three papers i wrote last month...

[Heretic115]

it's all in the nomer...

Biblical Infallibility

Christian fundamentalists assert that the bible is infallible. This is an incorrect assertion. Numerous contradictions are scattered about the pages of both Testaments. However, the Christian fundamentalists have two common arguments with which to refute this claim.
The first of the two arguments is that the bible does not contain contradictions unless the verses are taken out of context. Assuming for a moment that the bible is actually infallible; would not the ability to take something out of context hurt the Christians argument more than it would help? If something is unable to be falsified then it would impossible to make it false. If something is infallible then it is beyond the capabilities of a fallible being to make it fallible. By asserting that a verse is being taken out of context the Christian fundamentalist is, in actuality, conceding that the bible is fallible.
Secondly, it is often said that what is read is not what was originally meant; that meaning has been lost through translation. This argument too is more of a bane than a boon to the fundamentalist assertion that the bible is infallible. From the beginning the fundamentalist must concede that the bible is able to be interpreted falsely, therefore defeating their claim that the bible is infallible. Psalms 145:9 says that the Christian deity is compassionate and good to all of his creations. Would a compassionate deity damn one of his creations for reading his word in one of the many languages he himself created in Genesis chapter 11?
These two fundamentalist arguments are reduced to self-defeating rhetoric when examined completely. It follows then that any contradictions uncovered in the bible are in fact actual doctrinal contradictions.
These few contradictions reside amongst the plethora of contradictions that proclaim the bible’s fallibility.

Matthew 24:35 – “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”

This is contradicted by:

Ecclesiastes 1:4 – “A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever.”


Matthew 27:5 – “Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he (Judas) departed; and he went and hanged himself.”

This conflicts with:

Acts 1:18 – “Now this man (Judas) acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.”


Matthew 28:8 – “So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.”

This is in contrast to:

Mark 16:8 – “So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.”


Matthew 27:46 – “And about three o’ clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

These last words differ from:

Luke 23:46 – “Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.”

These words also differ:

John 19:30 – “When Jesus had received the wine, he said, “It is finished.” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.”


Is it justifiable to call something infallible when it can be shown to be otherwise? No.

[Heretic115]

Faith and the Ethics Thereof

Thirty three percent of the world’s population claims to be of the Christian religion. These people are bound by the Christian moral code of conduct as stated in the Bible. The main tenant of both the Christian morality and the religion itself is faith. The assertion of this essay is that adherence to a set of principles which are grounded in faith is unethical. Furthermore, faith as it is most commonly defined is based, albeit erroneously, upon logic and reason.
Since no one definition is universally accepted the definition most commonly given by those of the Christian persuasion will be used for the purposes of this essay. Faith is belief without evidence. Faith cannot be refuted using reason and logic because it is beyond these methods of investigation. Faith asserts that the subject being believed in is too noble or too divine to be analyzed. However, this is incorrect.
Faith must be something that is gained during the lifetime of the individual. To state that faith is predetermined is more of a hindrance than a boon to the argument that the Christian god is omni benevolent. Following from this assertion it is logical that something must cause the effect of obtaining faith. A necessary premise for faith in the Christian god is knowledge of the deity. This is meant in the sense that if one is unaware of the concept of the Christian god one has nothing upon which to believe. According to Christians, one can become aware of their god in a variety of ways that include, but are not limited to; the Bible, miracles, personal experience, and direct revelation. These create the premises upon which faith is based. Without exposure to the idea of the Christian god it is impossible to believe in it. Even the argument that faith is based upon an indescribable ‘feeling’ still asserts that faith is based on the premise of the feeling. Without the premises there can be no conclusion. The fact that there are indeed premises however, shows that faith requires the use of logic; cause and effect.
Faith is shown to be illogical however, when the methods by which the obtainment of the prerequisite knowledge of the Christian deity are analyzed. The Bible cannot be shown to be the ‘word of god.’ A ‘miracle’ has not yet been documented that cannot be either debunked or explained scientifically. A personal experience has not yet occurred that cannot be explained either psychologically or sociologically. The fact that the premises do not stand up to reasonable analysis does not mean that faith transcends reason and logic. Faith requires a premise, this is undeniable, and since this is so there is logic in faith. However, because the premises are illogical and unreasonable faith too is shown to be so. Faith in the premises themselves would still require evidence, however faulty, that the premises were able to be believed. Without evidence, rational or otherwise, belief is impossible. Faith is not belief without evidence; faith is belief without proper evidence.
Ethical systems based on reason are superior to those based on faith. Systems of conduct based upon faith are used to justify innumerable atrocities; terrorism, infanticide, war, inquisitions, suicides, intellectual suppression, gender inequality, ethnic cleansing, genocide…The same could be said of reason based systems. The difference though, between faith based and reason based ethical principles, is enormous.
Reason allows for adaptation and revision when it is reasonable to do so. Faith on the other hand, asserts that its principles are infallible and that the world, no matter how much it attempts to progress, should be held to the same standards that it has been held to for centuries. Technology advances, cultures change, new systems arise; the world is a whirlpool of dynamic progression. An unchanging code of moral conduct is a stumbling block to humanity both intellectually and ethically.

