Clickbank Products

Was Jesus invented through ancient myths?


Where in the World?


The Bible bends all natural laws and rules because it is a supernatural book.
It cannot POSSIBLY be understood by a natural mind focused upon natural understanding. That is what Nicodemus discovered when he came to Christ trying to understand, with a natural mind, supernatural events and teachings.

Because scientists being naturally skeptical, have minds trapped in the box of the five physical senses they cannot focus therefore on the supernatural aspects to understand the biblical 'Birdseye view' of God, who sees things from OUTSIDE time and space, the box that we as finite are limited within .

There was a reason why Jesus said you must be born again. It is a SPIRITUAL rebirth [Both of Mind and Spirit] that is needed to release the hidden evidence of things we cannot witness from inside this physical 'BOX' universe.

I KNOW from personal experience that the Bible is true but I cannot convince you, you must find the truth yourself. THAT'S HOW LIFE WORKS!

Spend less time developing your skeptical natural mind and THAT'S WHAT YOUR DOING, and more time focusing on what Christ taught and you will discover as I have, the truth. You can only interpret the Universe through the shaded lens of your own understanding!
There was an error in this gadget

Atheism: This Is How They Think About You And The Bible!

An ATHEIST ESSAY IN FULL CONTEXT: Get ready to be Shocked! Notice the vitriol Hatred toward God and Christians, also notice the complete lack of dealing with other gods!

