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?





Other similar videos:

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.

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.

Other related videos:

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?




Other related videos:

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:

1. Mothered by a virgin
   
2. Born in a humble setting
   
3. Birth announced by stars
   
4. Birth attended by wise men
   
5. Birth coinciding with announcements from on high that a blessing has come to the poor world
   
6. Hunted as a child by tyrants
   
7. Grew up to perform miracles
   
8. Met with a violent death
   
9. Lay dead for three days
   
10. 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?




Other similar videos:

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?





Other interesting videos:

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?



SIMILAR VIDEOS

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

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

Tough Questions for Christians #21: God Hates Disabled People

Image via Wikipedia

In this episode:

Atheist Humor:

• Sunday School

Religious News:

• Church Bans Disabled Child


• Failed Faith Healing


• Prayer at the Pumps


• Anti-Blasphemy Resolution Passed

Wacky Bible Stories:

• Failed Promises in the Desert

Tough Question #21

• God Hates Disabled People

Intro song: Hunting for Witches Fury 666 Remix by Bloc Party, and can be found on the Podsafe Music Network

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

Comments and Questions from Fans

Image via CrunchBase

I've received a lot of feedback from people who have found my podcast. Some people enjoy it, some people hate it, some people find it intriguing, others find it insulting.

I decided to take a few of the emails and comments I've received and make a whole episode of my responses to you.

I know in the past I have written out the words from the entire video, but I probably won't do that anymore. That takes too long and makes it harder for me to actually upload episodes.

Thanks to all those who have contacted me, your feedback is appreciated.

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

Tough Question #19: Bumbling Idiot God?

Image via Wikipedia

In my questions about Hell, I frequently get the response that Hell was not created for humans, Hell was created for the devil and his angels. It was never intended to hold mankind it was because of mankind’s sin that we ended up there.

And that’s a very good response, and could be a very convincing response if you didn’t claim that God was all-knowing, and all-powerful.

You see, if God was a, say bumbling idiot, and he created Hell to store the devil and his angels and didn’t realize that by making perfection the requirement to avoid Hell and then making humans imperfect would automatically condemn everyone to Hell, then you can kinda use the Bible as an example of God doing everything he can to fix his mistake and try to do something to save at least a few humans.

But, Christians don’t believe in a bumbling God. They believe in a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and never makes mistakes. Which means when he created Hell, he would’ve been doing so with the foreknowledge of every single soul who would’ve end up there, and he would have built it with the intent of holding those souls, and he would’ve designed it in the exact way he wanted those souls to experience eternity.

Which means God created Hell for the purpose of holding the majority of mankind and torturing them for eternity.

The Tough Question for you this time is: Which is it? Did God create Hell with the foreknowledge and the intent of burning most of humanity there, or is God a bumbling idiot who created Hell without realizing the consequences of his own actions.

TOUGH QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS #19

Did God create Hell with the foreknowledge and intent of torturing humanity? Or is he a bumbling idiot who could not foresee the consequences of his own actions?

originally posted on YouTube at: www.youtube.com/azatheist

Tough Questions for Christians #5: Purpose of Hell

Image via Wikipedia

Punishment of any kind only serves one of 3 purposes, whether it’s spanking you child, putting them in time out, grounding them, police giving you a fine, or even jail time – there is only one of three purposes which that punishment can be useful for.

One is correctional. If you perform an action which is to the detriment of those around you, obviously we don’t want you to continue to perform such an action, so you’ll be punished. The idea being that next time such an action, you will remember the punishment, and you won’t do it. That’s the reason prisons are also called “correctional facilities.”

Another reason, is to serve as a deterrent for someone else. If police or a judge decide to “make an example” out of someone, that means they’re going to be particularly harsh on one person so other people who may be doing the same thing will stop performing said action, without being punished.

The third purpose is to help the rest of society continue to run, and to protect the rest of us. Murders, rapists, and so on, are locked up for the betterment of everyone else, to prevent them from preying on the innocent.

Now that being said, Hell doesn’t really fit any of those three categories.

