Tough Questions Blog: 2009

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Moving Tough Questions Blog away from Blogger

This blog was originally designed to be a mirror for my YouTube channel. However, blogs are easier and faster to update than YouTube... and since my time is limited, I have decided to spend more time updating the blog.

Part of this change means I will be moving the blog from blogger.com to it's own hosting account.

The blog can now be found at: http://www.toughquestionsblog.com

Check out the new look, and let me know what you think.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Morals separate us from the animals...

According to common Christian dogma, humans are the only creatures God created with morals. Morality is supposedly proof that we were created in "God's image."

This video shows that altruistic behavior is not limited to the human species. This video was taken by a traffic camera, it shows a dog risking it's own life in order to rescue another dog that had been hit by a truck.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Bill O'Reilly thinks it's "fascist" to teach science in science class.

Bill O'Reilly is a huge fan of the "God of the Gaps." His entire argument consists of saying that science doesn't know everything, so until it does he is justified in making stuff up.

Oh, and he thinks it's "fascist" to limit science class to teaching SCIENCE! Heck Bill, maybe you're right. Maybe we should be teaching the kids how to read tarot cards, and show them how to balance their chokras too.

If we're going to teach that unverified claims are as good as evidence based, peer-reviewed, scientific theory, then why bother teaching the scientific method at all?

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Intelligent Christianity Part 7/7: The Impossible Law

I was invited to be interviewed on the Podcast, Intelligent Christianity. This is the audio from that podcast. If youd like to listen to more episodes, you can find the show on iTunes, here: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=319215885

Intelligent Christianity, Part 6/7: Genesis and Genocide

Intelligent Christianity, Part 5/7: Women's Rights and sins

Intelligent Christianity, Part 4/7: Woman's Rights

Intelligent Christianity, Part 3/7: Josephus and the Talmud

Intelligent Christianity, Part 2/7: Herod vs Quirinius

Intelligent Christianity, Part 1/7: Introductions

Monday, June 8, 2009

Bible Quiz

1.Which magic object is NOT found in the Bible?
• A crown that reveals the future
• A bottomless barrel of flour
• A never-ending jug of oil
• Magic dice that reveal the will of God

2. Which spell does NOT appear in the Bible?
• A spell that creates water to remove “uncleanliness”
• A spell to induce an abortion if your wife got pregnant from another man
• A spell to cause your enemies to go blind
• A spell to cure leprosy

3. Who was Melchizedek’s father?
• Adam
• Noah
• Abraham
• Eliakim
• None of the Above

4. Which action is NOT prohibited by the Bible?
• Murder
• Sex with Children
• Christmas trees
• Wearing Blended Fabrics
• Stealing
• Worshipping any other God

5. Which of these foods does the Bible PERMIT you to eat?
• Beetles
• Pork
• Lobster
• Rabbit

6. When discussing the 10 commandments, what is the 10th commandment?

7. What reason did God give for tormenting Job?
• Job was a sinner, he deserved it
• God didn’t torment Job, Satan did it.
• Satan dared me, so I destroyed Job for no reason at all.
• To test his faith
• To see how much he could take before breaking

8. Which advice is NOT from Jesus?
• If you lose a law suit, pay double the fin
• Beat your uncooperative slaves, but not more than they deserve
• Leave your family
• Stay single unless you can’t control your sexual urges.
• Become poor.

Watch the video for the answers.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Wacky Bible Stories 4

Most people who are even remotely familiar with the Bible have heard the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, but they may not be familiar with the WHOLE story.

According to the Bible, Lot (the hero of the story, and the only person God considered good enough to save from destruction) offers his "virgin" daughters to a mob of angry men to do with as they please.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah would've included a 3rd city if Lot and his family would've been able to reach the mountains a little faster.

Lot's wife was killed by God for the "sin" of looking the wrong direction.

Lot was "date-raped" by his daughters.

As you watch the video, remember: this is supposedly the book we're supposed to use to get our morals. Is Lot really a moral character? Is God? If God had the ability to arbitrarily turn people into salt, why did he bother sending fire and brimstone? Why not simply turn everyone into salt?

Friday, March 27, 2009

Tough Questions for Christians 36: Collateral Damage

Why is God repeatedly punishing people for decisions they didn't make, and actions they had no part of? You'd think a "perfect" being would be able to direct his wrath more accurately -- without all the collateral damage.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

God Exists.

I can't tell you how often I hear "proofs" like the one above. I exist, therefore it proves God exists... I'm afraid it's just not that easy. We know how I came to exist, I have parents - they had sex. They also came from the union of sexually active people.

However, that's not what believers are referring to when they make such a claim. They know how you and I came into existence, they don't know how life started in the first place.

Abiogenesis, life from non-life. How did it happen? Theists answer by simply saying "God did it." (Which doesn't answer the question. It is an attempt to explain WHO did it, but the answer still doesn't explain HOW it happened.) Skeptics like myself simply admit the truth - I don't know.

Why are theists so uncomfortable with "I don't know?" Why are those words so difficult for them to say -- oh, but they're not. When you start asking difficult questions about God, the theist will quickly admit their ignorance, and even claim that it's impossible to understand God.

Why the double standard?

Why is it okay to admit you don't know why God would create a system by which the only way to pay for sin was to kill something that was innocent of the crime it's being killed for... but it's not okay for scientists to admit they don't (yet) know how life came from non-life?

Eventually scientists may be able to answer the question of abiogenesis -- although "true believers" will deny it like they deny evolution -- until that time, I'm comfortable with my ignorance.

If a theist believes God created life from non-life, please provide a detailed explanation of HOW he changed dead matter into living organisms, and... if it's not to much to ask... please provide a method we can use to test your hypothesis.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Wacky Bible Stories 3

I'm sorry it's been so long since I've put up a new video, I've had a lot going on. My daughter turned one, I got a promotion at work (so I've got a bit more of a work load), and, I had a vacation.

So, I've had a lot going on that has kept me away from You Tube. For those of you who enjoy my videos, I apologize. I am still here, I am still making videos. Rest assured, the Wacky Bible Stories as well as the other series I have are going to continue. In fact, I'm going to start another Wacky Bible Story right now.