“The following was written by Charlotte and was previously posted in her own “Theists Suck” [ Catchy Name! ] website which is BIG SURPRISE, no longer in existence. She gave permission to freely copy and distribute her essays, they are not copyrighted.This is from the Evil web-site.”
Some of this WILL BE offensive to “Theist’s” but in the interest of FULL FAIRNESS TO THE ATHEIST ARGUMENT, I MUST PUT THIS IN FULL CONTEXT: 
{What is CONTEXT?: The general series or composition of a discourse; more particularly, the parts of a discourse which precede or follow the sentence quoted; the passages of scripture which are near the text, either before it or after it. The sense of a passage of scripture is often illustrated by the context. }
“Why I Am Not A Christian: Introduction:
“This essay was inspired by the consistent assumption of Christians that if I believed the Bible were true, I would become a Christian. There are several reasons for my atheism, the leading of which is the idea of a higher power is not probable in light of current scientific data. The second of which is I do not find the state of the world in accordance with an idea of a loving and merciful higher power. Then of course there is the factor that the basis of this essay shall be about; I do not find the Biblical God fit for worship. Over the course of this essay there will be some times when I will speak as if I believe in the Bible, when in fact I do not.
I plan to examine the Bible with critical inquiry. This essay will not be based upon scientific facts and how they disprove the Bible. It shall be an application of my emotions regarding compassion, love, mercy, patience, and justice. I hope to explain more clearly why the God depicted in the Bible violates my idea of a moral being. This shall be done over a series of topics. Each pointing out how Jehovah is undeserving of my worship. I will utilize Biblical verses to support my claim as well as what I consider to be logical reasoning.
Now would be the time to ask you to please take out your bibles for consultation. (I personally prefer the NIV or KJV) I will only cite the verse and a brief over view. I do not have the space to write out the verse in its entirety. I especially don’t wish to spew out so much information that I run the risk of overloading those people who dislike reading. (Funny, it’s conflicting here, isn’t it? We are on-line, in a purely textual world, and people still have the audacity to complain about reading.) In the case that you dislike reading on-line essays, I recommend you print this out and thumb through it at your convenience.
Hell, of course, is the mother of all of my problems with the bible. It is perhaps the most despicable and hideous of all of the Christian God’s crimes. Indeed, the cruelest of all concentration camps. (Certainly far worse than the ones created by the Nazis.) Described biblically as the “lake of fire”, “the place of eternal torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth” Jesus said in Mark 9:42-48 That it is better to commit suicide or self maiming then to be delivered unto hell. So, according to the bible I assume that all here can agree that there is an existence of hell, and that hell is the worst of all circumstance. Knowing this, let me indulge you as to why the existence of hell paints the Christian God as not fit for worshiping.
I am a moderately compassionate individual, rational, moral, and nurturing. Most of all I am a creator, a mother. I propose this to you, a human question. Can all here, Christian or atheist, safely say that if there is a God, he is our greatest thought magnified? Whatever emotion we feel as human, being created in his image, God is infinitely more feeling? For he is the creator of all things created, I believe this concept is pretty safe to assume. With this being so, my love for my daughter must be a fraction of God’s love for his children. Speaking as a mother, I can safely say that if my child were to commit the greatest harm upon me tomorrow, I would never wish her harm. Why? Simply because she is my creation.
If my daughter were to maim me, slander me, etc. I would still love her, for my instinct and emotion demands of me to protect and care for her regardless of her actions, much like all rational beings (animal kingdom included). So now I pose the question, why then would God condemn us to hell for something as menial as lack of faith? If he is not infinitely more so loving then me, why would hell even exist? Any true loving being would never condemn his own children to everlasting torment, especially one that proclaims himself to having the very essence of forgiveness.
But “God Is Just” You Claim:
Most Christians have responded to this statement with the following rationalization. “God can not let all of his creations into heaven because he is just.” I ask in rebuttal to this, since when is justice more important than love in the heart of a parent? Is hell even justice, or is it simply cruel and unusual punishment? The bible states the system of justice very simply. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. There is also another variation of that system with the biblical verse “eye for an eye”. The Christian God violates his own system of law when he damns his creations to eternal suffering for sins as menial as theft or blasphemy. I hardly think, nor would any logical person, that throwing someone into a gnashing jaw would be justly befitting of nearly any crime. (With the exception of murder, and even so, eternal punishment is pretty excessive.)
Most courts of law would take custody of your child from you just for an excessive spanking. We as a people enacted these laws, for we thought them to be logical. Is God above logic, or what we deem as compassionate behavior? After all he pitches a majority of his children into a lake of “fire and brimstone.” How many of us would want a parent such as that? Anyone of us would immediately sever our ties with such an abusive person. Yet Christians knowingly continue the insanity of giving worship to a God so cruel!”
by A.S.A. Jones
Why is it illogical to think that a Christian needs to ‘prove’ that the resurrection and other miracles happened, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, in order to see these beliefs as legitimate? See how David Hume’s advice that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ can have embarrassing results.
Let’s examine the idea that criminal court rules of evidence should be applied to claims of the miraculous based on high stakes or consequence involving the belief of the miraculous.
Obviously, the analogy is impractical because one cannot remove the rules of evidence from the entirety of the judicial process and expect a fair trial. Before a skeptic can claim that only the rules of evidence, as presented in criminal court cases, should apply to belief in God’s existence, he must be willing to agree to the following:
