Christian theology is shattered by these three factors

For centuries, the devout—determined to preserve and protect their faith—have ignored reality. They have turned off curiosity and critical thinking. That just doesn’t work anymore. 

There are major brick walls that Christian theology smacks into—and these should put a stop to belief in the god it claims to adore, follow, and worship. Let’s consider three of these brick walls.

There is more bragging here about the holy hero’s colossal ego  

At 72 verses, Mark 14 is the longest chapter in this gospel. It also gives an account of many conversations, and this should prompt curiosity. How did the author of Mark’s gospel find out about these conversations? Any curious reader today would ask, “Was someone on hand to take notes—and were these notes preserved in an archive that the author of Mark, decades later—would have access to? There is major consensus in Christian academia that this gospel was composed after the disastrous war fought between the Jews and the Romans, during which, in 70 C.E. the Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed (as depicted in Mark 13). Would archives have survived, would detailed documentation have survived? Scholars have no idea, moreover, where this gospel was written, or by whom.

Let curiosity and a desire for knowledge seize the day

Many years ago, when I was the pastor of two Methodist churches in Massachusetts, the clergy in town—across several denominations—were fond of occasionally having “ecumenical” services. That is, all of the clergy would take part, I guess to make the point that we all worshipped Jesus Christ. But as we gathered to take part in these events, one thing we didn’t do was discuss theology, because we knew we didn’t agree. On one such occasion, when we were “backstage” at a Catholic church, I noticed a tiny sink. The priest explained that it drained, not into the city sewer, but it had a small pipe that went through the wall, and emptied into the grass outside. This was the sink into which left-over wine from the mass was poured. Since it had been converted—through the miracle of the mass—into the real blood of Jesus, it would be a sacrilege to have it flow into the sewer. I could hardly imagine a better example of magical thinking, on a par with the fairy-god-mother in Cinderella turning a pumpkin into a coach. It would have been pointless to argue about such theological nonsense.

Which is precisely what the clergy don’t want you to do

It is especially important to study the origins of the Christian faith, and—above all—the origins of Jesus. It doesn’t take all that much effort to discover that the four gospel authors didn’t agree about where Jesus came from. At the opening of the first gospel to be written, Mark, Jesus of Nazareth of Galilee shows up to be baptized by John the Baptist, a ritual that John has announced is for “the forgiveness of sins.” Jesus is soon identified—by a voice booming from the sky—as god’s beloved son, with whom he is well pleased. The author of John, the final gospel, who specialized in theology inflation, tells his readers right up front, that Jesus was present at creation:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.”

Big problems with the apostle Paul: please stop calling him a saint

Just how did the apostle Paul become convinced that Jesus was the key to salvation? He assured one of his congregations that he heard this news directly from Jesus himself, in a heavenly vision: 

“For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin, for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12)

How can devout Christians take this ancient superstition

If Mark 13 were printed alone as a pamphlet—with the names changed—and handed out by goofy cult fanatics on street corners, churchgoers would be horrified by the cruelty, the promised violence and suffering we find in this chapter. Yet, there it is in the Christian Bible, in the first gospel to be written. 

In fact, chapter 13 gives us a major clue as to when this gospel was composed. The chapter opens with Jesus leaving the Jerusalem temple with his disciples. They are impressed with the temple complex, but Jesus makes a prediction: “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another: all will be thrown down.” (v. 2)

“But I feel Jesus in my heart” is evidence for what you’re feeling

In my most recent articles here I explained why we no longer need to pay much attention to the Sermon on the Mount and the Ten Commandments. Most devout churchgoers seem unaware of the many problems presented by these Bible texts. But there’s an even more gigantic problem that is outside the horizon of awareness of those who persist in their devotion to Jesus. There has been turmoil in Jesus-studies for quite some time now, because historians are having a tough time locating reliable, verifiable, objective evidence that Jesus really did exist. The laity would not be able to grasp the problem, because—well, because… “Aren’t the gospels all the proof we need?” 

There is little awareness of the major problems presented by the gospels. How thoroughly do devout folks actually study the gospels? The clergy, from their pulpits, share Jesus-script that gives a boost to his reputation, but are careful not to mention the chilling, horrible Jesus-script that is also in the gospels. Real study of the gospels means reading them each carefully, pondering the many troubling aspects of them, comparing these four different versions of Jesus. The next level of study would be reading books written by scholars about the gospels—both devout and secular scholars. Here the laity would be entering that world of turmoil in Jesus-studies I mentioned above.

Among other reasons, it’s a very defective list

Not too long ago I saw a funny comment on social media, in the wake of recent pressures to have the Ten Commandments displayed in school classrooms: “The adultery rate among teenage boys and girls has fallen dramatically since these holy commandments have been put back in schools.” Never mind, I suppose, that the violation of church/state separation has increased. But the devout champions of this ancient law code seem not to notice that it is crippled with defects. It is so hard to take it seriously.

