An open response to Daniel Holmes on his “Oh My God… Christians!” blog posts (part 1)

This is the reason for my getting back on Facebook a bit early; the first part of my response to a blog by my friend Daniel Holmes, or my response to the first part of his blog. I thought I would have this done by November last year. It probably still isn't complete, probably never could be. Anyway, the part of Daniel's blog I am responding to here (parts of which I have re-posted in red) may be found this way: http://dantalksshit.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/oh-my-godchristians-part-1-leap-of.html Be ye forewarned of foul language, derision etc.
So, here's my bit:

Hey, man.

Well.

I had originally intended to write an enormous essay in response to your blog, outlining every point you make and responding, but then I realised how ridiculously intensive it would be. I mused over your opening paragraphs: 

Why am I writing this?

In short, to share a few of the Ideas I've had of late concerning Christianity and Christians, and to provide some rebuttal for the various arguments for Christianity, and the phenomenal amount of Christian Propaganda in circulation.

Reading through the whole thing, though, suggests that it was written for a bit of (researched) mockery and for a derisive verbal backslap and cries of affirmation and praise from like-minded friends. Perhaps a vent for frustration with religious people, too. It certainly reads as a standard derivative anti-theist work. I’m sure that if you really wanted to do a bit of unbiased sceptical research, you might look up a few decent Christian apologists, rather than take the banter of an everyday layperson that goes to church and reads his bible sometimes, or indeed the Christian “propaganda”, as the best we can come up with.

Why am I writing this? As it happens, some of the arguments you make are too outrageous, uninformed and public to let slide. I suppose, though, my main reason for writing this is that you’re an intelligent man and a good friend, and I want to remove as much excuse for rejection of the Bible, or at least the possibility of a specific deity, as I possibly can, humble as my means and abilities may be.

You might think to yourself while reading through this: “What has that got to do with what I wrote!?” Fear not. When I was six, I was taken to a specialist for fear that I might have ADHD. They cleared me, but due to my habit of random outbursts, perplexing statements, subtly-deadpan jokes, and starting a logical, thought-out statement I had devised in my head somewhere in its middle (boldly defying the social norm of starting at the beginning), all of which you are very familiar with, I’m not so sure about the diagnosis. At least I make up for it with dubious introspection and long, long sentences. Also, please excuse my long sentences and random asides, it’s how I keep myself interested.

In case it concerns you, the translation I will mostly refer to, unless otherwise stated, is the New International Version. I would be glad to give you the reasons why, if so prompted, and why it patently wouldn’t make a difference if I used a different “version”.

So I’ll start by answering some individual statements you make in the blog, and then (perhaps, time permitting,) going on with my own counter-argument/thesis/casual blog. One thing you sure got right in your blog is dividing it up into separate parts. This is time-consuming stuff, so I’ll do the same.

I would like to make clear, though, that this is very much a layman’s job. Apologetics is not my day job, and there are thousands in the Sydney area alone who could write such a better response to your blog as to make mine look laughable and pathetic (you may remember my attempts at writing essays at school; it was cause for celebration if I reached the end of two pages). I haven’t redressed all your points and arguments, mostly because, to be honest, it was a bit of a tangled mess. So please do not accept this as the final answer to your blog, but the equivalent of a feeble first-year student attempt. I present my efforts all the same.

* * *

For those Of Christian Faith, you may find some of the below blashphemous, and you will almost certainly find a lot of it offensive, so take this as your first and final warning – If you are a Christian, you are likely to be offended, so stop reading now.

It’s funny, when I first decided to write this, I was going to start with a big rant on how I believe being offended by what someone else says is generally a stupid idea. Either they may suffer from their own lack of knowledge, or you may suffer from having a fallible standpoint. I would still mostly maintain that, but thinking over it, I realised you had indeed offended me, on two points- one, the amount of effort that you put into this blog under the impression that it was enough to parry Christianity and the Bible, and two, a somewhat personal point within your blog that I’m sure you could guess at. But we live and move on.

I would just like to point out, that contrary to the way many Christians seem to act about their faith, their religion is not considered by society a fringe cult of loonies…

I have heard the “argument” before many times, that Australia is a society of non-God-botherers and the Christian feels they are lost in a sea of unbelievers. Of course, even if it were true, it wouldn’t actually prove anything one way or the other,  but Christians are hardly persecuted in Australia (I won’t say not at all, especially if you count jibes by non-Christian friends and co-workers, but byly and largely not).