1 Samuel, Chapter 5.

Now, when this chapter starts out, the Ark of the Covenant has been stolen. (For those of you who don't know what the Ark of the Covenant is, it's that box that Indiana Jones was looking for in Raiders of the Lost Ark.)

Well apparently it was stolen. The Philistines captured it and took it to a city called Ashdod.

Now when they carried the ark in, they put it into Dagon's temple and put it right next to a statue of their God, Dagon.

The next day, the statue had fallen over... Wow.

So they stood it back up again. And it fell over again the next day. And this time his hands were broken off and his head was broken off. (Clearly this is a very powerful God, he can tip over a statue and make it break.)

The Lord's wrath didn't stop with just breaking a statue, no. The Lord's hand was heavy with the people of Ashdod. He killed lots of them, and afflicted the survivors with... hemorrhoids!

Some translations say "tumors," or "tumors of the groin"

That's right, the Lord's wrath is inflamed and itchy – and about the size of a small grape.

When the men of Ashdod saw what was happening, they said, "The ark of the god of Israel must not stay here with us, because his hand is heavy upon us and upon our god Dagon."

So they called together all the rulers of the Philistines and asked them, "What shall we do with this box?"

The Philistines said: “Move it to Gath.”

So they did.

But after they moved it, the LORD's hand was against that city! And the people of Gath were destroyed and injured and those who were still alive, both old and young, were afflicted with hemorrhoids!

So they moved the Ark as well, they moved it to Ekron.

The people of Ekron called together the Philistines rulers and said, "Hey we don't want it. How do we get rid of this thing?” For they to had death and panic fill the city, and everyone who wasn't dead had hemorrhoids!

When the ark of the LORD had been in Philistine territory seven months, they called for the priests and the diviners and said, "What shall we do with this thing, how can we send it back?”

The priest answered, "If you return the ark, do not send it away empty. Make 5 golden rats, and 5 golden hemorrhoids… that’s right, 5 golden hemorrhoids. Make models of the rats that are destroying the country, and of the hemorrhoids that are destroying your ass. Maybe that will solve the problem.”

“Then, get a brand new cart, take two cows that have calves, the cows can’t have ever been yolked. Hitch the cows to the cart. Then you take the ark, put it on the cart, and put the golden rats and hemorrhoids in a chest next to it. Then send the cart on its way, but keep watching it. If it goes up to Beth Shemesh, then the LORD has brought this great disaster on us. But if it goes in anywhere else, then this was obviously just a miscommunication - a misunderstanding – accompanied by massive municipal destruction and an epidemic of ass-sores.

So they took two cows, took away the baby cows and hitched the momma's to the cart. And placed the ark on the cart along with the chest containing the gold rats and golden hemmorrhoids... and they sent it on it's way.

Of course it went straight to Beth Shemesh.

The rulers of the Philistines followed the ark all the way to Beth Shemesh.

When the ark made it to Beth Shemesh, the people rejoiced. They chopped up the wood of the cart, then killed the cows and burnt them as a burnt offering to the Lord.

God then immediately slayed 50,070 of them because a couple of them peeked into the ark.

This is PROOF that those Israelites in Beth Shemesh were God's chosen people. Because, although 50,000 of them were slaughtered, God didn't give any of them hemorrhoids. He left their ass completely affliction free! Proof that God loves them more than the Philistines.

The people of Beth Shemesh mourned because of the heavy blow the Lord had dealt them, and the men of Beth Shemesh asked, "Who would want this thing, where can we send it?"

(Even they didn't want God's Box, and they were the Israelites.)

So they sent messengers to the people of Kiriath Jearim, saying, "Hey, um, the Philistines have returned the ark of the Lord. Come down and take it up to your place." (Notice they didn't mention anything about the 50,000 people that had just been killed).

So the men of Kiriath Jearim came and took up the ark of the LORD. They took it to Abinadab's house upon the hill outside the city and had his son, Eleazar, guard it.

And the rest is for a story on a different day. I don't even think that story needs a recap.

Thanks again, enjoy the videos.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Wacky Bible Stories 2

This is the second in my series of funny stories taken directly from "The Good Book"

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Wacky Bible Stories 1

Tough Questions for Christians #35: The "Ultimate" Sacrifice

Image by six steps  via Flickr

There was a man about 2000 years ago. He lived his life, he ended up being captured by the Romans. He was put through an assembly line of torture. He was beaten, he was whipped, and in the end he was nailed to a cross and hung there until he died.

Once he died, he descended to Hell where he suffered the ultimate punishment - complete and utter separation from God.

No, not Jesus. I'm not talking about him. He was only in Hell for about 3 days - kind of a long weekend - he went there on Friday and came back on Sunday morning. I'm talking about the guy right next to him.

The thief who didn't accept Jesus just seconds before he died.

He went through the exact same beating that Jesus did, he went through either right before or right after Jesus. The same guards whipping him with the same whip. Then being marched down the same street carrying the same sort of cross. He was nailed to the cross the exact same way Jesus was, and when he died he descended to Hell - presumably the same way Jesus did. (For those of you who believe Jesus went to Hell during his little vacation.)

While in Hell - since Hell is complete and utter separation from God - he suffered the same way Jesus did. But for some reason he goes completely ignored. His suffering was the same - actually his suffering than Jesus because he's still there.

If the story is true, he's been in Hell suffering the same emotional, physical, and spiritual torture for almost 2000 years. Jesus was there for a day and a half.

In what way was Jesus' trip to Hell and his death the "ultimate" sacrifice, when the guy right next to him went through the exact same beating and has been spending far more time in eternal torture? How is his sacrifice any less than Jesus'?

TOUGH QUESTION #35
HOW CAN JESUS' DEATH BE CONSIDERED THE "ULTIMATE" SACRIFICE WHEN OTHERS HAVE SUFFERED AS MUCH OR MORE THAN HE DID?

Poor Apologetics 4: You Were Never Christian

Image via Wikipedia

The Theist's Argument:

One of the most common criticisms I hear, not really an argument for the existence of God, but a reason to ignore anything I have to say, is the argument that I was never a Christian.

