Telling Lies For Jesus

The way religion is taught in Victorian primary schools will be overhauled after a report found that volunteers from the state's key provider Access Ministries breached its guidelines. [link]

Ho hum. This situation has been going on for over a decade and it is never going to change.

Back in 2002 the Government of the Australian State of Victoria employed social workers in most schools at a cost of about $50,000 per worker per year. Then Access Ministries offered to supply school chaplains who would do the same job for $20,000 per worker per year. They could afford to make this offer because they intended to use unqualified local Christians including many who volunteered to work for free. (It's easy to undercut the opposition when you don't have to pay your workforce.) The Government said, "It's a deal - but you can't preach Christianity." Access Ministries said, "No, we'll never do that." And they've been preaching religion in schools ever since.

By the year 2008, the CEO of Access Ministries (Evonne Paddison) had been getting away with breaking the law for so long that she felt she no longer had to remain secretive about it. At a meeting of the Anglican Evangelical Fellowship in 2008, she enthusiastically told her workers to get back into the schoolyard and continue harvesting souls for Jesus:

We have a God-given open door to children and young people with the gospel. Our Federal and State Governments allow us to take the Christian faith into schools and share it. We need to go and make disciples ... We have the responsibility of fulfilling the great commission of making disciples. We need to see our scripture teachers, our chaplains especially, as facilitators. We need to be missional.

Three years later, when questioned on ABC TV about her law-breaking activities, Paddison did what so many Christians do in these situations - she told lies:

We instruct our people not to proselytise. We're not there to convert children; we're there to educate children.

[Source]

But here's the pathetic part - she got away with it. And now, all these years later, Paddison and her cronies are still preaching religion in the schoolyard.

Reading The Bible (Part #1)

Links:
Part #1 <<<You are here
Part #2
Part #3
Part #4

We'll start by taking a look at the three different ways in which you can read the New Testament:

(1)

If you read the New Testament in the normal fashion, starting at the beginning and continuing through to the end, it all seems to make perfect sense:

• Jesus was born in Bethlehem 
• Spent his childhood in Nazareth 
• Was baptized at the age of thirty
• Preached the sermon on the mount
• Healed the sick
• Travelled to Jerusalem
• Got arrested
• Was executed
• Rose from the dead
• Ascended into heaven

All the gospels seem to be telling that same basic story and all of Paul's letters seem to agree with everything written in the gospels.

Yes, things start getting a bit silly towards the end, in the book of Revelation, where we find seven-headed dragons and ladies in red dresses cutting the heads off zombie horsemen, but apart from that, the New Testament seems to do a fairly good job in telling the story of the life of Jesus. And the Revelation nonsense happened after Jesus was dead anyway - so it doesn't really count does it?

(2)

But now read the gospels side-by-side and you get quite a different impression. The basic story is the same but none of the details match!

Matthew says that Jesus' paternal grandfather was Heli, but Luke says it was Jacob.
(Matthew 1:16, Luke 3:25)

Matthew says Jesus lived in Egypt for several years after his birth, but Luke says he went directly to Nazareth.
(Matthew 2:12-15, Luke 2:39)

Mark says Jesus started preaching after John the Baptist was imprisoned, but John says this is not true.
(Mark 1:14, John 3:23-24)

Mark has Jesus say that no signs will be given, but John says Jesus gave many signs to his followers.
(Mark 8:12-13, John 20:30)

It's as if the gospel writers had never met Jesus; as if they had heard a few vague stories about him and then made up the details to suit themselves.

Christian apologists, of course, have spent the last two thousand years creating "gospel harmonies" that purportedly explain away most of the contradictory stories, but some of those explanations are so pathetically weak that even other Christians have to laugh a little bit.

(3)

And there is a third way to read the New Testament. Don't read it from start to finish and don't read it in parallel (with all the similar events lined up side-by-side). Read the books in chronological order instead.

Regarding the birth of Jesus for example: it was about 55AD when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans and he made it clear that it was a completely normal birth:

Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. (Romans 1:3)

So normal, in fact, that fifteen years later Mark didn't even bother to mention it in the gospel he wrote in 70AD.

