Flawed Theology

Matthew 27 describes a truly astonishing and moderately creepy event that took place right after Jesus died.  The temple curtain was torn in two, there was an earthquake, and THEN...the tombs opened and many saints who had been long dead were RAISED BACK TO LIFE.   The zombies then went into the holy city, wandered around, and appeared to many (Mt 27:52-53). Actual photo evidence of the zombie uprising This is quite a thing.  If this actually happened, it should go down as one of the most astounding and miraculous things that has ever happened on this planet in all of recordable time.   So here are my thoughts: Matthew is the only gospel account that includes the zombie anecdote.  If zombies were REALLY wandering around the city, doesn't it seem odd that only Matthew wrote about this?  Did Mark, Luke, and John not know about it, or not care to write about it?  Did they not think it was important to document that people came back to life? There a...

The argument that we cannot be moral without God usually consists of two parts: Human morality comes directly from God Without God, there is no objective morality Let's assume God does indeed give us moral commands. Are these commands: Moral because God commanded them*?  OR Were they already moral before God commanded them? *This is called the divine command theory Obviously, those who insist that morality comes from God MUST say #1 is true.  But this also means that God subjectively decides which acts are moral.  He could command genocide ( and has ) and it would be a moral act, simply because he commanded it.  This also means that there is no objective morality--since God can decide what acts are moral, it is subjective. To avoid this problem, one might say #2 is true. But if God is merely commanding acts that are already moral, then morality exists outside of God, and we don't need God for morality. A good test to see which of #1 or #2 is true: If God commanded yo...

There are many people who claim that morality comes from a god . And they often say, "If there is no god, then why be a good person?" There are many reasons to be a good and moral person. To maximize the health and safety of people around us To treat people how we would want to be treated To minimize human suffering To exercise our natural instincts for compassion To earn the respect and trust of others To feel a sense of purpose To minimize the time spent in conflict with those around us To lower the amount of stress we feel To improve our mental health Many more, I'm sure...let me know in the comments. Let's revisit the claim that we can only be good with god. Does that mean: If there weren't a god in the sky watching you, you wouldn't be good? You are only being moral to earn some kind of reward or to avoid punishment? You would follow any command from your god no matter how depraved (since morality comes from your god?) Which person seems more moral: the ...

Ask these questions to a Christian and start some fun discussions.  But make it clear that the Christian is not allowed to answer the questions with any of the following cop-outs: God works in mysterious ways We cannot possibly understand God Suffering is necessary for free will You need more faith/Pray about it You're taking it out of context That's just your interpretation (without providing a satisfying interpretation themselves) The Bible is true because it says it's true (or any other circular reasoning) God has a plan, we just don't know what it is 27 Puzzling Questions about Christianity Is Satan omniscient and all-powerful? If not, why doesn't God just get rid of him? If suffering on earth cannot be eliminated because we need to have free will, then is there free will in heaven? Where did God come from? Why did God create humans with a biological need to eat, but then not provide enough food for us (9 million people die each year of hunger)?  Doesn't tha...

A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents. -Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion What is indoctrination? According to Oxford Languages, it is "the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically."   I'm not aware of any religious institutions that teach their parishioners how to critically examine the religion being taught. No, the religion is presented as non-negotiable truth and any real scrutiny is discouraged.  This is especially true for children.  Children are taught at an early age by their parents that their chosen religion is fact.  Kids are not taught how to think, but what to think.   Indoctrination exposes children to what is inside the bubble, at the expense of the virtues outside of the bubble In The God Delusion , Richard Dawkins compares religion to "mind-viruses".  The religions that are most likely to be spread from person to pers...

Until very recently, I thought there was something wrong with me.  Everyone around me seemed to happily accept the religion they were given with no questions asked.  If anyone besides me ever doubted, I never saw it. It is extremely isolating to be the only one among your family and church friends to question the reality with which we are presented. I thought the reason I couldn't accept Christianity was because of who I was as a person. I was too curious, too logical, too rebellious, too disobedient.  I often wished I had been born differently. Couldn't I have been given more of a pliable mind? What if I were just a tad more gullible? Maybe then I could be convinced that the Bible is true. That this invisible entity that I couldn't feel, touch, or hear is actually there. These feelings eventually turned into guilt.  I tearfully admitted to my best friend that I didn't have any faith, but I wished I had some.  I asked her why it was so easy for her, why was it s...

Judas Iscariot is well-known for betraying Jesus in exchange for 30 pieces of silver.  It may come as a surprise to learn that he died in two different ways in the Bible--and the stories are peppered with other contradictions too.   What did Judas do with the silver? In Matthew 27, he throws the silver back at the chief priests in the temple in a fit of remorse.  The counsel then buys a field. Acts 1:18 states that Judas bought a field with the money. Apologetic response: Judas indirectly bought the field via the priests. Counter Apologetic: The apologetic response is not the best explanation of the text.  Matthew clearly states that the priests bought the field, but Acts says "this man acquired a field"...and then goes on to describe his death.  This seems to imply that Judas acquired the field and then died. It also mentions nothing of the priests. Read independently of Matthew, nobody would infer that anyone else bought the field on his behalf....