Why They Use This Argument: (What they believe)

The reason Christians find this compelling is because they say: "If you were a Christian, then the evidence of God entering your heart would have been so undeniable that you could never become atheist. You just simply couldn't do it."

I hear that all the time. And, I'm not surprised because I actually used that argument a lot back when I was a Christian, back when I was debating against atheists and against Christians from other denominations.

I would say: "Well, obviously you were never a REAL Christian otherwise you wouldn't have a problem with this." or "You would've known the answer to that." or whatever the argument happens to be.

The Rebuttal:

But it really is a bad argument. It says a couple of things. First it says that once you become a Christian you basically lose your freewill, because once you're a Christian you no longer have the ability to change your mind. You can't just say: "I no longer believe that." or "I found new evidence for that."

And - since Christians believe that freewill is really important - I don't think using an argument that completely eradicates your freewill is really the best one to use.

The fact of the matter is, to any Christians out here watching these videos, there is nothing anyone could say to you to prove that they were at one point really a Christian (or that they are now REALLY a Christian). The reason for that is, as soon as someone stops being a Christian, you immediately claim they never were one to begin with. And if YOU stop being a Christian, people will say the same thing about you.

I actually know many people who stayed in church and pretended to be believers, for years after they stopped believing, because they knew the moment they actually came out and admitted that they didn't believe the story, people would back-date their opinions all the way back to the first day they ever met them, and would claim that they were lying, and just never really were being honest.

Fact is, it doesn't matter how well you believe what you believe now or how sure you are, if you ever do change your mind, your fellow Christians around you are going to claim you never really did believe what you currently believe.

But the worst thing about this argument is: It doesn't make a difference!

The questions I asked don't make any more sense if I never believed, or any less sense if I did. They're questions showing problems within the Christian theology and the Christian faith. Yeah, they're meant to be hard, that's why the series is called "Tough Questions for Christians." They don't get any easier just because I do or don't believe them, or I used to believe, or used to not believe them. It doesn't make a difference.

The questions stand regardless of what my religion is or ever was. That's why that is another example of a very poor apologetic.

THE PROBLEMS IN YOUR RELIGION DON'T GO AWAY JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK I USED TO BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS YOU DO, AND HAVE EXPERIENCED THE SAME THINGS YOU HAVE.

Tough Questions for Christians # 34: Re-Enforcing False Beliefs

Image via Wikipedia

This question was submitted by Ticobassie, it's a very good question.

Imagine a Muslim couple, they have been unable to get children for a couple of years now. They’ve been praying to Allah to get it sorted and they even sacrificed an extra sheep last year. Family members and people in the mosque have also prayed to Allah but to no avail. Then, one day the woman gets pregnant and a healthy baby is born 9 months later. No doubt there will be many thankful prayers to Allah (and perhaps a few more slaughtered sheep).

To the Muslim, from their perspective, Allah did listen to the prayers, and he answered them.

Given the characteristics attributed to God, that God is in control of everything, how should a Christian view this event? Since Allah doesn't exist ,it wasn’t Allah who had a hand in it. It wasn't him who actually granted the pregnancy.

So Gods decision to finally bless the couple with a baby is keeping the poor Muslims on the wrong track by fueling their delusions, making them think Allah actually answered the prayer and granted them their desires. In doing so he amplifies their belief in the wrong religion, making it more likely they will end up in hell.

So why is it that God will allow things to happen that will re-enforce peoples faith in the false God, and make them more likely to go to Hell?

TOUGH QUESTIONS FOR CHRISTIANS #34
WHY DOES GOD ALLOW EVENTS TO TAKE PLACE THAT RE-ENFORCE BELIEFS IN FALSE GODS?

Tough Questions for Muslims #1: Where the Sun Sets

Image via Wikipedia

As promised, here is the first in the Tough Questions for Muslims series. I've had some mixed reviews about this... Some Christians originally claimed that the fact I was only addressing Christianity proved it was true. Now that I'm addressing Islam as well... well... that argument kind of goes out the window. Unless you're willing to admit that Islam is equally as possible as Christianity.

The Muslims who heard I was going to start this series... I've gotten two different types of reactions. Some Muslims have been excited, because they wanted to have a chance to defend their faith and prove that their religion is in fact the true religion. Others have warned me against inciting Allah's wrath, and warned that he may attack my family or cause bad things to happen because I'm... disrespecting him I guess. (Who knew that asking questions could piss off God?)

So to start, most of the Islamic apologists focus on what they consider "scientific truths" in the Koran, where as most Christian apologists focus on "prophetic truths."

The first Tough Question for Muslims is regarding the most obvious scientific error in the Koran. Before I get to that particular verse, let me paraphrase it with a story. What I want you to do is pay attention to the imagery of the story and tell me what you visualize. What image do you get in your mind from hearing the story?

Let me tell you a story about Jack Smith. Jack Smith followed a road until he reached the sitting place of the giant goats. There he found a giant goat sitting in a rocking chair, and there were people gathered all around.

The end.

Easy enough, right? Short little story. Now what do you visualize?

My guess is you picture Jack following a road then he comes to a place where there are giant goats. In that particular location, he finds one giant goat sitting in a rocking chair with people gathered around that rocking chair. Would that be a fair assumption? My guess is, yes. For most people that probably exactly what they're going to hear, or what they're going to visualize.

So why did I tell that story?

Well, Muslims will probably recognize that as a paraphrase of 18:83-86. The story of (and I'm going to say the name really bad, so I apologize), the story of Dhu'l-Qarneyn (I believe that's how you say that).

They will ask thee of Dhu'l-Qarneyn. Say: I shall recite unto you a remembrance of him.
Lo! We made him strong in the land and gave him unto every thing a road. And he followed a road
Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout...
(18:83-86)

The verses are Allah talking about Dhu'l, and he says he followed a road until he reached the setting place of the sun. And there he found the sun setting in a muddy spring, and there were people gathered all about.

Again, the visual that I get from reading those verses is that the man follows a road until he reaches the place, on the earth, where the sun physically sets... and there were people gathered all about, and he watches the sun set in this muddy spring, right there, into the earth.