But ten years later, in 80AD, Matthew added some miraculous details to the story and declared that Jesus was born to a virgin:

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel. (Matthew 1:23)

And finally, in the gospel of John (written in about 95AD) we have a quite fantastic story suggesting that Jesus had existed since the beginning of time and furthermore; that he was not only the "son of god" but god himself! 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (John 1:1,14)

• 55 AD Jesus' birth was quite normal.
• 70 AD So normal that Mark didn't bother to mention it.
• 80 AD Matthew says Jesus' birth was miraculous (born to a virgin)
• 95 AD John says Jesus existed even before the creation of the universe!

We can see the legend growing as the years pass by.

-----

And the same thing happens with other biblical characters as well. For example, the very early Christians had never heard about Judas betraying Jesus and then killing himself.

In 1 Corinthians 11:23 Paul says that Jesus was betrayed but he doesn't name the betrayer. Later, in 1 Corinthians 15:5, Paul says that after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to "the Twelve", so Judas was not yet dead, and apparently not regarded as a betrayer either. Judas was still with the apostles and apparently still being treated as an equal; certainly not dead.

Twenty years later, however, by the time Mark wrote his gospel in 70AD, it had become accepted that Jesus was betrayed by Judas, but there was no indication that Judas had died (probably because that part of the legend had not yet been invented).

Ten years after that, when Matthew wrote his gospel in 80AD, the legend had grown to the point where Judas had seen the error of his ways and committed suicide during a fit of remorse.

And another ten years after that, Luke invented a much more mysterious death for Judas, saying that he fell over and his bowels gushed out. Luke makes no mention of suicide. Luke is trying to give the impression that Judas was zapped by God himself.

• 50AD Judas was a fully-fledged apostle with not a stain on his character.
• 70AD he was the apostle who betrayed Jesus.
• 80AD he was the betrayer who died at his own hand.
• 90AD he was the betrayer, struck down by a miracle from God. 

You can see the legend growing as each book is written.

-----

Also, when reading the books of the bible in chronological order, you will discover something rather interesting about the healing miracles of Jesus. In all of the very earliest books of the New Testament (i,e, Paul's letters) there is not one mention of a healing miracle performed by Jesus - not one!

But as the years passed by and there were fewer and fewer eyewitnesses left to dispute their claims, the gospel writers boldly asserted that miracles had happened - and you can see the miracles becoming more and more spectacular as each author tries to outdo the stories told by preceding authors. For example:

That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. The whole town gathered at the door,  and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. (Mark 1:32-34)

When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. (Matthew 18:6)

At sunset, the people brought to Jesus all who had various kinds of sickness, and laying his hands on each one, he healed them. (Luke 4:40)

• 50AD no healing miracles of any kind
• 70AD all the sick were brought to Jesus and many were healed.
• 80AD many, were brought and all were healed.
• 90AD all were brought and all were healed.

You can see the legend growing year by year.

-----

Reading The Bible (Part #2)

Links:
Part #1
Part #2 <<<You are here
Part #3
Part #4

In Part #2 we are going to consider what the bible authors might have been trying to accomplish when they wrote their books.

Paul was the first writer, but he had never met Jesus and he had nothing much to offer - no sayings of Jesus; no miracles; no personal details of any kind. As far as Paul was concerned, Jesus was some sort of airy-fairy character from the distant past who had died for the sins of all mankind, and promised to one day return and take his followers back up to heaven where they would live in peace for evermore.

Many years later, it became clear to the Christians that Jesus was not going to return anytime soon and they began to wonder just who was this Jesus? Where did he come from? What did he say? What did he do? When did he do it?

Faced with all these questions, the gospel writers felt obligated to provide some answers but, like Paul before them, they had never met Jesus and didn't really know much about him - so they made stuff up!

Mark started off slow. He didn't have much information about the actual life of Jesus (not even the circumstances of his birth) but he collected all the rumours that were going around at the time (mainly rumours of miracles performed by Jesus) and put them together in the very first gospel.

Ten years later Matthew copied most of the gospel of Mark but he fabricated some additional information and, for the first time ever, Christians began to hear about the 'human' Jesus; his family; his friends; and his associates. Matthew also changed some of the bits of Mark that he didn't agree with, and exaggerated other parts to make them sound even more spectacular than the way Mark had described them.