I would attribute this “argument” mainly to four things- one, if you turn on the TV, or take a walk around Newtown, you probably won’t get a hint of Christian values (unless you turn on the TV at five in the morning, when those weird people who look like their mother dresses them are on, or you happen to meet one of them on a Newtown street, holding up a leather-bound bible and talking at people who walk by).

Secondly, I suppose they might have sympathies for Christians that are indeed being persecuted for their faith in other parts of the world, where Christianity is considered worse than a cult of loonies.

Thirdly, they might not be talking about Christianity in general, but whatever particular “brand” they may be- true, Christians are (according to the census) at a majority in this country, but I would suggest that dedicated, evangelical, bible-believing, and certainly bible-practicing Christians are significantly in the minority.

Forth, secularists, though possibly smaller in number, tend to be much louder, more outspoken and better publicised by the media. However, it’s not really a common belief that Christians are “underdogs” in Australia, and I’ve usually heard the idea from atheists and liberal lobby groups, anyway.

Another side to it is, if you started prescribing to Christianity, would you find yourself more popular with or more respected by your friends, peers, or even the general public? Sure, Hillsong would be glad to welcome you and your wallet in, but I doubt you would garner respect from anyone.

Either way, I grant you, it’s a non-argument. I would doubt the ability of the Census to determine exactly what everyone’s beliefs really are- take, for instance, someone who was baptised as a Catholic, never attended a church since and never really thinks about religion anyway, but who still calls themselves a Catholic. But I concede that Christians are no way a minority in this country.

On the subject of persecution, some interesting, semi-relevant statistics: In the 20^th century, more Christians have been executed for confessing or practicing their faith than in the last 19 centuries combined (including the Roman persecutions), mostly at the hand of atheist states like Stalinist Russia, China, Korea etc. According to the World Evangelical Alliance, 200 million Christians in at least 60 countries are denied fundamental human rights solely because of their faith.

I don’t deny the amount of persecution by Christians throughout history (they are, of course, inexcusable), or by others to other religions (who’s religious freedom should be (and, believe it or not, often are) defended by Christians), but you almost certainly won’t believe me if I say that, per capita, Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world today. I would attribute it to what we in Australia expose ourselves to. For instance, just recently a Pakistani priest was executed for professing his faith. Neither that nor the lack of trial was even mentioned once in a tiny paragraph or aside in the Australian media. Not Herald or Telegraph, SBS or Channel 9.

People have been saying to me for years that they feel that “they know there must be something out there” or that they “can't accept that there isn't more to life than what we see”.

Not a very good concept to base one’s life on, hey? Before I became a Christian, I had never felt this “must be something” conviction at all. In fact, I found it frustrating, illogical. How could certain smart, world-wise, rational people at the church I was forced by my mother to go to every Sunday even believe in any invisible miracle-fairy, let alone one so self-revealed as the Yahweh of the Bible? I knew in my heart that if there was anything at all out there, it would surely have revealed itself a bit, or a lot, more obviously. Even today, I can’t accept that argument as a basis for any choice of lifestyle or belief, no matter how vague and esoteric. I may point out that your idea of humans perhaps having a working sense of perception of “something else we can’t see”, like magneto perception, would suggest that there was actually something to sense…

So, I don’t believe there is at all a transition from “something out there” to the bible at all. I don’t believe that is how God reveals himself to most of us in the West, anyway.

We all take small leaps of faith every day – crossing the road with faith you won't be hit by a car, going to sleep with faith that you'll wake up, but you're asking me, without basis, to take a very large leap of faith. A very, VERY large leap of faith, based on what a very old book has to say on the subject of philosophy.

Yep, I wouldn’t suggest basing your world view on a leap of faith, either. I think the key is that you (like many Christians, I’m afraid to say) have got the wrong idea of the semantic concept of the word “faith” in the bible. What you are referring to is, in my opinion, credulity (“a tendency to be too ready to believe that something is real or true”, so saithe Oxford.)

