humanity after the flood. You say that if it was truly just Noah and his family, the inbreeding would cause humanity to fail. Think what you will, but if you're going to use logic, USE LOGIC! In this case, statistics.

For the conditions to be right, our planet must exist EXACTLY as it does. Just for that to happen out of a big bang is incredible. If our universe were expanding +/- 1/1x10(36)th of a mile per hour, our world would burn or freeze. Those odds are impossible to begin with.

THEN, the statistical chances of one human being evolving from a lower life form (not to mention all the physical systems in a human that are necessarily complex to the point of impossibility) are infinitesimal that ONE human being could have evolved. That TWO could evolve increases those odds exponentially!

SO, let's just say that our world happened the way it did. AND, let's toss odds to the wind and say that we evolved. Well,

Even if TWO humans evolved and began to procreate, aren't you then presented with the same problem of the Creation and Flood accounts? It seems to me more of a statistical probability that an Intelligent Designer was involved at some (if not all) point in the proces...

I mean, statistically, that seems more believable. It seems that the bible was right in saying that not only the hearts of man, but their minds were darkened as well. We will do whatever it takes, believe whatever impossible, completely illogical thing is necessary to deny that God exists and is intimately involved in our world and lives. Thanks for proving Him right!

Re: what about...

The same infitisimely small odds exist for every event.

Life hasn't evolved "randomly", but subject to stats, not out of the blue. In different circumstances, different planets would support life, and different life evolves in accordance with the environment.

No intelligent designer is required for stats, over huge amounts of time, to account for the evolution of life to adapt wherever possible to the circumstances.

That such a huge universe exists, and yet so little life exists in it, is proof that the Universe was not designed for life.

Re: what about... (Anonymous) Expand
Um....that's interesting. However, upon reading what you have written, it seems you are greatly confused. Just for fun, I read some of the scriptures you put up, to see if it matched with your refute...however it didnt. Also, on the harmony of the gospels - it is very possible that though they are divinely inspired, that each one gave their perspective of what happened. If you and a few friends were on vacation, and different events happened, and you all came back and wrote in a journal (this analogy is only for the purpose of showing different perspectives), I can for sure say that some would leave out a few things but most would agree. However they all would be written from different personalities and each would explain things a little differently. That does not refute any of you however. Also - your view that God is immoral or unfair is very misconceived. God CANNOT be associated with sin, (as far as heaven) and therefore, only by the atoning blood of Lamb (Jesus), can sinner be covered by grace. It's not about religion. I totally agree with you on that. Religion will get you no where. It will not save you. Only by accepting the free gift of salvation through God's Son, can anyone be saved. Also - about adam and eve - Because they were sinless, does not mean that they did not know that it was wrong to do something. God has specifically told them to not eat of that tree. They knew not to. They knew not to jump off high rocks, they knew not to step on sharp twigs, they knew not to eat of that tree. Only by satan's deception, did they eat. Eve even responded back to satan by saying that she KNEW not to eat of the tree and they were allowed to eat anything else, just not that tree because she would die. She knew better. However, both her and adam still sinned, and brought condemnation upon them and any future generation.

It seems there is something behind your attempt to refute Christianity. Possibly past bitterness or intentional rebellion against God. Whatever the case may be, I do pray that you will lose your anger or bitterness or confusion or past guilt or feeling of worthlessness or fear or hatred and learn that God only has good plans for you, if you submit your will to Him. We only mess up our own lives when we try to run it ourselves. It only leads down a road to destruction. I obviously don't need to explain that to you. If you're smart enough to try to write a refute, then you obviously are smart enough to realize that we mess up our own lives. You can't save yourself. I hope you do find that out soon enough. I won't be back to this website, for I only stumbled upon it by accident, so I will not be able to check on a reply to this. I leave with you having the knowledge that I am praying for you and I hope that one day you let God finally get ahold of you.