Luke did much the same: He copied most of Mark's stories, added more information about the life of Jesus and his family, changed the bits of Mark that he didn't like, and exaggerated other stories. 

By the time the gospel of John was written, almost all of the original Christians were dead and there were no eyewitnesses left to dispute any of the stories told about Jesus. For this reason, instead of writing about a fairly ordinary 'human' Jesus, John decided to spice things up a bit and elevated Jesus to the same level as God himself. "I and the Father are one" he has Jesus say in John 10:30.

Because the authors were operating independently they had no chance to collaborate and, as we discovered in part #1, a large number of contradictions crept into the New Testament. For several hundred years none of these discrepancies (deliberate lies actually) were of any consequence because the different groups of Christians remained separate from each other. The Marcionites, for example, were totally unfazed by the contradictions in the gospels because (apart from a few teachings that come from the gospel of Luke) they did not accept the gospels. They concentrated solely upon the letters of Paul and regarded the gospel writers as heretics!

By about the third century AD, however, the various church leaders decided it was time to get the books into some sort of order. The trouble was that as soon as they tried to put all the books together in a single canon, the lies and discrepancies became glaringly obvious. Even worse, the different church leaders who had been using those books were unwilling to have anything changed. The followers of Matthew insisted that Joseph was the son of Heli while the followers of Luke insisted Joseph was the son of Jacob. Neither side was prepared to give an inch and the contradictions remained.

It took a while, but eventually the leaders of the various factions came up with the idea of putting the books together in a fashion that made it almost impossible for their uneducated followers to easily see the lies, discrepancies, and contradictions.

• First came Matthew because his gospel contained details of almost every aspect of Jesus' life from his birth to his death. It really was a good starting point.
• It was no good putting Luke next to Matthew, however, because they contradicted each other far too often.
• So the church leaders inserted Mark straight after Matthew because it said very little about the early life of Jesus and therefore did not contradict Matthew in any noticeable way.
• Then, by the time the non-scholars had finished reading Mark, they would have forgotten the details in Matthew and thus fail to notice the discrepancies with Luke - so Luke came after Mark.
• There was a lot of debate about John, but Christians with gnostic roots insisted that it must be included, so it was. It contained heaps of dopey stories about Jesus existing since time began, and being as one with God, but such tales seemed to add romance to the saga, and most people were able to accept them as exciting hyperbole if not actual truth.
• After John the church leaders added the book of Acts written by Luke. It had quite a bit to say about the early church and the teachings of Paul, so the priests figured it would serve as a nice segue into  the letters of Paul.
• Then came the letters of Paul which said practically nothing about the life of Jesus - but that was good because that meant they didn't contradict anything in the gospels.
• Next there were a few items like the letters from John, Jude, and James. They didn't say much about Jesus, but lots of people already knew about those letters, so they were tacked on towards the end of the New Testament.
• And finally there was the idiot book of Revelation. The arguments went on for decades but eventually the preachers with the biggest sticks won the battle and the whole silly nonsense was included as part of the canon.

And now that they had hidden most of the obvious contradictions in the New Testament, the preachers came up with a brand new idea that ensured their uneducated followers would never discover the lies contained in the holy scriptures: They suggested that Christians should not read the bible on their own, but they should have it read to them by a preacher from the pulpit! And that enabled the church leaders to pick and choose which bits of the story were read out during the church service. The leaders could simply skip over each contradiction as it appeared and the mugs in the pews would never know!

Not everybody agreed with that rule however, and many people did read the bible. They argued about it and fought over it until finally the church leaders invented yet another rule. The mugs in the pews were no longer entitled to an education and only monks, priests, and privileged laity were permitted to learn how to read and write. (That, by the way, was the beginning of The Dark Ages.)

Those two rules protected the church for more than a thousand years until the invention of the printing press when ordinary Christians finally had the chance to own and read a copy of the bible in their own language. The church leaders didn't give up easily however. Anyone who made the bible available to the hoi-poloi was declared a heretic and sentenced to death! William Tyndale, for example,  published a copy of the New Testament in 1534 and he was executed for heresy in 1536. (And he wasn't the only one.)