The faith referred to in Hebrews 1:11- “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” is not that sort of faith, though. It refers to a sense of anticipation and looking to the future in times of trouble. It’s not like driving across the Sydney Harbour Bridge hoping that it doesn’t collapse, but driving across with the assurance and knowledge that because of the solid structure of the bridge, attested to by the fact that thousands cross it each day, as well as your confidence in whatever your knowledge of the constant laws of physics, you will get across without it collapsing.

Having faith that someone won’t run up the back of you, or over you, however, is somewhat groundless, and a false modern Western interpretation of the word, anyway. A healthy amount of discernment and judgement of physics and probability is required in such circumstances.

C. S. Lewis: "We must not encourage in ourselves or others any tendency to work up a subjective state which, if we succeeded, we should describe as "faith", with the idea that this will somehow insure the granting of our prayer.... The state of mind which desperate desire working on a strong imagination can manufacture is not faith in the Christian sense. It is a feat of psychological gymnastics.”

Belief detached from the truth is not faith. Believing in what is not true, believing in "the word of your own imagination", or even the "word of Satan", is deception, pure and simple. Calling this deception "faith" does not make it so. How is there “truth” in Christianity then? Later on…

A side note- you say “based on what a very old book has to say on the subject of philosophy”. The Bible doesn’t focus on concerning itself “on” philosophy, though of course it must at points deal with the philosophy of the world, including some of my favourites: “For the time will come when people will… gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim. 4:3) and “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.” (most of Ecclesiastes). The Bible is not a philosophy on how to live and die, but clear instructions and proverbs on how you must live, interspersed with history and much of the greatest examples of Hebrew poetry.

Interestingly, the age of the bible seems to validate it's authenticity in the minds of many modern day Christians… I really think that it's absolutely amazing that, considering we are taught (in the first world at least) the value of cynicism and critical thinking from a very young age, that people are still willing to follow the teachings of any book so blindly.

I think we are more taught the value of constructive criticism than cynicism, otherwise, very true! This is why I love studying the historicity and credibility of the bible, in fact I find it almost frustrating when other Christians don’t, then read some anti-theistic book or other and turn away from Christianity. I have rarely found a book more encouraging to my faith than Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” or Christopher Hitchens’ “God is Not Great”, or “Atheist Manifesto” by Michel Onfray. I grant you, these are not the top writers of the field, and they are not at all qualified to have any opinion on the bible, except their practice of flicking through the bible and selecting sentences without any regard to their context, but they have captured the minds of a generation all the same. That is usually the way with captured minds, anyway.

One book I have read that has given me more encouragement is by Christopher Hitchens’ brother, Peter Hitchens. His book “The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith” tears his brother’s works on atheism, and by extension much of the “New” Atheist movement, yet has not achieved the same notoriety. I wonder why. Something to do with itching ears. I will talk more about the historicity of the bible later…

I am aware that archaeologists have found some of the bible is truth, but I'd like to point out that some of Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy is true as well.

One thing to say is that though Hitchhiker’s Guide sets itself up to be true, it is easily taken apart and disproven. The most obvious way to do it is to look at what Douglas Adams has said on the book (referring to it as fiction), biographies, external accounts, and the fact that you cannot find one eyewitness to the events or characters in the book. The bible stands up easily to all this. One of the more interesting things is that no parts of it have yet been definitively directly disproven by archaeology. Once again, more later…

While We're on the subject of the epic if Gilgamesh.... I could easily use up several pages just listing the similarities between the two stories.

Yes, and if you squint and look sideways, everyone’s face looks the same. I could use several hundred pages listing the differences between them, too, but I’m hardly going to do that. So, here are but a few:

The first striking thing is how surreal the story is. Part of this is because of the obviously human-like behaviour of the gods. They are constantly fighting amongst each other, plotting and deceiving each other. One would expect this part of the story to be removed from a Genesis copy. Therefore, we would expect that the Genesis account would be changed to involve some kind of judgment, since Yahweh (God) does not capriciously destroy humans, as was done in the Gilgamesh epic. It would, therefore, make sense that Noah would be chosen for his righteousness although Utnapishtim was chosen for no apparent reason.