1) An impartial judge 2) An impartial jury
3) An examination of all of the claims that are said to result in God belief, including philosophical, societal, psychological, scientific arguments in addition to an examination of historical and experiential claims.
If skeptics insist on Christians using the rules of evidence as found in criminal law, then they can’t expect us to take them seriously when they present themselves as the sole juror, prosecuting attorney, and judge.
But there is a more compelling point of contention that demonstrates the falsity of the analogy; the criminal court rules of evidence are artificial constructs designed to minimize the convicting of the innocent. In order to prevent a wrongful conviction, by which the defendant would suffer the consequence of incarceration, the defendant is given the benefit of the doubt ; he is innocent until proven guilty and he must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
As the following will demonstrate, the simple actions of a man cannot be adequately compared to complex beliefs or belief structures.
Proposal #1
Skeptics claim that the reason why Christians must validate their beliefs beyond a reasonable doubt is because the consequence of belief may be negative (As if going to Hell were not negative as a result of failing to follow God!); it may result in war or dispute or restrictive moral legislation. Since the consequences involve high stakes, the criteria for evaluating the validity of the belief in question, must be of the highest caliber, that being the rules of evidence as is found in criminal court proceedings. In this particular proposal, the belief, or miraculous event, must be proven true, beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to avoid an undesirable consequence (war or dispute).
The comparison to a criminal case is thus: The Christian assumes the role of the prosecution, having to prove that God is real beyond a reasonable doubt, in order that the skeptic, who assumes the role of the defendant, will not be wrongfully sentenced to an undesirable consequence.
Proposal #2
However, a Christian may counter-argue that the consequence of belief is salvation or an orderly society, and that the consequence of non-belief is damnation or immorality and anarchy. In this proposal, the miracle or belief does not assume the role of the prosecution, but the role of defendant.
The comparison to a criminal case is thus: The Skeptic assumes the role of the prosecution, having to prove that God is not real beyond a reasonable doubt, in order that the Christian, who assumes the role of the defendant, will not be wrongfully sentenced to an undesirable consequence.
Examine the comparison:
CLAIMS OF WRONGDOING Error in interpreting the evidence could
result in the _________ going to jail.
The error would be in thinking that X
[the defendant murdered a person] is true
when in fact the negative of X is true.
CLAIMS OF GOD/MIRACLES Error in interpreting the evidence could
result in the _________going to Hell.
The error would be in thinking that X
[God isn’t true] is true when in fact the
negative of X is true.
Therefore, in order to minimize the error, the evidence that attempts to prove X true must be of the highest standard, that being the criminal court rules of evidence. Fill in the blanks. In a criminal court case, the plaintiff is not the one who is at risk for sentencing. Also, it is the prosecution that attempts to assert the truth of X, not the defense, since the establishment of the truth of X is what sentences the defendant to the consequence. What the analogy is actually proposing is that the evidence that would free the defendant from the consequence should be subject to the highest standards, while the evidence that could sentence the defendant should be subject to the lowest standards, that being the introduction of a reasonable doubt that the negative of X is true. In other words, in the second proposal, the skeptic is indeed suggesting that a defendant be presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Immediately, we begin to see the complexity that is involved when we try to equate beliefs with the criminal actions of men. When we attempt to put a belief on trial, there are any number of ways to design the case; some cases will have the belief as the plaintiff, others will have it take on the role of the defendant. Since the criminal court rules of evidence give the benefit of innocent until proven guilty to the defendant and place the task of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the plaintiff, how are we to decide which role the belief should assume, given that we have just made cases that demonstrate that the belief can assume either one?
What happens when we attempt to put other beliefs on trial, such as evolution? Can we logically say that ‘evolutionary beliefs should be held to criminal standards of evidence because belief in evolution carries with it the consequence of racism’?
Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, said that blacks were further back on the evolutionary ladder (nearer the apes) than whites, and “The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens”.
In view of the above, should the belief of evolution have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before it can be considered legitimately true?
Now we are not only arguing for the validity of the belief, we are also having to prove that the belief itself is the cause of some undesirable consequence. There is no doubt that any beliefs that cause passion, also cause dispute. In that respect, evolution is as guilty as Christianity. However, dispute, in and of itself, is not a crime. But what if the dispute results in an atrocity or a crime? A skeptic will claim that religious disputes cause war and a religionist will say that the atheist agendas of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung also caused war. Just as a skeptic will argue that atheism and evolution can be misused to support political agendas, so will a Christian argue that Christian faith can also be misused. After all, it would be difficult to make a case that Christianity is being used properly by those who initiate dispute and warfare, given that it instructs its followers to ‘love one another’, and to ‘love your enemy’, and to ‘live peaceably among other men’.
So the main points are as follows:
1) Beliefs are more complex than the actions of men and cannot properly be ‘tried’ according to criminal rules of evidence. a. Beliefs alternately would assume the roles of both plaintiff and defendant, depending on the construction of the argument.