Hell is a place of punishment no doubt, but it’s not really a place of correctional punishment – because you’re not going to get out. You’re never going to have the option to learn your lesson. You’re not going to have the option to NOT perform such an action again.

Hell isn’t a great deterrent either, because if you don’t ALREADY believe in Hell, it’s not going to deter you from anything. In fact, many religions have their own versions of Hell, and they are completely undeterred by the threats from opposing religions. You won’t find a single Christian who is nervous about going to the Muslim Hell, strictly because they believe in Jesus. They will not be deterred from believing Jesus is God because of something a Muslim says. Likewise, Muslims will not be deterred by the Christian threats of Hell for refusing to accept Jesus.

Not to mention, no one can ever actually see anyone going to Hell. They never get to see that someone is actually being punished. Therefore it’s usefulness as a deterrent is just about nothing.

And finally for the protection of everyone else. In Heaven we shouldn’t be allowed to be killed anymore – we’re already dead. Theoretically we shouldn’t be able to be injured. There is not really anything to be protected from. So sending someone to Hell doesn’t protect the souls in Heaven either.

So this “Tough Question for Christians” is kind of an easy one for you.

Since it can’t serve as a correctional facility, it has limited usefulness as a deterrent, and it doesn’t serve to protect those in Heaven, what is the purpose of Hell?

TOUGH QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS #5
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF HELL?

originally posted on YouTube at: www.youtube.com/azatheist

Tough Questions for Christians #4: Torture

Cover via Amazon

Without giving it a whole lot of thought, Christians will frequently say “We all deserve to go to Hell.” “We don’t deserve salvation.” “We deserve to be tortured forever.” But do they really believe that?

I don’t think so.

You see, when there is a movie with a lot of violence, a lot of blood and gore, Christians are usually the first ones to stand up and argue and say that they don’t want that sort of thing displayed to their kids – or available for the general public to see.

But they’re also the first ones to say people deserve that sort of treatment! That pain, immense physical and emotional pain is the ONLY thing that we all actually deserve, because we’ve all fallen short of the glory of God.

There’s a movie, I haven’t seen it – unfortunately, the movie Hostel. From what I’ve heard it is a very graphic movie, with some very graphic torture scenes. People getting their legs and arms severed – really bloody, graphic deaths. A lot of screaming, and a lot of pain.

I challenge any Christian who thinks they deserve to go to Hell to go rent that movie and watch it all the way through. Sit down and watch the entire movie, and watch the way the actors portray being tortured. They’re not actually being tortured themselves, these are people, luckily, that are just acting out the part. After you’ve seen that, come back and tell me if you still think you deserve that same treatment.

I’ve seen some videos when I was a bit younger. I kind of went through a morbid phase at one point where I was renting movies like Faces of Death. I’ve seen clips of people shooting their own brains out, I’ve seen clips of people having their throats slit, arms and legs cut off while people are fully awake. It’s extremely disturbing to see that, to see the pain and torment that these people are going through.

After seeing something like that, I can’t sit by and say: “Yes, I deserve the same treatment, and everybody in the world deserves the same treatment.” The man who I watched have his throat slit, who was gurgling blood out of his neck until he finally bled out…

I don’t believe there is a single Christian out there who could watch a movie like Hostel or Faces of Death and then say: “Yes, that ten year old child who died without accepting Jesus deserves that sort of treatment. That kind and soft spoken Hindu monk who died worshiping in his own faith deserves to be burnt alive. He deserves to be screaming in pain forever.

TOUGH QUESTIONS FOR CHRISTIANS #4:
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE YOU DESERVE TO BE TORTURED?

originally posted on YouTube at: www.youtube.com/azatheist

Tough Questions for Christians # 3: Freewill

Image by jtyerse via Flickr

Imagine that one day I decide to give you $1 million as a gift. You’d be quite ecstatic I’m sure.

I come over in my car, I have several briefcases full of cash, and I give them to you. I tell you: “Here, this is yours. My gift to you.”