[Heretic115]

(this one turned out to be more of a rant...you can see the formation of the ideas in the previous two in this one however)

‘Revelation’

“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common
People quiet.” – Napoleon Bonaparte
It is well then that I do not address this paper to the pedestrian. The thinker, the skeptic, the philosophically minded individual, the seeker; these entities compose my intended audience.
My name is Joshua Kemp and I am an atheist. My passion is the study of the Bible. Having thoroughly read the Bible thirteen times, I have developed a vast plethora of ideas concerning the supposed ‘word of god.’
The Bible is riddled with contradictions. I have encountered a large amount of opposition in regard to that statement. I have been told that I am taking the words out of context. Odd that when I look at a verse independent of the whole I am taking it out of context, and yet, when I am bombarded by Christians rattling of single commandments or verses similar to John 3:16 they are innocent of the offense. If the Bible were truly infallible it would be impossible to take verses out of context. Infallible means perfect, unable to be made false. If I am taking things out of context then either the Bible is not infallible or the Christians that babble about John 3:16 are hypocrites for saying that I am wrong to do what they do themselves.
I talk frequently about contradictions between the Old Testament and the New Testament. When I do so I am often told that the Old Testament is rendered null and void by the New Testament. The same individuals who tell me this will likely maintain that they strive to live by the Ten Commandments. Funny, I wonder where those people find all Ten Commandments in the New Testament. Commandments are mentioned by Jesus in Mark 10:19, but there are only five mentioned. These five make no mention of the Alleged Christian Deity (ACD) and one of them, “you shall not defraud,” is not even mentioned in the ten that most Christians claim to live by. Furthermore, if the Old Testament is null and void why does Jesus deny that he has come to destroy the law or the prophets (Matthew 5:17-19)? Although, if all that came before Jesus were thieves and bandits (John 10:8) I do not know why he would want to uphold what they preached.
Old Testament
To show that I can present fallacies in the section of the Bible that Christians supposedly follow I will only briefly discuss one of my major concerns regarding the Old Testament. What did these thieves and bandits (John 10:8) have to say that concerns me?
The authors of the Old Testament condoned the killing of witches (Exodus 22:18), heretics (Exodus 22:20), violators of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14-15, Exodus 35:2), children who curse their parents (Leviticus 20:9), adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), blasphemers (Leviticus 24:16), and children whom make fun of prophets (2 Kings 2:23-24). These actions are no longer considered humane by today’s standards but if one says one believes in the Bible then one has to maintain that at one time these laws were acceptable. The authors of the Old Testament, by saying that these killings are justified, contradict the Exodus 20:13 commandment, “thou shalt not kill.” The Bible does not say thou shalt not kill unless the ACD says to kill. If the ACD does not want humankind to murder why did he supposedly create the aforementioned people? He created them knowing what they would become. If the ACD created them knowing full well how they would turn out does that mean that he created them specifically to have his commandment broken? Why would a deity who is supposedly good to all and compassionate to all of his creations (Psalms 145:9) do such a thing? It must be easier to understand this type of thing when one has never read the Bible.
New Testament
My discussion of the New Testament will be limited to discussion of the book of Matthew. To go in depth any further would require volumes and I have much to discuss. The book of Matthew is the first gospel of the supposed son of the ACD known as Jesus. To fully expose some of this book’s inconsistencies I will need to make references, from time to time, to verses further on in the New Testament.
The very lineage of Joseph, surrogate father of Jesus, is debatable. Matthew 1:16 claims that Jacob was Joseph’s father, while Luke 3:23 says that Joseph was the son of Heli. Titus 3:9 takes care of this minor editorial slip up though. Titus tells the Christian to, “…avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.” Christians, do not worry about the father of Mary’s husband, to do so would be unprofitable and worthless.
Another inconsistency I find in Matthew lies in chapter 6 verse 6. this verse has Jesus teaching his flock that when they pray they should pray in solitude. Why do supposedly devote Christians pray together in church if they allegedly follow the teachings of Jesus? The fact that Christians pray at all never ceases to amuse me. If the ACD is truly omnipotent and omniscient what could his fallible creations possibly tell him that he does not already know? What could Christians possibly ask him to do that he would not have done already had he desired to do so? If they pray to worship the ACD then they do so in vain. Supposedly the ACD would already know his creations’ feelings for him. If the Christians pray to have a problem solved then they pray without cause. Like I already said; if the ACD is going to do something he is going to do it regardless of the wishes of his creations. A supposedly perfect being would be beyond the influence of a fallible entity. I propose that Christians pray solely to alleviate their cognitive dissidence. Although, according to Romans 5:3-5 that may not be the wisest of maneuvers. Those verses say, “And not only that, but we (Christians) also boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.” I wonder why Christians pray.