b. The standards of evidence for plaintiff and defendant are in opposition to each other.

i. The plaintiff must prove its claim true beyond a reasonable doubt.

ii. The defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2) Variations among individual’s beliefs within a belief system should not subject the entire belief system to ‘sentencing’.
  a. Some evolutionists use evolution to promote racism.

b. Some Christians use the Bible to promote war.
3) There is no logical reason why beliefs of a religious nature should be subject to the rules of evidence of criminal court, while beliefs of a non-religious nature should be immune.
Court room analogies fail to give reason why the religious belief should assume the role of plaintiff. While the person making any claim thereby becomes the claimant and has upon him the burden of proof, to be a claimant is not synonymous, nor can it properly be compared, with being the plaintiff. Thus, one who makes a claim outside of the context of a court of law or a lawsuit, does have the burden of proof, BUT that proof needn’t be subject to the high standard of the rules of evidence of criminal court in order to be considered reasonable or legitimate; there is no logical basis for requiring that claims of a religious nature be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be considered justified.
The proper standards for determining the validity of miraculous claims are the same standards of evidence that are already established and used to evaluate the validity of ordinary, non-miraculous claims.
I consider Hume’s assertion that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ to be unreasonable. Hume defines a miracle as that which violates the laws of nature. He then suggests that no human testimony could ever be ‘reliable’ enough to outweigh our confidence in the laws of nature. In short, he is either saying that no miracles ever occur, or if they do, they should never be believed.
First of all, I disagree with Hume’s definition of what constitutes a miracle and I do so based on the reaction of primitive mindsets to modern technology. People claim that a miracle has happened when something ‘appears’ to violate the laws of nature and when it is not within their intellectual capacity to give a natural explanation for the alleged event. An ignoramus who observes a metallic ball suspended in midair may think that he is eyewitness to the supernatural. He doesn’t understand that the ball’s suspension is the result of a magnetic field.
I would argue that a miracle is that which ‘appears’ to violate the laws of the nature and that relies upon the absence of knowledge by which it can be explained in order to maintain its classification as a miracle. Therefore, ‘miracles’ need not violate any laws of nature in order to be classified as such.
Secondly, there is a degree of folly in Hume’s suggestion that no amount of human testimony can be considered reliable enough to validate that a ‘miracle’ has taken place. For example, despite public demonstrations and eyewitness testimonies, the claims of Wilbur and Orville Wright were derided and dismissed as a hoax by most American scientists.
The scientific community viewed heavier than air flight as a violation of natural laws; to fly would be a miracle. But hundreds of Americans were witnessing the miracle of flight long before scientists came up with equations that would validate it as a possibility. Yet according to Hume, American scientists were totally reasonable in dismissing the legitimacy of the flights, because no human testimony could be considered reliable enough to validate such a claim. That’s right! The ignorant masses had accepted air flight as a demonstrable reality, while the scientific elite walked around for an entire year, pompously dismissing it as an utter impossibility.
In view of the above, and other instances that I won’t take the time to print here, it can be said that human testimony, concerning allegations of the miraculous, should at least be subject to the same evaluations of human testimony regarding the mundane, if only to open the door into further inquiry.
Let us not forget that there are different courts of law with different rules, depending upon the nature of the claims. There is no ‘law’ stating that proof of miracles has to be tried according to criminal procedure. For example, our country has civil court. In civil court, one only has to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts are probably true. However, unless a miracle results in a bid for financial damages, I don’t see why it should be held to the stringent rules of evidence found in civil proceedings no more than those found in criminal proceedings. Keep in mind that because criminal court rules of evidence are so stringent, the amount of evidence necessary to result in a conviction, need not necessarily negate the probability of guilt. For example, OJ Simpson was declared ‘not-guilty’ by criminal law standards, but guilty in the civil court. In other words, he is considered ‘guilty’ (he DID commit the crime), ‘not proven’. By the same logic, religious beliefs may be considered true (i.e., the miracle DID happen), not proven.
Practically speaking, every day we apply the general rules of evidence in our decisions that lead us to what we will, and will not, believe. For example, your trusted friend is dating a bug exterminator, who seems like an honest, and well balanced person. Your friend tells you not to eat at a certain restaurant because her boyfriend says it is infested with cockroaches. In a court of law, this evidence would be inadmissible; it would be hearsay, and so you would have to dutifully disregard it. But in reality, you take this piece of information and conclude that you will never eat at the restaurant again, unless, of course, the hot wings are THAT good! In real life, and beyond the artificial constructs of a court of law, we depend a great deal upon eyewitness testimony and hearsay in order to form our belief structure. What separates the gullible from the prudent is the following set of evidential rules:
1) Confidence that an eyewitness, a reporter of hearsay, and the one reported to have said the hearsay, is honest, trustworthy and reliable.
Much of what we believe depends upon the character of the person making the claim or allegation. This is why a defense attorney attempts to discredit witnesses by trouncing upon their character. It is reasonable to believe those who have a reputation for honesty; it is gullible to believe those who are known liars.
A subset of this rule is establishing a lack of incentive that would cause an otherwise honest person to lie. If the person has something to gain by making the claim, there is a chance that he has lied in order to benefit himself. If the person stands to lose by making the claim, the probability of him lying decreases.
2) Corroboration amongst witnesses and other evidences.
If one person tells you that they saw a UFO (and by that, I mean just that, an unidentified flying object – I’m not making a case for alien life) hovering above the mall on Friday night, you may dismiss it as a trick of that person’s visual perception.
If two dozen people report it independently of each other, at the same time, I’d say that would be reasonable evidence to believe that a UFO of some type was in the area. When the mall reports scorch marks on its roof the next morning, I’d say it would be unreasonable to not believe at that point!
3) Upon close examination, there is an absence of evidence to the contrary.
While it may be considered acceptable to believe in the probability of something being true with little supportive evidence, it would be unreasonable to persist in believing something when there is a preponderance of evidence that indicates that it is untrue.
For example, crop circles and Big-Foot used to be subjects of semi-serious speculation, until hoaxers came forward and demonstrated how they made the crop circles and faked Big-Foot footprints.
4) There should be evidence that one would reasonably expect to find, dependent upon the nature of the claim.
For example, one can’t expect to find dental evidence in a case involving a missing body, or evidence of semen in a rape victim who reports the crime a week later. We wouldn’t expect to find scientific evidence involving a case concerning which tenant defaulted on paying the rent.
5) Personal experience is used as evidence for our beliefs, realistically speaking.
In 1938, a woman discovered a coelacanth, a primitive fish that was thought to have been extinct for over 65 million years, in a fish market. Had the fish escaped her possession and had she not been able to present it to a scientist, her claim to have seen the extinct fish would have remained unfounded; she would not have been in a position to convince others of her discovery. However, we are in no position to deny the woman her experience, and we may believe or disbelieve her claims, based on what we know of her character.
These 5 general rules of evidence are what we use in our daily evaluations of claims and I see no reason why claims of miracles should be treated any differently.”

NOW to continue with the Atheist Letter!

“Free Will”, You Say?