Reading The Bible (Part #3)

Links:
Part #1
Part #2
Part #3 <<<You are here
Part #4


In part #3 we are going to list every book of the New Testament in the order of the date it was probably written.

There is an ongoing debate among bible scholars regarding the dating of the books of the New Testament. Consider the Second Letter of Peter for example. Some scholars say it was written by Peter just a few years after Jesus died, while others say it was a forgery written by an unknown author more than one hundred years after the death of Jesus.

We should be wary of scholars who opt for very early dates, however, because those scholars are usually devout Christians with an ulterior motive. In order to give the New Testament some authenticity, they have declared that the various books were written by the people who actually witnessed the events that occurred during the ministry of Jesus. In the case of Second Peter, for example, they  are convinced the book was written by the apostle Peter himself - and since he is reputed to have died in 65AD, his letter must have been written before that date; probably in 60AD. These devout Christian scholars simply will not entertain the idea that the letter could have been forged by another Christian in 160AD - even if there is solid evidence suggesting that it was.

John A.T. Robinson - Bishop of Woolwich, Dean of Trinity College, and New Testament Scholar - has actually gone to the extreme and declared the every book of the New Testament was written before 70AD. He produces no real evidence for that claim, and he makes it for no other reason than to convince himself that the stories about Jesus were written by actual eyewitnesses. Hardly any other biblical scholar agrees with him.

The debate will continue but here's my thoughts on the matter: Paul wrote his letters to the various churches during the years 50AD to 60AD - probably in this order:

1 Thessalonians
Galatians
Philemon
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Romans
Philippians

These are the seven 'genuine' letters that scholars agree were written by Paul. There are seven more Pauline letters (listed below) that are regarded as forgeries.

Then, as Christianity began to grow, the new converts began seeking more information about Jesus and local preachers responded by writing new gospels:

Mark in 70AD
Matthew in 80AD
Luke in 90AD.
Acts in 90AD

During the same period as these gospels were being written, there were other Christians who wanted to push their own ideas onto the flock, and, in an effort to get their writings accepted, they forged them in the name of Paul. They are listed in the bible as letters written by Paul, but most scholars agree that they are forgeries written years after Paul had died.

2 Thessalonians
Colossians
Ephesians
Hebrews

Then, in about 95AD the gospel of John appeared for the first time. It was quite different from the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and included all sorts of weird inventions - like the idea that Jesus had existed since before the creation of the universe and that he was not just the Son of God, but actually God himself.

Gospel of John

And not long afterwards, in 100AD, another Christian took the ratbaggery to a whole new level and wrote the truly idiotic Book of Revelation.

Revelation

These new ideas caused major splits in the church and the old-time preachers immediately retaliated with warnings about false prophets who preached a false gospel. The book of Jude, for example is little more than that - a warning against false teachers.

Jude

And the book of First Peter was written at about the same time.

First Peter

As the dispute continued more books were written and once again the authors tried to gain some authority for their letters by releasing them in the name of the apostle Paul. One of the major themes (in 1 Timothy for example) was "beware of false prophets". These are the last three of the seven forgeries written in Paul's name:

1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus

And there was a final rush of books written in the second century AD:

1 John
2 John
3 John
Second Peter
James

But don't forget that the dating of the New Testament will never be finalised and no matter when you decide a particular book was written, there will be plenty of bible scholars who will say you are wrong. Let me remind you, again, of Second Peter: it has been variously dated at anywhere from 60AD to 160AD.

On the other hand, you can be sure that my list is accepted by very many scholars (including bible believing Christian scholars) so you wont be in the minority if you read the books in the order listed. And if you read them in that order, you will easily see (as described earlier) that the Jesus story is nothing more than a legend that grew and grew as the years passed by.

Reading The Bible (Part #4)

Links:
Part #1
Part #2
Part #3
Part #4 <<<You are here

You can save yourself a lot of time if you concentrate on just the seven authentic letters of Paul, and the four gospels:

1 Thessalonians
Galatians
Philemon
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Romans
Philippians

Mark
Matthew
Luke
John

No matter whether they give early dates to these books, or very late dates, almost every bible scholar on the planet agrees that these particular books were written in the order listed above. Yes, there are still debates going on - some say that Galatians was written before 1 Thessalonians - but that is just fiddling about at the edges and it won't have any great impact on the lesson we can learn by reading the books in the order listed here. And the lesson is that the story of Jesus is not based on facts. The story of Jesus is a legend that grew and grew as the years went by.