Even with these major changes not considered, there is much dissimilarity that would not be expected from a story copied from another story. For example, the timings of the flood accounts are vastly different. The Gilgamesh flood took only 3 weeks, whereas the Genesis flood lasted over a year. The Gilgamesh flood included several 7 day long events. This "perfect" number is found throughout the Bible, so would be expected to be retained if copied from the epic of Gilgamesh. However, the Bible uses numbers like 40 and 150 - much longer timeframes.

The boats in the two accounts are quite different. The Gilgamesh boat was an unseaworthy cube with a slate roof. Obviously, such a design would immediately flip over or roll around in the water. In contrast, the ark had dimensions that were ideal for a seaworthy ship. This fact might be surprising, since both cultures were not noted for their nautical skills. It is obvious that the gods of the Sumerians had no expertise in shipbuilding.

There are, I suppose, a couple of possible explanations for the existence of multiple ancient flood accounts. One, that Genesis was a copy of Gilgamesh, does not fit the data we have available. The other possible explanation is that the flood was a real event in the history of mankind that was passed down through the generations of different cultures. If so, the Gilgamesh account seems to have undergone some rather radical transformations. The story is a rather unbelievable myth that bears little resemblance to reality. In contrast, the Genesis account is a logical, seemingly factual account of a historical event. It lacks the obvious mythological aspects of the Gilgamesh epic.

And the “similarities” you speak of in other texts of the period are even less convincing.

On the subject of Noah and the ark:

A conservative estimate would have the number of Species on earth at between one and two million, though most estimates are more vague and suggest between three, and thirty million species… Granted that is one fucking big wooden ship, but there's not a chance that it was capable of holding more than two million animals, as well as their respective fodder for seven days.

As to animals fitting in the ark, did you consider who exactly is making your “conservative estimate” of two million animals? I would imagine it conveniently includes sea-dwelling animals (not to mention that molluscs, sponges, protozoans, arthropods, and some varieties of worms etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. would have been able to survive in the water; and every possible sub-species that might have existed anywhere.

Here are some other calculations (the sources of which are too many to list here). Do excuse the Imperial measurements:

The dimensions of the ark have a ratio of six to one. The Ark was six times longer than it was wide. This is the best ratio for modern ship building. Model stability tests have shown that the design is stable for waves up to 200 feet high and that the ark could have rotated 90 degrees and still righted itself.

The volume of the ark would be 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high. This equals 1,518,750 cubic feet and is comparable to 569 modern railroad boxcars. Therefore each boxcar, by comparison, would be 1,518,750 divided by 569, or 2,669 cubic feet of space. The average size of an animal on the earth is smaller than a cat. But, just to keep it safe let's consider the average size of an animal to be a sheep. The average double deck stock car holds 240 sheep. The Ark capacity would be about 569 x 240 equaling 136,560 animals of that size. However, that still is not accurate for our needs. Since most birds, reptiles, and amphibians are much smaller, let's double the boxcar capacity for them. Therefore, the boxcars could each hold 480 different kinds of birds, reptiles, amphibians.

Noah had to take two or seven of every kind of animal on the earth. Though it is not really known exactly what is meant by a biblical “kind”, it is generally considered to be animals that are fertile within their own groups. Any dog can breed with any dog; therefore, dogs are one kind (considering dogs were not kept in the domestic way we do today, I don’t think the genetic variety would have bothered Noah much, anyway). It would only be necessary to bring representatives of each kind since the parents could produce offspring that would carry the genetic information for all variations within their kind.

• Classification . . . . Number of Species . . . . Number of Kinds on the Ark
• Mammals . . . . . . . . .3,700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,700 (a few live in water).
• Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,200 (seven pairs according to Gen. 7:3)
• Reptiles. . . . . . . . . . .6,300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,300
• Amphibians. . . . . . . .2,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500
• Fishes. . . . . . . . . . . .20,600. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .zero
• Other marine life . . . 192,605. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .zero
• Insects . . . . . . . . . . . 850,000 . . . (Since insects are very small, and a great many could be stored in a small area, calculation would be difficult.)
• Total . . . . . . . . . . . .1,072,305 . . . . . . . . . . . . .72,700

The total number of mammals would be 3,700 times two pair which equals 7,400 animals. 7,400 divided by 240 = 31 boxcars used.