Do the devout read it much anyway—and take it seriously? 

When we hear the words, Sermon on the Mount, we might be tempted to think it’s the pinnacle of moral teaching. Well, that’s been the church hype for centuries, but this doesn’t quite match reality. And does anybody ask the daring question: “Are these really the words of Jesus?” Since the gospel of Mark, by widespread scholarly consensus, was the first written, it’s a major puzzle indeed that the author was unaware of these supposed words of Jesus. The major thrust of Mark’s gospel is the expected arrival—very soon! —of the kingdom of god on earth. At Jesus’ trial, described in Mark 14, he promises those attending that they would see him coming on the clouds of heaven (v. 62). The author was dead wrong about this, which was his obsession—hence his gospel is lacking in moral teachings.

An argumentative holy hero promotes the Jesus-cult 

Many religions insist that their spiritual truths derive from divine inspiration. Christianity especially. The Bible is revered, indeed worshipped, because of its supposed origin. In many churches, a splendid copy of the Bible is on the altar, to remind the devout that cherishing, venerating it is the right thing to do.

Hence it is difficult for the laity to grasp that, for the gospels especially, none of the words and deeds of Jesus can be verified. The gospel authors didn’t identify their sources, never reveal from whence their supposed information about Jesus came. Since they were written decades after the death of Jesus—Mark being the first, some forty years later—careful, critical readers should be suspicious, indeed skeptical. Whoever reads the gospel of Mark several times can see that the author based the story on theology-inflamed imagination: he was not a historian. The lack of cited sources is a dead giveaway. The author of this gospel was focused on defending and promoting the Jesus-cult.

John Loftus and Russell Blackford make the case for atheist morality

Many years ago I knew a devout Catholic woman who would tolerate no questioning of her faith, because—full stop—she was eager to see her mother again in heaven. I recently was told that she visits psychics to communicate with her mom. Of course, the hope of gaining eternal life has fueled many religions, Christianity especially. In the case of this woman, catechism had shaped her mind so thoroughly, so rigidly, that “thinking outside the Catholic box” was never an option for her later in life. I have no doubt whatever that she is a good person, but fanatically holding on to ancient superstitions is not a great benefit for humanity.

When theology overwhelms story telling

Once upon a time—a very long time ago—four guys who had written stories about Jesus submitted their works to the Bible Screening Committee. They each received a notice to be near the screening committee’s headquarters on a certain day. By unhappy coincidence, they all chose to wait at the same bar, about a block away. They really didn’t like each other, but managed to be polite as they waited for word from the BS Committee. They each got a text message on their phones at the same time: “Congratulations! Your story has been approved for inclusion in the New Testament we’re putting together.” Each author was about to gloat—until they realized that all four versions had been given the okay, and even worse than that: the BS Committee was planning to print the four versions of the Jesus story together. They all knew that would be a disaster. At least there was potential for disaster. They had no clue that many centuries later, when lay people finally had access to the New Testament, reading the gospels carefully—comparing them carefully—would not become a habit.

The Catholic church thrives on make-believe and

Okay, I admit it: I was raised in a small town in rural Indiana, which had three Protestant Church—I belonged to the Methodist brand—and one Catholic Church. We got used to being taunted by the Catholic kids: we were going to hell because we weren’t members of their one true church. But mind you, it was a peaceful community; many true friendships developed despite the religious divides. Of course, on our Protestant side of the divide, we believed in our share of nonsense, but the older I got, the more I came to see that the Vatican is a champion at pushing nonsense.

Bad theology in the Old Testament

Not too long ago I saw a video: a conservative woman being interviewed by a man who wanted to know her opinion about what should be taught in public schools. She was adamant that the Bible should be included in the curriculum, but that books that advocated immoral or radical ideas must be banned. The man mentioned that he knew of a book that described a sordid family story: a man had two daughters who got him drunk on two successive nights, took turns having sex with him—and got pregnant. The woman didn’t hesitate: of course that book should be banned. The fellow then pointed out that this story is in the Bible, Genesis 19:30-38, about Lot and his daughters. The woman was shocked…that the interviewer could tell such a lie.

If we are expected to take the gospels seriously as authentic accounts, we would need to see the rigorous disciplines that historians follow. Take a look at any modern biography, at any modern description of an historical era: the ends of these books have dozens of pages of notes on the sources used: letters, diaries, newspaper quotes that were researched in libraries and archives. Because real historians don’t rely on their imaginations or inspiration. They base their accounts on verifiable facts. LINK.