“It is also written that I was given free will with which to choose if I will go to hell or not. How can you possibly deem something free when you must fear consequences? That completely conflicts with the definition of free. If I were to hold a gun to your head and say “you have free will to not give me your wallet, but if you attempt to defy me I will kill you.” Does it really feel as if you have a choice in the matter? Of course not. Free means to give or receive something with out an expectation of return. The whole free will concept is self-defeating. Call it Circumstantial Will, for that is what it truly is.
Despite this, I have still had the displeasure of debating with those Christians who accept hell as a rational and fair wrath of God. They defend Jehovah’s creation of hell with the opinion that those who are committed to hell go voluntary, as if it is a consequence rather than a punishment. That indeed, we as children of God, chose rather to be hell’s inmates then God’s disciples in heaven. It’s an interesting idea. However, you don’t have to hurt anyone to get into Hell. All it takes, according to Scripture, is knowing about Jesus and not accepting him as Savior. It doesn’t’t matter how virtuous you are, how much good you do, how happy an environment you create for others. Given this, the voluntary entry argument doesn’t’t make sense. The same argument could be used to justify the sending of Aryan opponents of Nazism to concentration camps: they voluntarily chose not to give homage to Hitler, so they chose to be interred. Why should we blame the Nazis for the inmates’ choice? Why should we blame God for the choice of the damned?
I hear a lot from Christians about God’s “infinite compassion and mercy”.
Instead of harping on me about something so apparent, they should go tell it to the Midianites. (Please open your Bibles to Numbers 31) The following verses are a classic example of wholesale slaughter and rape under the direction of the same God they claim to be so merciful. A quick sample of this tale: On the way to the promised land, God had Moses wage a war campaign against the Midian. Moses was told to put every Midianite to death, plunder anything of value, set fire to their towns where they lived and all their encampments. Moses gave the orders to his troops (the sons of Israel) and went on a further campaign. On the return of his troops Moses was enraged with the commanders of the army. He said, “Why have you spared the life of all the women and children? You are to kill all the children and kill all the women who have slept with a man. The lord says spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves, so that we may multiply into a great nation.” Yes, friends, this is biblical infinite mercy and compassion for you. I particularly like the way that Moses got upset with them for sparing women and male children, but allowed the young girls to be kept for later raping.
I have had some Christians proclaim that these Midianite girls were not taken for raping but marriage. How ridiculous! If you continue further in the scripture you will find that marriage to a Midianite was a crime against God. A man named Zimri, broke the law and married a Midianite woman this angered God so he sent a plague among the Hebrews. Fortunately, a zealous son of Israel speared Zimri right through the genitals, and the plague went away. So now I ask you, if you could not marry a Midianite, just what were these “virgin woman who were to help multiply” good for?
I don’t think the first-born in Egypt during the captivity would have agreed with the verdict of compassion and mercy either. (Exodus 11:5 & 12:29) First of all, Jehovah is the one who purposely hardened the heart of the Pharaoh so that he would not let Moses and the Jews go. God messed with someone’s free will. God could have even ported the Jews out of captivity without bloodshed, or put the Egyptians to sleep while they left, but no. God decided to set up a situation in which he knew he would have to punish the Pharaoh. Though this he didn’t even do. He punished the children instead. Judging from God’s previous actions, killing innocent children is much more his forte.
Lastly, please attempt to read the entire book of Joshua some evening. It is a long sequence of atrocities. I have not given all these quotes for space reasons. I urge you to look them up for yourself. Especially for Christians who are not familiar with the bible. It will leave you not only shocked and in question of just what you are worshiping, but it will give a new definition to all morality you claimed was a derivative of God. If by some chance you read Joshua and you are still compliant with the loving notion of God, I suggest you re- evaluate your code of ethics.
Here is the place I will now speak of common rationalizations used for this slaughter. I have discovered via my discussions that there are two major forms: the corruption argument and the mercy argument. The former says that those slaughtered were evil and deserving of their fate; the latter says that since they were religiously incorrect, it was a mercy to terminate their existence.
The corruption argument simply does not hold up. The people slaughtered in the Old Testament were almost uniformly blameless (with a few exceptions, of course for instance, the Sodomites violated the conventions of hospitality.) Usually, no justification is offered beyond the fact that since they were of another tribe, it was OK to kill them. It goes without saying that the hordes of slaughtered children were innocent. (*Quick tip-If God was anti-abortion he wouldn’t have ordered the murder of pregnant women and young children.)