Matthew 5:44 reads, “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” How are the crusades justified if 5:44 is correct?
Matthew 10:34-36 has Jesus saying that he did not come to send peace but rather the sword. These verses are among the few that I would be inclined to agree with if I acknowledged these supposed ‘words of god.” From the crusades to the Inquisition, if a man named Jesus ever really existed, and if he ever truly spoke those words, then he would have been correct in his assertion.
Both Matthew 17:20 and 21:21-22 teach that with faith all things are possible. This seems tantamount to a joke. If this were true then that would have to mean that there is not a single Christian in the entire world that desires world peace. But perhaps it is true and the problem is that there is not a single faithful Christian in the world? Of course to desire world peace would be a sin according to I John 2:15 which says love not the world or the things in it. I suppose also, that since the ACD is supposedly omnipresent he would exist within this world…so Christians, do not love the ACD. Christians should probably refrain from loving the word of the ACD too since it is contained within the Bible which is a part of the physical world.
Refuting the Christians
Often I am told that I take the Bible too literally. “Such and such verse is meant to be taken metaphorically.” I hear this all the time. This is how a Christian rationalizes their interpretation of the Bible. They substitute what the Bible actually says with what they wish the Bible actually said.
Another favorite of Christian apologetics is to tell me that the meaning has been distorted in translation or transcription. If the word of the ACD truly were infallible then it would be impossible to subtract from its perfection. Fallible humans would be unable to distort an infallible doctrine. Let us assume for a moment that I am being misled by faulty translation. According to Genesis chapter 11 the world’s multiple languages are a result of the tower of Babel incident. Now if the ACD is omniscient he knew that I would be deceived by a false translation as a result of his actions in Genesis 11. Being fallible I am not capable of performing an action that an infallible being is not aware of and therefore I have no choice but to be deceived by the false translation. Oddly though, if I am misled because I read King James Version, let us say, and I go to hell because I do not think the doctrine correct, what happens to the believer? If they read the same Bible I do, but find no inconsistencies, they go to heaven? No, I assert that the translation argument does more harm to the Christian side than it does good. I have to know Greek and Hebrew to understand the Bible but they can read the English translation their whole life and still get into heaven? Why is that? Faith…
The basis of Christianity, when studied thoroughly, is faith. Being that there is no one definition that all people agree upon I have decided to use the definition I hear most often. Faith is belief without evidence. One cannot put one’s finger on it, one just knows. Logic, reason, and science cannot be used to refute faith because faith is above these things. It is this type of faith which is most often thrown in my face as a non-intellectual last ditch effort to salvage their precious religion.
At this point I have two options, as does the Christian. The Christian can either assert that humankind is born with faith or that faith is gained during the life time of the human being. If humankind is born with faith, would a loving and compassionate deity (Psalm 145:9) crate atheists that have no hope of going to heaven because they were not born with faith? I should hardly think so and most Christians would agree. This leaves only one option; faith is something gained during the life time of the human being. Now if faith can be gained it follows that something must proceed the obtaining of faith. If something does not proceed the obtaining of faith then the ACD would be guilty of the same offense he would be guilty of if he refused to give an atheist faith at birth. One does not just wake up one morning to find that one suddenly has faith. The fact that there is a cause for the effect, the obtaining of faith, shows that faith is obtained in a logical seeming manner. The Christian may still deny this however. Therefore, I continue. Logic dictates that in order for a Christian to have faith in Christ and his resurrection then they must think, they cannot know as knowledge is obtained by evidence and they say faith does not use evidence, that Jesus was real. If one has never heard of Jesus they cannot have faith in him. In order for a Christian to faith in the Bible then they must first be exposed, physically or mentally, to the Bible. If one does not know in any way of the existence of the Bible then one cannot have faith in it. In these instances the latter is based upon the former and is therefore a form of logic. The problem is that the premises of these conclusions do not themselves have reliable premises as evidence. Because faith cannot be justifiably called logical and reasonable Christians assert that faith is above reason and logic. Faith is not above reason and logic; faith uses logic and reason improperly and then denies that reason and logic can be used to refute it. Faith is not belief without evidence; it is belief based on incorrect evidence.
In conclusion I assert that Christianity and the Bible are riddled with contradictions and that there is not reasonable explanation for belief in the Bible or the ACD.