Mord detail on adam and eve:

I don't live in a Christian culture, in a Christian family and didn't have any Christian upbringing, so forgive me if I don't have an instinctive understanding of Christianity. It also means, however, that my reasons for not believing in Christian stories is not bitterness of rebellion, but mere deduction. By the same process, I am not a Muslim, a Jew or a Hindu.

The gospels mismatch in serious ways that are not explained simply by compatibilism. For example: How did Judas die? What were Jesus' lasts words? Etc... the gospels contain irreconcilable differences, not mere differences of point of view.

If they were divinely inspired, there would *not* be differences of point of view, it would be God's point of view!

Your Sadly Mistaken

HEllo, I just finished reading your web page. Although I can see you put much thought into your defense for athiesm, you lacking in some crucial areas. I also carefully read and reread your attempt to discredit christianity and the biblical viewpoints on the central belief system.
If you wish it discuss this I would be more than willing. My guess is that you wouldn't be because you'll most likely hide behind your keypad and never respond. If you wish to respond my email address is I hope to hear from you.

Re: Your Sadly Mistaken

You may notice I tend to engage people with debate as in-depth as they are willing to take them, right here on LiveJournal, in public. I'm not one to hide behind anything, especially a "keypad".

If you wish to debate a particular point or point out a particular error do so, but generic assertions of inadequacy are themselves inadequate.

From Arizona (Anonymous) Expand
Re: From Arizona (Anonymous) Expand


I assume you keep your email address guarded. Else you'd be inundated with threats and hate mail. I long ago decided from what little history about the origin of the bible and its participants I knew, and from reading the bible itself that modern Christianity and the bible were pretty much the offspring of Paul (I think Charlegmane's (sp?) conversion played a giant role in things too). Needless to say a google search of "origin of gideon's bible" haphazardly led me to your site on the bible. I consider this to be my lucky day, and I'm glad you exist. Your work has erased any vestigal fears I may have had about my beliefs.

I publish my email address openly, and it is linked from a large number of my pages!...

I publish my mobile phone number too. (Which kind of borders between liberal openness and suicidal insanity!)

Thanks for feedback... aside from the debating, which I actively enjoy, it's always good to be useful :-)

Contact 2

Misleading subject, since your about section answered all questions I intended to ask you. I was hoping to present your work to others that think like me about Christianity and other religions. I have nothing personal against goths, nor satanists (would be used to discredit all of your work by christian believers who lack debating or research abilities, "oh well, this all looked great, but now I see he's a satanist"), but I can't present you as a proper source to these people, although your work will still speak for itself (which if you don't recognize yourself, is amazing, I personally put up there with any legendary philosopher or historian)...but I think you recognize (when reflecting on Paul) that the source and the packaging play a big part in acceptance.

Let me say, if what I said hurts or offends you in anyway about being satanist or a goth. I actually read from the satanist bible when I'm in my brother's bathroom (the common man's library). I'm not trying to stereotype you. Hell, I'm an American tobacco farmer's son in the southern US, who isn't a racist, is a libertarian, loves American football (which is actually my religion, so I forgive you soccer heathens :P). If I'd told you that in the middle of the street (except for the football being my religion thing) you'd could easily assume I was a Christian, and would have probably been right.

I'm done gushing. Forgive me if I didn't make sense. When I'm excited I tend to ramble and get off track.

Thanks for positive comments :-)

As for fashion and my religion... Get Over It!

I am sure there are many Christians who would discount what I say as long as I admit to being a different religion to them. There are Muslim anti-Christian text, etc. Jewish anti-Messianic text is some of the most excellent and intelligent, for they understand the "prophecies" and text of the hebrew scriptures much better than Christians.

It is a shame if many will discount on account of apperance and religion, and for that reason the actual purpose and organisation of my website is to make it easy to cute-and-paste text into debates and arguments.

I do not count myself as anything near the greatness of atheistic writers such as George H. Smith, and if course I am no way near as great as the greats!

But I do have some advantages! I live in an age of science and logic, and, being an adept at HTML I can organize the content in wonderfully useful ways - something which none of the greats have had opportunity to do!