As to the mercy argument: If I don’t claim to be suffering, and don’t ask to die, neither you nor any god has the right to decide that you know better. (This would of course be a violation of my free will.) If a person tried to do this to me, I would quite frankly attempt to kill him; if a god tried, well, the only weapon I would have would be withholding my worship. Are you beginning to see why I do not comply with the worship of the Christian God?
Most of us, given omnipotence, would be able to do a far better job than Jehovah. What would you do if given omnipotence? If your answer is anything other than “abolish world hunger, disease or save the earth”, there’s something more than a little skewed in your perception of mankind. There is no question that the very balance of life is in peril. To wish for these things doesn’t’t take “infinite mercy”, just normal compassion and a bit of common sense. God’s supposed infinite mercy is apparently the same thing as no mercy at all.
What makes this particularly unforgivable is that even Jesus’ own standards demand feeding of the poor. See Matthew 25:35, in which it is stated that the blessed feed the hungry, and that the damned do not. I find it funny that God is held blameless, though, for not feeding them. Does not the old saying “practice what you preach” apply to God? Is his lack of action, an hypocrisy or a sin? Could it perhaps be both?
Usually, when I bring this up in a discussion, someone says, “No. It is the evil of men that is to blame; they have lots of money and keep it to themselves rather than feeding the poor.” (Funny thing that the Christians who say this are usually conservative.) This argument uses a double standard. Men are held guilty for not feeding the poor, while God is held innocent for doing exactly the same. In fact, it would be far easier for God to feed all the poor with his omnipotence, than for any mortal man to feed even one! Mankind is certainly not blameless here, but it is Jehovah who is the true villain.
Another popular rationalization is that life without “challenges” would be boring and dehumanizing, so God does not remove them. The fallacy here is grouping all challenges together. I personally lead a very challenging and satisfying life, but I have not lately had to flee any volcano’s or earthquakes, go without food for a week, or suffer the ravages of some disease. I would be quite happy, in fact, if I never do have to face such challenges as those. There is plenty of room for amelioration of the human condition without making it dull. Does it not defeat the purpose of living life if you are to starve to death?
Faith Is Required To Know God:
Suppose you were an omnipotent god, and you demand worship, such as the Christian God. Would you give proof of your existence to those who wished to follow you? I imagine for Jehovah that it would be quite simple to perform a continual sequence of verifiable miracles. It would be quite logical in practice too, for it would keep God’s followers from delusion and doubt. There is no such luck with Jehovah though. He demands absolute fidelity without any demonstration of his existence. The only so-called record of his existence is the bible. I think it pretty much goes with out saying that not only is the bible 2,000 years out dated, but it is also very unoriginal. Any Christian who proposes that the bible is indeed evidence for God’s existence is proposing a double standard. For there are many books which claim to be actual accounts of a higher power. With this in mind, why not believe in Allah from the Koran? Could it be because your faith is what determines your belief and not your so-called “factual” book?
Let’s examine what faith is. The definition of faith is hope for a circumstance or thing that is not proven to be true. {NOT TRUE AT ALL} There is no virtue in accepting something on faith, since it may very well be false, and it is clearly not virtuous to believe the false. Faith has also been proven throughout history, time and again, that it is equivalent to massive hysteria; IE: Crusades, Burning Times, Inquisitions, Holy Wars, etc. On a grand scale faith, thus far, has only proven to be an intellectual weakness, and a significant barrier to scientific and moral progress. With all of this in mind, how can God possibly expect us to view faith as the greatest way to glorify him, let alone demand this of us?
Most importantly, the point to remember here is that if we don’t believe in him, we go to Hell, and this is a greater evil than a lack of the “virtue” of faith or a stunting of science, or anything else conceivable. If God is truly concerned about the good, he will do what he can to keep us from Hell, and withholding vital information from us is the exact opposite of this.
God Is The Creator Of Evil:
I am frustrated at two specific verses in the bible, which applies to this particular topic. The first is the biblical statement that “God is the Alpha and the Omega”. Loosely defined it means the beginning and the end, the all-knowing. Which of course implies that all of his actions and the results are fore-known to him. I have a real problem with this notion. For if God was to know ahead of time that someday he would send me to hell for being an Atheist, I ask what was the purpose in him creating me in the first place? Was it simply to watch me be tortured? That seems to be the most logical explanation. I can think of no other rational explanation, nor neither has any Christian who I posed this question to. Some people have attempted to tell me that God has a purpose unknown to us, and that we must simply accept his will. Would you keep a friend who commits evil and offers no self-justification or remorse? Of course not, so why is this same judgment not applied to God? It’s seems rather contradictory that this trait is despised in humanity, yet, it is worshiped in religion.