Obviously, that is completely and utterly scientifically false. We know that know. There is not a location on the planet where the sun sets. Not one. The planet is several million miles away from the sun, and the sun is always going to appear to be very far off on the horizon.

When I have brought this up to Muslims before they have an apologetic response, as would be expected. They say when it says he "reached the setting-place of the sun," he didn't really reach the "setting-place of the sun," he just reached a place where he could see the sun set... which is pretty much anywhere on the planet, so he didn't reach any location at all. (Makes you wonder where he was following the road to.)

And when he "found (the sun) setting in a muddy spring," it's just that's the way it appeared from way back where he was standing looking at the sun way out on the horizon. And they also claim that when it says he "found a people thereabout," it meant there were people thereabout THAT location (where Dhu'l watched the sun setting), not the actual setting-place where the sun was setting.

So in other words, the verse means absolutely NONE of what it says. When it says he followed a road to the setting place of the sun, it means he followed a road to anywhere on the planet, no particular location. And when he found the sun setting in a muddy spring, it means he didn't find the sun setting in a muddy spring at all, and when people where gathered thereabout, it means people were gathered about him, not about the sun.

I've read the verses over and over and over again, trying to find some sort of a way you can interpret it that way, but I don't see it. This is not taken from that particular person's viewpoint (Dhu'l-Qarneyn), it's Allah speaking from a third-person perspective.

So, my question for you, Muslims, is: In light of this particular verse (or several verses) that describe the physical location where the sun sets on the planet, can you please tell me where this location is?

TOUGH QUESTIONS FOR MUSLIMS #1
WHERE IS THE MUDDY SPRING WHERE THE SUN SETS?

If you can show me the muddy spring where the sun sets, I will convert to Islam immediately.

Tough Questions for Christians #33: Christianity is an Abomination

Image via Wikipedia

The entire Christian faith rests on one, kinda strange, idea. The idea is that in order for God to justify allowing wicked people into Heaven, he needed to condemn a righteous man. Since no humans were righteous, he needed to send himself down in the form of a human so he could condemn himself in order to forgive the rest of us.

Their idea of "justice" is basically that it doesn't matter who gets punished for the crime, as long as someone gets punished for the crime. (Only an innocent person can be punished for someone else's crimes) It's kind of an interesting concept, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If our modern courts used that, we'd just grab any person off the street and sentence them for the crimes that were unsolved -- then consider them solved from that point on.

Obviously, we don't do that. Apparently our form of "justice" is a little bit different than God's.

But the whole idea behind Christian "justice" doesn't really sit well with me.

The idea is that God's plan has been his for the entire time. That was his plan from the beginning when Adam and Eve came down, and as soon as they sinned his plan was to condemn himself in the form of an innocent man in order to justify all the wicked people.

I don't know, it just doesn't sit well with me.

If you have a Bible, I want you to open it up. One of my favorite books when I was a Christian was Proverbs. There's a lot of good stuff in Proverbs. In my good ol' study Bible, I've got a lot of different things highlighted in here.

A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
Proverbs 15:1

Here is a good one for people who start typing their comments in before they're finished watching my video.

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
Proverbs 18:13

In other words, listen to the question before you start giving an answer.

There is one particular verse here in Proverbs that I wanted to call some attention to. It kinda gets rid of the entire Christian concept in one line. It's Proverbs 17:15, here it is in the King James Version:

He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.
Proverbs 17:15

In other words, a person who lets a guilty man go free, while punishing an innocent person, both cases are abominations.

But... supposedly that's God's whole plan. The only way he can justify the wicked (let sinners into Heaven), is by condemning the just (punishing Jesus). But such a plan is an abomination.

How can the Christian concept of God sentencing an innocent person to pay for the crimes of the wicked people in order to forgive the wicked people be resolved with the verse right here that says doing that exact thing is an abomination?

Tough Question for Christians # 33:
HOW CAN PUNISHING AN INNOCENT PERSON (JESUS), SO GUILTY CHRISTIANS CAN GO UNPUNISHED, BE "JUST" WHEN PROVERBS 17:15 SAYS THAT WOULD BE AN ABOMINATION TO GOD?

Just in case you think the verse was mistranslated, here is the same verse in four other English translations:

Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the LORD detests them both. (NIV)

He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD. (NAS)

Poor Apologetics 3: God is Just

Image via Wikipedia

The Theist's Argument:

Anyone who debates Christianity for very long is going to come across the subject of Hell. One of the most common arguments that you'll hear, from Christians, is that Hell is required in order for God to be just. Because a judge who let off guilty people would be a bad judge, and God isn't a bad judge.

As the merciful, wonderful, creator of the world, God is also "perfectly just;" so therefore he is required to punish evil doers and to reward righteousness.

Or at least that's the claim.

Why They Use This Argument: (What they believe)

That makes sense to Christians because we have people in this life who do bad things, we know that. And there are people who get away with it. That is just an unfortunate truth.

There are people who will do bad things in this life who will never get caught, and will never be punished while they're living for the things that they did.

To the Christian, the idea that God will punish them in the afterlife makes them feel a little bit better.

The Rebuttal:

But, you see... that idea doesn't really mesh with Christian theology. Because, the fact is, you could do horrible, horrible, nasty things in this life, accept Jesus on your deathbed, and just never be punished at all - not in this life or the next.

You can murder someone, you can rape someone, you could steal, all of which are completely forgivable if you just ask God nicely and believe the right story before you die.

Justice demands that the same crimes warrant the same punishment, regardless of who commits them.

Christians aren't punished for anything.
Non-Christians aren't forgiven for anything.

The only sin, the only crime, that can't be forgiven when you're dead - is the crime of not being Christian.

That's it.

If you are a Christian, and you believe in God, and you believe in Jesus, and you're in the right denomination -- whatever YOUR particular requirements happen to be for YOUR particular beliefs, if you meet those it doesn't matter what the Hell else you've done. You're going to be forgiven for everything.

However, if you fail to meet even one of those criteria, you will be held responsible for everything.