[Mad Season]

You know, I'm a rabid athiest as well, but I'm not sure this is the proper place for these essays. Might I suggest: http://p069.ezboard.com/fmememachineforumfrm3

[Peepslayer]

Well i cant see the immediate need for these topic here, much less since religion is one of the easiest topics to offend folks on. The comparison of a single god faith, to a multiple god faith pantheon, is in itself nearly impossible to properly compare in most fantasy settings, or at least in my opinion.

I wont state my faith here, since i do not debate religion in open forums. However it is an almost simplistic view to look at the Bible: a carefully selected set of books from over 2000 years ago, that are part history, part fable, part lesson in Jewish law and history, all of which are bound by faith that has changed the world constantly, and will continue to do. It is not a simple topic that can be summed up in a 3 page paper, nor can the cross analysis of why certain passages contridict each other. It happens in modern documents still today. I.E that all men are created equal of the US Constitution while slavery was considered legal, and has recent impact on US events of gay marriage.

What does always amuse me is the hypocracy of athesist who rant and rave about how religion doesnt exist, and then condemn the faith based majority of this planet when they do the same about how athesist are wrong. If you dont believe in something, quit taking cheap shots at something to you, is not any different than the best seller list at Barnes and Noble. And if you do believe in it, then follow the meaning of messages taught about understanding, compassion, and the free will of man.

[broncoblitz]

Couldnt agree more Peep, and if any religion is going to be debated at all on these forums, it should be explicitly related ONLY to the gods of dasaria and how THEY are represented in the realm

[Loki]

Logic dictates that you should neither believe or disbelief in god as both require faith and faith defies Logic. There is no proof in the existence of god but equally there is no proof that god does not exist. Therefore the only possible happy medium is to live in a constant state of not caring.

[Feral]

most bible bashers only pick out the bits that suit em anyway and ignore the difficult parts but still claim to be christian......

then again they do say there are no atheists on a crashing plane or sinking ship.....

[Heretic115]

heresy!


as far as not being the proper place for, or seeing no need for this topic...it was my understanding that this is where we post our out of character thoughts(whether or not they pertain to the game) so as to give other players a sense of who we are in real life...this is who i am...as for there being no need; i disagree. there is as much need for this post as there is for any other post in which someone expresses their feelings...

i will address each of you in turn...

Feral: i am a bible basher, yes. as for picking out the easy parts or the parts that suit me...i do not pick out the humanistic parts of the bible and put them forth because there is not a single original humanistic idea in the bible...all of them can be traced back to pre-biblical philosophers. difficult parts? if you know them then they are not difficult and as anything i put out is going to be something i am at least semi-versed in it would always seem that i am avoiding the difficult parts...i am not re-writing the bible so if it makes you feel better you can tell yourself i have avoided the difficult parts. no atheists on a sinking ship or a plummeting plane? however they want to justify their beliefs is fine...if they want to tell themselves that everyone is religious right before death that is extremely faulty argumentation as they cannot know one way or the other. i would be willing to wager however that in ancient ionian society, being that they were an atheistic society, people did not suddenly become religious before death...if you are not exposed to it in life you are not capable of latching on to it immediately before death...
feral i am not even sure if you were trying to argue with me here or give me a hard time...