Secondly, I want to reinforce the fact that God is indeed the creator of evil. Please read Isaiah 45:7. “I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things”. The Christian God outright claims that he is indeed the source of evil. So how can he then claim to be sinless?
To be more specific, let’s talk about the lord’s creation of evil, let’s talk about the conception of Satan. This being was created and unleashed by God. Jehovah knew (for he is the all knowing) that at the time of Lucifer’s creation he would eventually become Satan, and spend his existence reeking havoc on man kind. Leading people into criminal activities. Suppose I were to build an evil robot, that I knew would go around torturing and murdering people. Whose fault would it be if I let it loose? Mine or the robot’s? Of course it would be mine, for I created it with that purpose and unleashed it for that purpose. Now I ask you, whose fault is deviltry in the world? Is it the PUPPET Satan or the being that deliberately created Satan’s evil?
Now God Plays Switch-A-Roo And Humans Are The Creators Of Evil Not only does the bible imply, but so do many Christians, that we as people are the creator of evil. It is clear for reading the bible that this is untrue, but the speculation still remains. Supposedly, when Adam and Eve fell from grace, they single-handedly brought evil into the world. All you have to do is think logically for a moment, and you will obviously see something is very unjust with this concept. Could any rational being hold a starving infant in Ethiopia responsible for the actions of two long dead people? Or perhaps, would you find it fair to be convicted of Jack the Ripper’s crimes? The connection in both of these instances are not only ludicrous but, disgusting to nod your head at. People who use this argument are simply attempting to rationalize sadism.
I must declare that a Christian that walks into a children’s ward and insists that it is correct that children suffer as a result of the original sin, must destroy themselves of all compassion and mercy. I insist that those who worship the lord knowing this hypocrisy must be as cruel as the Christian God he/she believes in. A complete and utter moral degenerate, taking stabs at protecting their belief system. A person as such would just as easily worship Satan as God in their blindness and faith. For apparently, no amount of evidence could convince him that God was bad once they decided to worship him; their basic assumption is that they are correct, which makes them untouchable by any amount of rationality.
Human Judgment
One of the criticisms most frequently leveled at me when presenting any of the above arguments has been that I have no right to judge God. A pretty feeble grasp at the straws. Christians proclaim that God is the definition of good. All morality proceeds downward from him, so it makes no sense to apply moral standards to him. But I must interject. God allowed my ancestors Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Thus, allowing us “to be like gods, and know the difference between good and evil”. This very biblical verse, written in the first book of Genesis, conflicts with the same argument these Christians attempt to use. If we as humans are now capable of knowing good and evil LIKE THE GODS why can’t we use our judgment? How can it be lower than God’s if God is the one who claimed that we are like him?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that I should not judge God. Well then, would it be fair to hold him up to his own standards? Please consult Matthew 25:41-46 We hear Jesus say: “Go away from me with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you never gave me food; I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to drink; I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, naked and you never clothed me, sick and in prison and you never visited me. . . And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the virtuous to eternal life.”
Now, I have never personally seen Jesus feed the hungry nor, have I seen him give drink to those who thirst. But, I do personally see thousands of people die of starvation. I do not recall Jesus dispensing clothes. He has never made me feel welcome, let alone acknowledged. I see the faithful sicken and die on a daily basis. In light of this Jesus himself is the worst of all sinners; if there is no double standard he will be at the head of the line into eternal punishment. He is guilty of every crime of which he accuses the damned.
In Conclusion
I don’t think I could ever complete a whole list as to what I find objectionable regarding the bible. There are many more topics in which to tackle such as sexism, infanticide, homophobia, and the likes. Frankly, I find it too tiresome to go on any further. As I read over all that I have written. I simply wish to close this essay with a very brief summation: I do not believe in the reality of God, except as a psychological phenomenon, but if I did believe I would not worship that horror. It violates my morality to worship an hypocritical, judgmental, self-righteous murderer. In punishment, it could send me to the hell it’s made for those it dislikes, and if there was no other choice but worshiping it, I would walk in proudly.”
That may have been PAINFUL to hear & read, but TRUST ME: To go on through life ignoring HER HEART CRY FOR REAL ANSWERS would be a travesty of Justice unequaled by any Atheist, now I know that she may not ever come to believe it, but that’s in GOD’S HANDS NOT OURS!
  Please read MY responses to this letter in upcoming blogs! 