Which means the only thing that matters is if you're a Christian. (Replace the word "Christian" with "Muslim" and the argument against Allah being a "just God" is exactly the same.) That is the one, and only, sin that will get you sent to Hell -- Failure to Christian.

When God looks in the book of life it's going to be:

Are you a Christian?
Yes. - Good.
No. - Go to Hell.
Yes. - Good.
No. - Go to Hell.

That's it.

It doesn't matter if your worst crime was jaywalking once when you were twelve, or if you were a serial killer. The punishment is the same, the sentence is the same, because the sin - Not Being Christian - is the same.

The whole idea of "justice" can be thrown completely out the window. What this is, is a membership.

You go to church, you buy your way into the membership. You buy your way into Heaven. If you're not paid up on your dues, then when you die - you get sent to Hell. Just for being a non-member.

So you can stop using the "justice" argument, because justice has absolutely nothing to do with it.

If Christians are forgiven for everything, and non-Christians are not forgiven for anything, then salvation is determined by membership and has nothing to do with justice.

Punishing an innocent person so a guilty one can go free is NOT an example of justice.

Poor Apologetics 2: "Just in Case"

Image via Wikipedia

Poor Apologetics: Why Risk It?
The Theist's Argument:

I can't tell you how often I receive emails from people saying: "You're risking Hell! Not just for you, but for your daughter, you're going to send her to Hell to! Why risk it? Why risk it? Why worry about that? Go to Heaven!"

Why they use this argument (What they believe)

I need to believe in Jesus, just in case. Just to make sure I avoid Hell, because if I don't I'm going to be damned, and I'm going to damn the rest of my family at the same time.

The Rebuttal:

Now, the way the American court system works, or the way the jury system works, is basically - you're convicted or released based on the beliefs of the jury. (Or what the jury SAYS they believe.) If the jury believes the prosecutor, you're probably going to go to jail. If the jury believes the defense attorney, then you're probably going to be let off.

So the idea of both attorneys is to tell the story in such a convincing manner that it causes the jury to believe their version over the opposing versions being offered.

Imagine for just a moment that the defense attorney comes up to the jury and tells them all that if they find his client innocent, he will reward them and pay them all $1,000,000 each.

Some people can be easily bought, and some people will claim immediately that "Yes, the defendant is innocent." Other people will hold out because they are not that shallow. They believe in the court system, and they want to be true and honest to themselves.

Now, the people who accept the money and claim that the defendant is innocent - Do they really believe he's innocent, or are they just saying that to get the reward?

Answer is: Most likely they are just saying it to get the reward.

What if the defense attorney again came up to the jury, when he realized the bribe didn't work for everyone, and said: "If you find my client guilty, I will hunt you down and I will kill you. I will burn you alive and I will slaughter your children."

Well now some more people are going to claim that the defendant is indeed innocent because they don't want to risk the harm to themselves and their family.

You see, I'm one of the jurors who is sitting there saying: "I can't honestly believe that the defendant is innocent just because his attorney is offering to pay me off. I also can't honestly believe that he's innocent because the attorney is threatening me."

The threats and the bribes won't actually change my mind. They may change my actions. In reality, I wouldn't want harm to come to my family, so if I honestly thought that was a serious threat I would probably LIE and say that the person was innocent because I wouldn't harm to come to me or come to my family because of my decision.

But, even if I do lie, I'm not necessarily going to believe that the man is actually innocent, I'm not going to necessarily believe the claims of his attorney just because I'm being threatened and bribed at the same time.

The same can be said about God. For all you people who email me and tell me that: "I need to convert! I need to convert! I need to accept Jesus and just do it - just in case." That's like trying to be that attorney who's bribing me and threatening me simultaneously.

Either way you're not going to make me change my mind.

You need to actually submit a case and make an argument PROVING your God - and PROVING YOUR POINT.

You can't just threaten and bribe your way to victory... and too many people can't see that.

Before the rewards of Heaven or the punishments of Hell can be honestly considered, you must prove that the God responsible actually exists.

Tough Questions for Christians #32: Foreskin

This one is just kinda fun.

You ever see the movie Beatlejuice? In the afterlife everyone still looks like whatever event caused them to die. There is one guy I remember who is actually hanging by his coat jacket and he has a big tire print going across him, and he's pretty much pancaked - wafer thin. They drag him on a clothes line through a little thin hole in the wall.

In that movie, everyone that died continued to look like whatever it was that killed them... for eternity, supposedly.

Most Christians don't think that's a very accurate representation of the afterlife or of eternity. Because most Christians say that when you die, you become perfected... at least when you're resurrected you become perfected.

Your body is made whole, even if you're born in this life with a hunchback or with a handicap of some sort, when you're resurrected you'll have a full and perfect and glorious body.

Now, if you believe the Bible is true, the only person who has ever been resurrected still had the holes in his hands and in his side afterward, 'cause Thomas was able to feel those. But we'll ignore that for just a moment, and we're going to assume that the Christians are right, that when you die and you're resurrected you get this full, wonderful, perfect, glorious body.

Do you get your foreskin back?

All the people who died in the Old Testament who God had required that they remove their foreskin in order to show how much they love him - do they have their penis sheath back again in their resurrected body, or is it still gone?

God obviously doesn't like them (foreskins), he talks quite a bit in the Bible about making sure those are removed. He does not want the foreskin there. If you have foreskin, you don't love God... or at least that's the way it used to be. He's kind of relaxed on that and lets you keep you penile hood if you decide to nowadays.

Tough question for you, well, kinda just a silly question for you this time: When you're resurrected, if you're a man and you're circumsized, are you going to have your foreskin?

~~TOUGH~~ SILLY QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS #32:
WHEN YOU'RE RESURRECTED, WILL YOU GET YOUR FORESKIN BACK?

Tough Questions for Christians #31: Made up by Satan

I got another "Tough Question" suggestion, this one again from lazyperfectionist1. It's very well written, so I'll just read it directly from the email.

Arizona Superman has a reputation for coming up with really good metaphors and here I shall endeavor to compete.

A man on a long road trip has covered about 200 miles and notices that his fuel is beginning to run low. Finding the next opportunity, he exits and pulls into a filling station. Groaning at the price, he goes about refilling his tank.