Since Gen. 7:3 says to take seven pairs of every bird then the total for birds would be 8,600 times two pair times 7 or 120,400 animals. 120,400 x 480 = 250 boxcars. The reptiles and amphibians would be 6,300 plus 2,500 or 8,800. 8,800 times two pair equals 17,600 animals. 17,600 divided by 480 = 37 boxcars.

The total number of boxcars used would be 318 with a total number of animals at 145,400. There would be 251 boxcars left over. That means that only 56% of the ark would be used for storing the animals. Obviously, then, the rest of the space would be used for food for the people and animals and sleeping quarters. In addition, considering that insects are extremely small, it is easily conceivable that they could be housed in part of the remaining space.

It also should be considered that many animals can hibernate. Additionally, predators and prey have been known to live peacefully together during situations of stress like fire, flood, or earthquake. In the Ark, animal behavior probably would have been different from normal daily life. Specialists in animal behavior have noted that animals can sense danger and have often migrated to escape it. Perhaps God used their migratory instincts to get them to the Ark. Perhaps God is omnipotent and can do whatever the hell He likes.

 Either way, it is an undeniable possibility.

Enough, moving on.

Then when they got off, the ark, where were they supposed to get their food from? Everything had been washed out. This is without even going into the improbability that Noah actually had even one of every species available to him…

Genesis 8:1: “But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark”

In the Bible, God’s “remembering” always implies His movement toward the object(s) of His memory (Genesis 19:29, Exodus 2:24, Luke 1:54-55, et al.). In fact, the primary meaning of וַיִּזְכֹּ֤ר zakar, is “granting requests, protecting, delivering,” when God is the subject and humans are the object (Lexicon: Brown, Driver, Briggs). I.e.: God was with Noah and his family.

Genesis 6:19-20: “You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.”

The only task for which Noah was responsible, according to the biblical record, was building an ark of the appropriate dimensions as given to him by God.

I realise that the idea of an omnipotent God is still in question, and I know it won’t satisfy you anyway, but surely the God that created the universe and the biosphere can steer and look after a ship full of animals.

I found that there is quite a big difference between the version of the bible that we read and the bible that was passed between the gnostic schools in the few hundred years after the death of Jesus.

Very true, this is why we don’t refer to Gnostic scrolls, and why we refer to manuscripts written less than a hundred years after Jesus’ death. Another jolly interesting chart, on the timespan between copies of the Greek manuscripts and the originals (something Barbara Thearing won’t tell you, also one of the things that made me come to a strong Christian faith):

Author	Date Written	Earliest Copy	Approximate Time Span between original & copy	Number of Copies	Accuracy of Copies
Lucretius	died 55 or 53 B.C.		1100 yrs.	2	----
Pliny	61-113 A.D.	850 A.D.	750 yrs.	7	----
Plato	427-347 B.C.	900 A.D.	1200 yrs.	7	----
Demosthenes	4th Cent. B.C.	1100 A.D.	800 yrs.	8	----
Herodotus	480-425 B.C.	900 A.D.	1300 yrs.	8	----
Suetonius	75-160 A.D.	950 A.D.	800 yrs.	8	----
Thucydides	460-400 B.C.	900 A.D.	1300 yrs.	8	----
Euripides	480-406 B.C.	1100 A.D.	1300 yrs.	9	----
Aristophanes	450-385 B.C.	900 A.D.	1200	10	----
Caesar	100-44 B.C.	900 A.D.	1000	10	----
Livy	59 BC-AD 17	----	???	20	----
Tacitus	circa 100 A.D.	1100 A.D.	1000 yrs.	20	----
Aristotle	384-322 B.C.	1100 A.D.	1400	49	----
Sophocles	496-406 B.C.	1000 A.D.	1400 yrs.	193	----
Homer (Iliad)	900 B.C.	400 B.C.	500 yrs.	643	95%
New Testament	1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.	2nd Cent. A.D. (c. 130 A.D. f.)	less than 100 years	5600	99.5%

(the above chart was adapted from three sources: 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible; 3) A Ready Defense, by Josh McDowell)

What’s more, the 0.5% mistakes consist of spelling errors and mis-strokes. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages.  The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

I could go on and on about the reliability of the NT documents (and I may just do so later on, if it’s relevant), but be content with this: If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and many other ancient writers, and so, general Ancient Western history.