Popular Posts

About Me

My photo

Before you look at the links below know this about me, I do not know everything about anything, I know only what God has revealed to me.

Proving God exists CANNOT be done for the person who is not open to hearing and seeing the evidence as God sees it. Faith is the KEY to releasing all the evidence contained in creation, in man's heart and his mind. Without FAITH no one can ever please God so to throw away faith as unimportant destroys our receptivity to the evidence!

I was a hypocrite, a sinner and a fool, sometimes even as a believer but as long as God is in control I'm forgiven and healed of every form of human shortcoming. Nothing can stand before the evidence contained in Faith.....NOTHING!

Overall rating

It Stands Unrefuted by Scientists ANYWHERE!

The following reports are in one of three formats. To view the ones in PDF format, use
Adobe Acrobat Reader. To view the ones in RTF format, you may use MS Word.

Reports Dealing with Radiohalos

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1968. "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos." Science 160, 1228. HTML PDF
  2. Gentry, R.V. 1970. "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?" Science 169, 670. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R.V. 1971. "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727. PDF
  4. Gentry, R.V. 1973. "Radioactive Halos." Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347. PDF
  5. Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62. HTML PDF
  6. Gentry, R.V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin's Comments on "Spectacle Halos." Nature 258, 269.
  7. Gentry, R.V. 1977. "Mystery of the Radiohalos." Research Communications NETWORK, Breakthrough Report, February 10, 1977. HTML PDF
  8. Gentry, R.V. 1978a. "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press. PDF
  9. Gentry, R.V. 1978b. "Implications on Unknown Radioactivity of Giant and Dwarf Haloes in Scandinavian Rocks." Nature 274, 457. HTML PDF
  10. Gentry, R.V. 1978c. "Reinvestigation of the α Activity of Conway Granite." Nature 273, 217. HTML PDF
  11. Gentry, R.V. 1979. "Time: Measured Responses." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 60, 474. PDF RTF
  12. Gentry, R.V. 1980. "Polonium Halos." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 61, 514. HTML PDF
  13. Gentry, R.V. 1982. Letters. Physics Today 35, No. 10, 13.
  14. Gentry, R.V. 1983a. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 4, 3.
  15. Gentry, R.V. 1983b. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 11, 124.
  16. Gentry, R.V. 1984a. "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38. HTML PDF
  17. Gentry, R.V. 1984c. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 4, 108.
  18. Gentry, R.V. 1984d. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 12, 92.
  19. Gentry, R.V. 1987a. "Radioactive Halos: Implications for Creation." Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, 89. HTML
  20. Gentry, R.V. 1998. "Fingerprints of Creation." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12, 287. HTML
  21. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1973. "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos." Nature 244, 282. HTML PDF
  22. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. "'Spectacle' Array of Po-210 Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma." Nature 252, 564. HTML PDF
  23. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976a. "Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification." Science 194, 315. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Helium and Lead Retention in Zircons

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1984b. "Lead Retention in Zircons" (Technical Comment). Science 223, 835.
  2. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982a. "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Science 216, 296. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982b. "Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Geophysical Research Letters 9, 1129. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Astronomy and Cosmology

  1. Gentry, R. V. 1997. "A New Redshift Interpretation." Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 12, No. 37, 2919. (This paper was also posted in 1998 on the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: astro-ph/9806280.) HTML PDF
  2. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: gr-gc/9806061. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The New Redshift Interpretation Affirmed." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/9810051. HTML PDF
  4. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology Points to the New Cosmic Center Universe Model." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-021. HTML PDF
  5. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "New Cosmic Center Universe Model Matches Eight of Big Bang's Major Predictions Without the F-L Paradigm." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-022. PDF
  6. Gentry, R. V. 2004. "Collapse of Big Bang Cosmology and the Emergence of the New Cosmic Center Model of the Universe." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, 4. HTML PDF

The first three astronomy and cosmology papers may also be obtained by going to the the web sites of either Los Alamos National Laboratory or is currently adminstered by Cornell University.

NOTE: For more information about the Big Bang's fatal flaws and "The Great 21st Century Scientific Watergate," please check out our sister site,

1987 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

  • Our open letter of March 24, 1987, to Dr. Frank Press, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Press claimed that "evidence for creationism" has been scientifically invalidated, though he well knew this has not been the case for the polonium-halo evidence. Our letter once again requests him and other evolutionists to publicly explain how the polonium-halo evidence for creation has indeed been invalidated, this time on April 13 at the University of Tennessee. We suggest that Dr. Stephen Gould be the first one to speak on behalf of the academy, given his strong language denouncing the term, "creation science." HTML GIF

  • Our Knoxville Sentinel ad on April 12, 1987, announcing our presentation on the evening of the 13th at the University of Tennessee. Included in the ad was a copy of the above open letter to Dr. Press. HTML GIF

  • A press release from the Society for Creation Science, announcing the reading of Dr. Press's written reply that evening, April 13, 1987, at the University of Tennessee. HTML GIF

Year 2000 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
  • Our letter of March 22, 2000, to Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Alberts claimed that evidence for special creation has been experimentally falsified.

  • This letter requests the Academy to publicly explain at Wichita State University on March 30, 2000, why it has chosen to reject the published evidence for the Genesis creation, evidence which after more than twenty-five years still stands unrefuted in the open scientific literature. HTML

Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood?

Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature?

Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?

Watch a real debate about God right here!

Professors Richard Dawkins and John Lennox go head-to-head once again for another remarkable match of intellect.
This time, the same two Oxford Professors who debated in Birmingham's 'God Delusion' Debate are at it again on their home turf at the site of the famed 1860 Evolution debate between Huxley and Wilberforce.