Only seconds later, another car pulls in, parks, and the driver gets out and accosts the man, saying, “I have been driving behind you for the last 150 miles. You did all the same things I did, only sooner. You changed lanes right before I did. You merged from one highway to another right before I did. Clearly, you are following me from in front and I want to know why.”

We will come back to this in a moment. But first, please consider the following characteristics:
Mothered by a virgin
Born in a humble setting
Birth announced by stars
Birth attended by wise men
Birth coinciding with announcements from on high that a blessing has come to the poor world
Hunted as a child by tyrants
Grew up to perform miracles
Met with a violent death
Lay dead for three days
Rose from the grave
Who am I describing?

Most Christians will be very quick to blurt out a very obvious answer. Some will hold their tongues in trepidation, reasoning quite correctly that this question is too obvious and therefore must be a trap.

But let’s not kid each other here. Eleven characteristics I have listed and on each one, the very same obvious figure occurred to you. You know it, we know it, we all know it, so no one’s fooling anyone here. The real question here is what other more obscure figures might be so described [with those eleven characteristics]?

In fact, there are quite a few: Osiris, Baccus, Hermes, Mithra, Lao-tse, Fo-hi, Rameses, Apollo, Samson, Baldur, Hercules and Quetzalcoatl, every last one of them born three days after the winter solstice; a date indicated on our calendar as December 25.

Now when Christianity first began, the Pagans noticed this similarity and asked the Christians about it, and the response they received was that the Devil had foreseen the birth of Christ and forged these various imitations in advance, in order to mislead humanity sow seeds of doubt. I will now remind you of my previous metaphor. Who is more likely following whom?

So the "Tough Question" for you this time: Since stories of people with the same characteristics of Jesus' life pre-date Jesus' life by hundreds of years, do you really believe those were invented by the devil to fool Christians, or is it possible - just possible - that the story of Christ has been created, or embellished, with the characteristics of stories that have existed for a lot longer than his story has?

TOUGH QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS # 31:
DID SATAN INVENT GOD-MEN STORIES HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE JESUS, OR IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE LIFE OF CHRIST WAS CREATED OR EMBELLISHED USING PRE-EXISTING STORIES?

Poor Apologetics 1: "First Cause"

First Cause

This was a response to this video from YouTube user: KingTheist23

Tough Questions for Christians # 30: Adam vs. Jesus

Image via Wikipedia

According the Christians, there is one action that is responsible for the damnation of all of humanity. And that's the sin, from Adam and Eve eating the fruit in the Garden.

They disobeyed a direct order from God, got themselves kicked out of paradise, caused the entire world to fall, caused animals to start eating each other, snakes to become venomous, and bacteria to start infecting humans. (Who knew fruit could be so powerful?)

Now, that action will get you sent to Hell. It's just gonna happen.

Sorry, you're born with an inherent sinful nature, you're gonna use it because you got it, and - well - that's what humans do. It's kinda like being born with legs and then being punished for walking.

That action - sinning, and causing humanity to be born with a sinful nature - it's gotcha.

Jesus came to solve that problem, apparently.

God decided that if he impregnated a woman with himself, and she gave birth to him, then he could have himself sacrificed to himself. Then he could use that sacrifice of himself, to make himself forgive you, because he punished himself instead. Got it?

OK.

Makes perfect sense, right?

OK.

Now here's the kicker. When it comes to Adam, you don't need to know about him. It's automatic, you've got that sinful nature, it's going to make you sin, there is nothing you can do to prevent that.

You don't need to believe that Adam existed, you don't need to believe that Eve existed, you don't need to believe in talking snakes, or intelligent fruit, in fact - you don't even need to know about the story. Just being born is enough to give you that inherent sinful nature, and that's enough to get you sent to Hell. Because "sin can't enter into the presence of God."

Now with God, in his wonderful wisdom of sacrificing himself to himself so he can forgive you for the sins that... yeah. You HAVE to believe a very specific story. If you don't know about Jesus, according to some denominations, you're damned. End of story, you can't make it to Heaven without him.

There's some denominations that make all sorts of loopholes for it so God doesn't sound quite so horrible. You can check out one of my other videos called "Never Heard of Jesus." I go into that topic quite a bit.

If you know about Jesus but you don't believe the story, well then - everyone is pretty much unanimous about that, you're gonna go to Hell.

If you believe in... er, if you know about Adam, but you don't believe the story, - well, you're STILL gonna go to Hell - because his action is STILL going to affect you and still gonna get you damned.

If you know about Jesus, but you don't believe in him, you're still going to go to Hell, because his action isn't going to do shit.

The ONLY way Jesus' sacrifice can effect you at all is if you know about it, and believe a VERY VERY specific story about it.

Now this raises a pretty serious question. You see, Adam was a finite human. Capable only of finite human actions. Jesus was an infinite God, capable of far more powerful - infinite - actions... or so one would assume.

So why is it that the actions from a finite human are more all-inclusive, and more completely encompassing, then the actions from an infinite God?

TOUGH QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS # 30
WHY ARE THE ACTIONS OF A FINITE HUMAN (ADAM) MORE POWERFUL THAN THE ACTIONS OF AN INFINITE GOD?

Tough Questions for Christians # 29: The Fallen World

Image via Wikipedia

Whenever I talk about the not-so-pleasant parts of life, diseases, bacteria, viruses, animals who eat other animals - and would eat people if they got the opportunity - I'm reminded by Christians that we live in a "fallen" world.

The world God created originally was nowhere near this violent or this abusive. In fact, all the animals lived peacefully with each other.

Apparently everything ate plants and grass. Flesh eating bacteria simply lived off of... your lawn clippings I guess.

I'm told that because man sinned, the world fell. Animals grew fangs, they became carnivorous, snakes developed venom, bees grew stingers, insects started biting people, everything kinda went to shit pretty fast. And, they say it's man's fault, because man created the "fallen" world.

You see, the trouble is - man doesn't have the ability to create anything.

God created the world, he made the planets, he made the animals, he made everything, right? We don't have the ability to do that. The ability to genetically engineer creatures is something we are just barely tapping into now.