Re: Contact 2 (Anonymous) Expand

views of god or nonexistance thereof

VEXON, I am occasionally a christian and am of the universalist persuasion.I read your input on what the majority of christians believe about going to heaven when one dies and I agree with your arguement. Why should,nt we just kill all of our children so they are in a better place and wont have to go through the hell the rest of us are already stuck in. Why stop there, we could force God,s hand and steralize the remaining adults so that no one else could be placed in this mess.
What if we dont go to heaven immediatly after death?
What if every single one of us are here to have our own questions answered and also to be used to answer the questions of others?(The baby that dies shortly after birth learns what it is like to live, for a short time, without a close contact with God. The parents in turn learn what it is like to lose a loved child.)
What if all of this could be learned in a way that was temporary because God is able to eventually bring us all to our own understanding of Him and end this whole experiment without an eternally burning hell?

Try this one on

Hey I was looking here and as you all have done a great job posting good arguements, I might have a few more that you can research or do as you please. For random readers you will meet with random thoughts, please view them as food for thought. The first thing that was missed in discrediting this cult was in Genesis 6:4. This verse states that "Nephilim" (fallen angels) came to earth and suduced human women and then started a seperate race. This can be seen through out the Bible in the "Sons of God" and "Daughters of Men". You can look through Peter and Jude for these references.
Oh and if you haven't seen this thing on Discovery it was great. When John wrote about the end of the world he had intended it too mean the fall of the Romans. 666 has the alpha numerical value of Ceaser who built a statue of himself in a church. Then like any good myth teh "four horseman" meet with Queer eye for the straight guy and teh whole idea gets a make over. Anyway it was a great special, and you should try and see it.
Another fun one is Nietzsche's "Thus spoke Zarathusta" which I had always thought to be a fictional chararcter. To my liking that doesn't seem to be the case. Zarathustrism seems to be the first monothestic religion, and can be read in the "Avesta". My manin problem is that from this the "Koran" was made. As I hate all orginazed religion, it would be fun to find Jesus stealing material from Zarathustra simply to create a conformity in religion. Which we know that the Bible is famous for doing as in the Druids celebration of Yoel.
I don't know, well actually I do know but I would be happy to keep this discussion going if anyone would like more details. The only thing I would say is that in search of absolutes whether it be in good or evil if you have one you must have the other. Know that Religion and faith are not subject to reason. If you have reason than you don't need faith.
By the way I would be interested in getting a "username" if anyone can help me

how is god our king?

where it says in the bible that god is king, its not saying that hes some great ruler over some town or city, its saying that he wants to be the king of our lives. Not to control us or minipulate, but to love us and have a relationship. Everything that i saw whoever wrote this say, had no way to prove it wrong except of saying completely that it wasnt true and by making up his own story. God is here. And whether you like it or not, theres a heaven and hell. The time we spend on earth is what determines where we go. Will you except god into your heart and start a relationship with him. Or will u run away into darkness and enjoy earths pleasures. Well if u choose to enjoy earths pleasures, the pain will not make up for it. If you choose god and try to live as a christian, i suggest u ask someone from a christian church some questions so he could give you some more clarity. If your not sure, ask a pastor about it and try to prove him wrong. See what he has to say.

it doesnt matter what uve done in ur past

Jesus says that if you except him into your heart and have a relationship with him, That all of your sins before and after will be forgiven. So dont turn from god because you think that your not good enough.

response to arizona

Arizona you seem like a good person who anilyzes everything, and id like to talk to you, but the truth is i doubt that ill ever be on this website again, but just because christians arent always the best of people doesnt mean that theres not a god out there. Jesus was the son of man and is god. Dont judge a religion by the people that are in it. Look for flaws in the bible and you will not find one. Every single one of the quotes that denied god couldnt come up with a reason why it was wrong. All they did was state the exact opposite of what the bible says. If its out dated then how do you know whats true. I challenge everyone here to go to church or talk to a christian leader or pastor about everything. And for the gay rights, god says its wrong but not to hate people for it. It is a sin to discriminate against someone. So this is where i leave you once more. goodbye

response to vexen

look deeper in the bible. Im not completely sure about this but i believe that judas hung himself.