Loki: not true. no proof either way maybe; but enough evidence on the non existence side to warrant my statement. i did not see evolution occur but just because i have no proof does not mean it did not happen...the evidence points to my conclusion...now if my evidence and thought processes are able to show the fallacies of the other side that is not an attack on them...it is an attack on their beliefs...not caring was the principle behind the policy of appeasment...do not refrain from caring, fight for what will make the world a better place. (on a side note: agnostics are either strong or weak...not to use a label but observe for yourself sometime. they either don't know but lean toward god or don't know and lean away from. anyone that seems not to care, honestly, either way...probably does not have enough knowledge to make a proper defense for agnosticism so they simply say that they do not care.)

Peep: but is it right that current documents do the same? all that says is that the problems of society have not been solved...people contradict themselves all of the time(i am sure i will do it once or twice in this post) but divinely inspired people contradicting themselves leads one to wonder if they truly were. it is obvious that i did not fully analyze the contradiction aspect...it was a two page limit. i never said i have solved the bible. i was showing where a few contradictions were hidden. if you disagree then show that they don't contradict. carefully selected? all i can say to this is read about the selection of the books and the altering that has taken place over the years to make them seem carefully selected...if by carefully selected you mean hand picked by those in the clergy to advance their own agendas then i am in full agreance. i never said religion does not exist. i said god (any for that matter) does not exist. cheap shot? yes i am condemning the faith of the majority...is that wrong? appeal to authority is wrong. if the whole world believed in murder and one person felt otherwise would it be wrong to condemn the majority? appeal to authority holds no validity. i condemn it because without its faith religion is humanism...what i am dong is similar to a review of the hobbit...no i don't believe it but that does not mean i do not have the right to tell you what i think is wrong with it. feel free to believe as you will...don't take cheap shots at me when i try to point out something i see as wrong...yes, i considered that sarcasm a cheap shot as i am fairly sure you meant it to be.

[Feral]

well i wasn't arguing with anyone, just stating my view as you so rightfully defend the right to do so....

if you consider yourself a bible basher and righteous christian why are you pointing out contradictions in the symbol of your faith? i was speaking in general about people picking out bits of the bible to suit, don't believe me? speak to some northern irish people.........

so am i to assume you're a virgin who will stay so until he's married and who doesn't swear and says his prayers every night etc etc?

some preachings in the bible would certainly make the world a better place but damn! how boring would it be?

as for the sinking ship analogy, i'm pretty sure most people who havent prayed before may just start knowing they were going to meet their maker, just in case he exists, maybe you try to look to deeply into things that are said in jest.....?

if you can swear hand on heart that you follow all the preachings of the bible, which is what I meant by the "hard" parts, mainly abstainance, then accept my apology.......but I somehow doubt it....

[GM Falcon]

This may not be the best place for this, folks.

[Loki]

Hehe.. I don't fully prescribe to the theory of Evolution either.. it has more gaps and holes then a sieve.. yet its the foundation for an entire arm of science? How screwed up is that! I'm not prescribing to creationism either.. but it has no fewer flaws and holes as a philosophical argument as the theory of evolution!

[Boon]

Hehe.. I don't fully prescribe to the theory of Evolution either.. it has more gaps and holes then a sieve.. yet its the foundation for an entire arm of science? How screwed up is that! I'm not prescribing to creationism either.. but it has no fewer flaws and holes as a philosophical argument as the theory of evolution!

Hehe...you should of heard of the theory I gave to my Father in Law who is Catholic. hehe....was a good time that night. 2 guys, drinking Jack Daniels and having a conversation on the creation of man. Was funny as hell. Ahh...bet the guy loves me like one of his own.

[Heretic115]

feral...with a name like heresy and papers that in no way insinuate that i am christian(in fact they explicitly state i am an atheist) why would you think i claim to be christian...

btw...that is why i said i was unsure as to whether or not you were arguing....hey man, your opinion is your opinion....i was just stating that i didn't know if you were or not...(its hard to tell with you sometimes )

[Heretic115]

sorry falcon...i am done. lock 'er up. didn't think it would be a topic that people would not even want to discuss...figured we could get some good non-game debate going...nevermind, i will stiffle.