What I'm getting at, is that it's quite a bit more likely that the bible (the new testament at least) was written as a piece of political propaganda that has been taken way out of context…

Let me put it this way. 10 of the 12 apostles of Jesus were executed for their belief. Countless thousands of Christians were persecuted or executed for spreading or upholding the gospel for a few centuries afterwards. If there was a political motive behind it, they must have REALLY been dedicated to this lie. No-one in their right mind would persist for years under persecution and die for something they knew was a complete fabrication, or even if they had doubts about it. What’s more, if they were to design their own religion, would the disciples really write about all their shortcomings, make the Christian church into a female, design heaven with no sex in it, and say that they were going to be married to Jesus in heaven? I know I wouldn’t, in my humanly ignorance.

It's also noteworthy that, due to god's noticeable absence since the beginning of recorded history the bible was written by men, not God

It certainly is. I’ll get to that later…

…the fact that the twelve witnesses of Jesus' Divinity are his disciples seems to be treated as if it meant they could tell no lies.

I should mention that there was a hell of a lot more witnesses than twelve. The twelve disciples are shown to be possibly the most fallible humans in the book. Judas is an obvious example, as is “Doubting Thomas”, and Peter, humourously so. What’s more, referring back to when the gospel documents were written, if they were liars, there were hundreds, probably thousands of people still alive in their very cities who would be able to discredit them, and of course, stone them to death if they were liars and, by extension, blasphemers. Go figure.

Throughout this story, I've also pushed my own lofty socio-political ideals on the reader, and told them quite brazenly that if they do not believe my teachings, then they will be unhappy in this life, and will be sent to hell in the next, whilst my followers will come with me to paradise.

I’ll have to stop there and nitpick you. Jesus said that if you follow him, you are MORE likely to be unhappy in this life: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.  If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. That is why the world hates you.  Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.” (John 15:18-20)

What kind of deceiving man, in designing his deception of a religion, would state very clearly that if they follow him, they will certainly not find contentment in their life, tell them that their role on this earth is to humble themselves as a lowly servant, and that to love is to sacrifice to the last extreme? In fact, the bible, start to finish, seems to have been written to sort out those with too much pride or selfish ambition in themselves.

As for the lofty socio-political ideas, I can certainly see where you perceive them. I can also, by paraphrasing similarly, find a basis for theocracy, democracy, monarchy, anarchy and a dictatorship. The fact is, none of them are there. To find them, you have to ignore the context and ignore what he is saying directly to you. He does, though, give full basis for a government that serves its people. Jesus teachings on how to love your neighbour, though revolutionary to the confused religious leaders of his day (hence some of the basis to the “Christianity is not a religion” idea), aren’t fodder for starting any political revolution. I’m sure Jesus cared deeply about the plight of his people under the Roman thumb, and had his own convictions on what a good governmental system looks like, but trying to justify your own political ideas through it is pathetic, just look at George W. Bush and many other’s disgraceful, disgusting abuse of the chosen God of his people in justifying the invasion of Iraq, and the Crusades, and whatever other “God is on our side” disaster you care to choose. George’s particular one enraged me to no end, what a horrible advertisement for others to excuse themselves from the Bible. But of course, the bible did start many revolutions, not for any particular political or social ideal, but for the fact that so many countless people became convinced by these events. They are simply teachings on living as God intended with each other, whether they conform to Christian ideals or not. Unfortunately, all Christians struggle with this. This did not take God by surprise at all. More later…

...I think this is whynot a lot of attention was paid to Christianity in its first few hundred years…

I dare say it was more because its lessons of peace, humility and selflessness didn’t present a way of serving any empire’s interests. I have already outlined why the bible is unappealing to the non-Christian, to no fault of its own but the unbeliever’s perception, assumptions and selfish interests. Whether Constantine had latched on to it and used it or not, the growth would have been exponential.

Add all of this stuff together, and essentially what you have a being that you cannot prove the existence of, and a text which is neither old nor young, poorly translated, Plagiarized, likely subject to strong social Bias, and could have been written by anyone…

Hopefully at this point, I have planted the idea that every one of those points is just plain wrong. This will be the end of my part one, too.

Much more much later…