But, there is one rule you must follow with this money. You can’t spend it or invest it. You can just keep the money. And if you do spend it, even one dime, I will kill you.

Would you consider my gift to be “great” or “glorious” or “fantastic?” Or would you consider it a waste of time, a waste of space, and a useless gift?

Now, God gave everyone freewill, the ability to make choices – to do whatever we want to in life. But there’s a catch, we can’t use it.

A friend of mine defined sin in a way I’m sure most Christians will agree with, he said “Sin is anything that is contrary to the will of God.

So we have this “all-powerful,” “all-mighty” being who says: “Here is this great gift. I want you to have the freewill to do whatever you want. Instead of making you a robot, to do exactly what I tell you to, I’m going to give you the choice to do whatever you want. BUT – if you don’t do exactly what I tell you to, I’m going to burn you in Hell forever.”

Much like the $1 million dollars sitting in briefcases in your living room, that you can’t touch, you can’t spend, you can’t invest – you just have to let it sit there, freewill is just as useless.

If you use it and you make choices of your own, you’re going to be damned. If you act like a robot, and do EXACTLY what God tells you to, and do EXACTLY what he wants you to, then you’ll be rewarded and you’ll get to go to Heaven where you’ll get to continue to act like a robot, doing everything God wants you to, and using his will instead of your own.

So here’s my question.

TOUGH QUESTIONS FOR CHRISTIANS #3

WHAT'S THE POINT OF GIVING US FREEWILL IF WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE IT?

originally posted on YouTube at: www.youtube.com/azatheist

Tough Questions for Christians # 2: Crimes of Mankind

Image via Wikipedia

2000 years ago, Jesus died for the sins of all mankind. He paid the price to God for all of us, so we don't have to. So the question is: Why then, do those who do not believe, still have a debt to pay?

You see, if Jesus paid for the crimes, and then we have to pay the penance, or pay the time afterward, then God is punishing two people for the same sin. He's punishing me for my sins, and he's already punished Jesus.

Now I know, I know. Christians are going to say "But YOU didn't accept Jesus' offer, therefore YOU have to pay the price." Well, it's not really up to me to accept his offer.

You see. If I was in court and had been sentenced, and I had a fine I needed to pay. If you came up and told the judge you would like to pay the fine for me, it doesn't matter what I say. It matters what the judge says.

You could actually go pay the judge without me even knowing about it, and then when I showed up the judge could say "No thank you, your fines have been paid. You're free to go."

But it's the JUDGE who decides whether or not to accept the alternative sentence from the innocent party. It's not me.

When Jesus supposedly died for our sins, it was a plea to God - to allow God to forgive us. Now it's up to GOD to decide whether or not HE is going to accept Jesus' offer.

Now I know that God and Jesus are the same person, and all that bullshit, but it's still the same idea. He has to convince himself, in this case, to accept the offer. It has nothing to do with me accepting Jesus, or you accepting Jesus, it has to do with God accepting Jesus. If God doesn't accept him, he'll send you to Hell. If God does accept him, then he'll send Jesus to Hell. Which supposedly he's already done. Jesus has finished and come back again.

If Jesus died for our sins, and Jesus paid the price already, then why is that 99% of the people on Earth are going to have to pay the same price again? God's already been paid. God took the punishment from Jesus, he accepted it. He let Jesus die on the cross, sent Jesus to Hell, and did everything that Jesus needed to do — supposedly for everyone who has ever existed. But then he's going to extract the exact same payment, the same sentence, the same fines if you will, from everyone else who lives.

So why is God being paid twice for the same sins?

If God has already been paid off, if Jesus has already died for my sins and Jesus has already "paid the fines," why is there anything left for me, or other unbelievers, to be punished for?

TOUGH QUESTION #2
IF GOD ACCEPTED JESUS' SACRIFICE AS PAYMENT FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND, THEN WHY WILL MANKIND STILL BE PUNISHED FOR THE CRIMES JESUS' SACRIFICE PAID FOR?

originally posted on YouTube at: www.youtube.com/azatheist