all you non believers

is it worth the risk to burn in hell for all of eternity, or should you just keep going along your path, i sware to you that there is a god and a heaven. And the explicity is that there is a hell. Where do you want to spend the rest of your life? In absolute unbarable pain?Or in absolute love and a place that our minds cant even comprehend. Heaven will be great. Hope to see all of you there. Including Arizona and Vexen.

Re: all you non believers

what makes your religion the real one over anyone elses? I am not taking the risk...THERE IS NO RISK. I am going to make up a religion now....Whoever drinks a six-pack of coke a week will go to "heaven' which is up in some clouds in the sky. If you drink ANY pepsi than you are going to "hell" which is a hole int he ground. Sounds silly, right? Now you know how I feel.

Re: all you non believers (Anonymous) Expand
Re: all you non believers (Anonymous) Expand

What are they doing to their children?


I was HORRIFIED when i read this article. Teaching children that PROOF of the christians god's existence is because your uncle refused a banana or because women have a lower center of gravity to carry groceries better is just WRONG. Christians are okay with teaching young children flat-out LIES in the name of christianity is immoral...and isnt lying a sin???

I went to a baptist school, and was never taught REAL science, i was taught LIES that have been DISPROVED by science. I was taught that carbon-dating was false. I was taught that men had one less rib than women!!!

If the christian "god" has given us freedom of choice than why to christians resort to brainwashing their children or (examples from history) burning witched at the stake?

The Bible is a book full of basic human morals...but it is not to be taken literally.

To me christianity is a violent and unfair religion that only offers false hope and allows people to think that they are superior to others.

My parents now feel remorse for what they did to me, but that isn't good enough. Raise your children to have a mind of their own, not the minds of people that existed 3000+ years ago!!!

Arguments against Christianity

Thank God (no pun intended) someone has had the courage to write this stuff. I can't believe that in this day and age so many people are so gullible and irrational to believe in such concepts. Well done.

If everyone in the world would just become Ethical Atheists, the world would be a better place. But the nature of humans is to believe in a higher power. Before Jesus, all the original religions were based on BLOOD SACRIFICE. Millions of people and animals were burned, buried alive, had throats cut, crushed, and every imaginable torture for God or gods.

It wasn't until the coming of Jesus that it was stopped, in all the nations that accepted only Jesus. That's why Jesus said that if you didn't accept him you would go to hell. It wasn't because he wanted to be mean. It was because he wanted humans to accept him as the LAST sacrifice that would put a stop to all other blood sacrifices. And, for the most part, it did, in civilized countries that accepted only Jesus.

Christianity has many very bad faults, but it was a giant step up from where we had been before! We went from blood sacrifice to giving each other gifts!

If we ever do away with Christianity, people will not turn to atheism. They will turn to the old religions. All the old religions still involve BLOOD SACRIFICE. The world will drop right into hell.

In a book called, "Jesus outside the Gospels"(or was it Jesus outside the Scriptures) Jesus is quoted as saying "I have come to stop the sacrifices. If you continue to do the sacrifices, you will burn in hell."

Whether he was real or not, he civilized the world. Christianity is, in a way, an atheistic religion, because it rescued us from all the AWFUL religions that came before!

Please pick up a book at the library called "Human Sacrifice, in History and Today" by Nigel Davis. It will tell you the history of blood sacrifice, and how Jesus stopped it!!

The problems for Religion

There are some problems that are fatal to all religions. Everybody knows that religions are invented or "founded" by some person or small group. They usually claim that anyone who doesn't accept the religion is doomed. This means anyone who lived BEFORE the religion was invented was doomed and anyone who didn't live long enough to find out about it or lived in the wrong place was doomed. I don't see any escape from these problems.


Log in