Man had the ability to eat a fruit, yes. He had the ability to sin and do something God told him not to, sure. He DIDN'T have the ability to make lions grow fangs and become carnivorous, or to make rattle snakes suddenly venomous, or to make flesh-eating bacteria start eating flesh.

That's beyond the capabilities of ANY human being.

If you believe in creation, then you must believe that SOMETHING created the fallen world. Something actually designed it, because the lions and tigers and bears - oh my - are no less designed than they were when they were all friendly.

If God didn't create malaria, or flesh eating bacteria, or the bubonic plague, or make animals venomous, make animals carnivorous, and make the entire world live in such a way that life ALWAYS feeds on death... If God didn't design it that way, if it was a result of Adam's fall, then who was the designer of the fallen world?

TOUGH QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS #29
WHO DESIGNED THE "FALLEN" WORLD?

Monday, February 23, 2009

Tough Questions for Christians # 28: Earth vs. Heaven

Image by TheAlieness GiselaGiardino²³ via Flickr

When the Earth was created it was perfect. Flawless and sinless, created by a perfect being, for his perfect creations. And that's the way it existed for a while. Um, up until Adam and Eve actually took a bite from that forbidden fruit. And then suddenly everything went to Hell... literally.

Now God is perfect, he doesn't make mistakes. So you figure Earth was literally the best he could do. He wouldn't build something substandard, right? The "perfect" planet, the "perfect" creation, and his "perfect" humans were as "perfect" as they could possibly get.

He wouldn't ever build something less-than-perfect, 'cause that would therefore make him less-than-perfect.

Now, the idea is: Once you die, you go to Heaven. Which is, again, a" perfect" place, built by a "perfect" God, for his "perfect" creations. He's got some other "perfect" creations there already, his angels and so on.

But if Earth was a perfect place, and it went to shit, and God is all-powerful... Why should we believe he can do any better with Heaven?

What makes us think that Heaven is not going to suffer the same fate that Earth did?

If God is all-powerful and perfect, we have absolutely no reason to believe he can do anything better than what he did the first time around. Because the first time would've been "perfect" and as good as he can get!

So what reason do we have to believe that Heaven is going to be any better than Earth?

TOUGH QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS #28
WHAT REASON DO WE HAVE TO BELIEVE HEAVEN WILL BE ANY BETTER THAN EARTH?

DID GOD SOMEHOW MAKE HEAVEN "MORE PERFECT" THAN HE MADE EARTH?

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

Tough Questions for Christians #27: God's Lower Standard

Image via Wikipedia

If I were to torture someone for a minute, I would be considered cruel.

If I were to torture someone for a month, or two months, or a year, I would be considered a monster.

If I were to knowingly starve an entire family, and let their children and the parents slowly die, I would be considered a pretty heartless bastard.

God has done all of these things.

Apparently he is going to torture most people for eternity. You see, God created an eternal torture chamber which he is going to throw people in, for eternity. In fact, most of humanity will spend all of eternity there just... being hurt, I guess.

Not only that, but while they are alive now, he allows people to be tortured. He allows families and entire nations to starve, he's got the authority and the power to step in and do something about it, but he doesn't... and it's considered ok, 'cause, well, he's God.

Apparently having the ability to do anything allows you to do nothing and get away with it.

You see, if I had the ability to feed millions and choose not to simply because... they didn't like me enough... You wouldn't like me any more, you'd actually think probably worse of me.

So, why do you judge God by a LOWER standard then you judge your fellow man?

He's God! He's the supreme being! He's the place where we all supposedly get our morality. He should be the best example, not the worst!

TOUGH QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS #27:
WHY DO YOU HOLD GOD TO A LESSER STANDARD THAN YOU HOLD YOUR FELLOW MAN?

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

Tough Questions for Christians #26: Sin in the Presence of God

Image by davidanthonyporter via Flickr

Sin can not enter into the presence of God. Or at least that's again what I'm told. And that's why God created Hell, right?

He created someplace where he himself didn't exist, even though he exists everywhere, and then decided to put people there who had sin within them, or on them, or however you want to say it, because sin can't enter into the presence of God.

Right?

I mean, that's the idea.

You ever read the book of Job?

The book of Job is the one book in the Bible where God and Satan actually talk, back and forth. Now this is LONG after the fall. Satan has long since fallen from grace, he's been caste out of Heaven already, and he's now down here tempting Job and killing his family and his flocks, and everything else - and having a 2-way conversation with God and placing wagers on it the whole time.

If sin can't enter into the presence of God, how exactly are God and Satan communicating?

When you read the book it sounds like they're talking face-to-face right next to each other. There is really no other way they can be talking, right?

So, if sin can't enter into the presence of God, how does God have a 2-way conversation with Satan in Job?

Not only that, but if Jesus is God, and Jesus came down and lived among these "sinful humans" for 30 years, well, it sounds like (again) sin was in the presence of God - for about 30 years, and he didn't seem to care. In fact, he sought out sinners, it couldn't have been too uncomfortable for him.

Then you have Satan coming and meeting with Jesus and taking him out in the wilderness and tempting him. Again, sin and God in the presence of each other.

So, if sin can't enter into the presence of God, how are God and Satan communicating in the Old Testament?

And in the New Testament, how are Jesus and Satan communicating with each other?

TOUGH QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS #26
IF SIN CAN NOT ENTER INTO THE PRESENCE OF GOD, HOW IS IT THAT GOD AND SATAN (the father of sin) ARE ABLE TO HAVE 2-WAY DIALOGUE?

Tough Questions for Christians #25: God's Afterthought

Image via Wikipedia

According to Genesis, Adam was created as a gardener. He was created to dress and tend the Garden of Eden.

In fact, it says here in Genesis 2:15 "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."

He created man, Adam, as his gardener. His slave to tend the garden for him. He decided then that Adam needed a companion. You can't be a gardener all by yourself, there is no one to talk to but the trees. So, he decided he would create ALL the animals, and he gave them to Adam to name.

Now he has one slave, a garden, and a large zoo.

Apparently, then, only because Adam couldn't find an animal he was happy to have as a companion, only then did God decide to create women.

Women, according to the Bible, you are an afterthought from God. The ONLY reason God created you was because dogs really are not man's best friend. If dogs were man's best friend, God wouldn't have bothered to create women.

So the question: If God knew Adam was lonely, and needed to find a companion, or as the King James Version says: "an help meet for him," why didn't he just create women to begin with? He knew Adam would be lonely, he is all-knowing, so why did God only create women when the animals wouldn't please Adam?

TOUGH QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS #25
WHY DID GOD TRY TO MAKE ADAM CHOOSE AN ANIMAL COMPANION BEFORE HE DECIDED TO CREATE A WOMAN?

Tough Questions for Christians #24: God's Glory

Image via Wikipedia

All things happen for the glory of God.

We were created to glorify God.

Whenever God performs a miracle, it's for his glory.

If he answers a prayer, it's for his glory.

Everything exists to glorify God.

Ok... Why?

On Earth, here in this life, when someone is glorified it's because they do something real nice, real fancy, and everyone is impressed. Their "glory" is from the reaction of everyone around them.

A sports figure may be "glorified" because they beat a world record. A politician may be glorified because they accomplished something no one else had been able to. But the "glory" isn't in the person, it's in the reaction of everyone else.

You see, if the athlete had performed the exact same feat and no one cared, there wouldn't be any glory, because you just did something nobody cared about. Same thing with the politician.

Now with God, if all things are for his glory, then - everything exists so God can look better to you and to me?

Why does he care?

Why does he care about glorifying himself in your eyes or in mine? He's God! He's supposed to be all-powerful, and should be beyond a popularity contest.

TOUGH QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS # 24:
WHO IS GOD TRYING TO BE GLORIFIED BY, AND WHY DOES HE CARE?

Tough Questions for Christians #23: The Soul

Image by LoreleiRanveig via Flickr

When someone talks about going to Heaven, they talk about being happy there. They talk about being with their family and their friends. Well, that implies that they have some emotions, as well as memories of their physical life.

We know that emotions are chemically driven, we can reproduce emotions. We can give you drugs to elicited specific types of emotion. Psychoactive drugs affect the way the brain works, in ways that we can measure and we can watch. Now their affect on the brain varies depending on the particular drug.

Some drugs can prevent you from saving short-term memories into long-term memories, a good friend of mine had a knee replacement surgery and they gave him a drug that prevented him from remembering anything about it. He doesn't even remember making it to the operating room.

There are also drugs that are euphoric, they cause your brain to release endorphins and make you ecstatic.

The point is, the drugs affect the brain.

You look at someone with Alzheimer's disease, they are losing their memory. Losing the ability to recall events, starting usually with the most recent then following all the way back to the ability to even walk or even feed themselves.

These are diseases of the mind. We can see that brain trauma can completely remove your memories, as well as diseases like Alzheimer's can cause them to degrade on their own.

So, memories and emotions are both ties to a physical mind, to an actual brain. So, what's left for a soul?

If you're saying your soul has it's own memories and it's own emotions, then what exactly is happening with these psychoactive drugs?

Is Prozac not really affecting the brain at all, but actually affecting the way the soul works, making the soul happy?

Is Alzheimer's not a disease with the denigration of the mind itself, but actually of the soul? Is a person's soul degrading and no longer going to remember real events?

Since memories and emotions are both proven to be biological, what is left for a soul?

TOUGH QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS # 23:
SINCE MEMORIES AND EMOTIONS HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE BIOLOGICAL, WHAT IS LEFT FOR THE SOUL?

Tough Question For Christians # 22: Purpose of Eternal Life

We were created to serve and worship God, at least that's what I've been told. How weird does that sound?

You have the all-powerful creator of the universe, who is capable of speaking the entire universe into existence, but he needs servants?

What exactly are you going to do?

I mean, how do you serve someone who is all-powerful?

What exactly do you do that he can't simply do himself?

And why would he need worshiping? He knows all, and worship is simply giving him praise. You're telling him something he already knows.

So, in the afterlife, when you're there simply to "serve God" and to worship him, what exactly are you going to be doing?

What is the purpose of eternal life?

Tough Question for Christians # 22:
HOW WILL YOU SERVE GOD IN HEAVEN?

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR ETERNAL LIFE?

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

Poor Apologetics, Intro

It seems when most people reply to my questions, they're not actually replying to the question itself. They're just arguing with some other viewpoint, trying to show that God exists. And, in order to try to counteract that a little bit, I'm going to start a new series of videos called "Poor Apologetics." It's just like it sounds.

The idea is to reply to those comments and those arguments that I hear most often, and show why they just don't work.

I'm hoping to basically destroy the arguments, like "Argument from Design," the "Kalam Cosmological Argument," and things such as that as well as I destroyed Pascal's Wager in my video response to Firefly515. That video is a reply to his video: "To All Atheists on YouTube".

Since that's my highest viewed video, I'm sure most of my subscribers have already seen it. If not, go ahead and check it out (Re: To All Atheists on YouTube). Other than the annoying background music, it's actually a pretty good video.

Another really good video about Pascal's Wager is from lazyperfectionist1. With his permission, I'm going to replay the video here. So check out lazyperfectionist1, he's one of the most articulate speakers on YouTube and makes some very, very solid arguments.

Christians, when you're watching this video from lazyperfectionist1, please try to pay attention. Maybe if you listen to what he says you'll actually stop using the Pascal's Wager argument because you'll realize just how stupid it is.

Without further ado, here is lazyperfectionist1:

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

Another Episode of the Tough Questions Blog

Atheist Humor:

Have you found Jesus?

Wacky Bible Stories:

Shrek in the Bible?

Religious News:

God DOES exist!!
In God We Trust
Bible Theme Park
Big Mac Beats Moses

Tough Question:

Many more to go!

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

Comments and Questions #2

Thank you to everyone who has sent feedback, either through responses on the blog, or emails. I've received a lot of email lately, so it's time once again to respond to you directly.

Remember, you can leave comments below, or send feedback to: feedback@toughquestionspodcast.com

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com