God's Little Punishments

Imagine you are in church listening to the preacher when somebody barges in through a side door and starts complaining that the congregation is not living up to his expectations and he has decided to punish all of them, and their children as well. 

Imagine your feelings if he ran around the pews slapping people on the head and screaming about the punishment he intends to inflict upon them.

Imagine your thoughts if he confronted a small family group and told the children that one day soon their parents are going to cook them and eat them!

Imagine your horror when you glimpsed a flash of maniacal glee on the interloper's face and realized that he was deadly serious; that he really did expect such things to happen and he was eager to see them happen.

What would you do? Would you nod your head approvingly? Or would you decide that the fellow had gone mad, and call for the police to come and lock him up? 

If you are a Christian you have already nodded your head approvingly!

You have read your bible. You are familiar with the texts where god threatens to make people so hungry they will eat their own children. You have seen those texts and you have silently agreed with them. You have thought to yourself: "If the parents don't do what god tells them to do, then god is entitled to punish them - and if the children have to suffer; well god knows best (and I will not hear a bad word said against him)."

That's what Christians do. They make excuses for their god. If one of your neighbours goes off his head and starts threatening parishioners with cruel and unusual punishments you can immediately see the unfairness of the situation and call the police to put a stop to it. But you don't bat an eyelid when God orders the same punishments in the bible. Instead you say, "Hoorah for god, isn't he wonderful?" To put it bluntly - you are not a very nice person!

You think I'm being too harsh? Then I dare you to read any of these following bible texts to your children just before you send them off to bed tonight. You wouldn't dare would you? And we both know why, don't we? Because threats like that will frighten the little ones and give them nightmares that could last for years.

And don't try to wriggle out of it by saying that god merely made the threats, but didn't actually force anyone to kill and eat their own children. When the threats reach that level of depravity then the threats (on their own) are the problem. Your children would start wetting the bed again if you talked to them like this:

I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters (Jeremiah 19.9)

 

The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers. (Ezekiel 5.10)

Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. (Leviticus 26.29)

Thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. (Deuteronomy 28.53)

A Bearded Man Living In the Sky

Christians hate it when their faith is belittled by someone who suggests their god is an old man with a beard who lives in heaven. "We have never worshipped such a god," they say. "Our god is so much more than that - and you are just being rude when you refer to him as a 'bearded sky-daddy'. "

Perhaps they should read their bible where Jesus says he is god:

I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)

That he came down from heaven:

 I...came down from heaven (John 6:51)

And that he went back to heaven when he died:

He left them, and was taken up to heaven. (Luke 24:51)

Their very own holy book, and their very own religious artists, make it clear that Christians do, indeed, worship a bearded man who lives in the sky!

Age Of The Earth

Here's Pat Robertson speaking through his Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) and declaring that the creationists are wrong to say the earth is only 6,000 years old when, in fact, it is billions of years old:

Sounds almost sensible doesn't he? But his Christian Broadcasting Network also carries articles that say exactly the opposite; that the earth is NOT billions of years old but only 6,000 years old.

Pat Robertson is just a cunning old confidence trickster, telling people what they want to hear, and casually collecting money from followers on both sides of the debate.

According to evolution, they try to say that dinosaurs died out 65 million years before man came on the scene. Well, according to the Bible, if you just read it literally, which I do, you have a six-day creation. The land, the creatures, were created on day six with Adam and Eve; and therefore, that is when the dinosaurs would have also been created. So from our biblical worldview, we would expect to see evidence of man and dinosaur co-existing.

http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/

Many Christians believe that the world is very old based on fossil records that are presumably dated at millions of years. Indeed the dispute between an old earth and a young earth is hotly debated within the Christian community. Unfortunately, those who subscribe to an old earth theory do not realize the enormity of their compromise.
[...]
To believe in evolution undermines the entire gospel message of Jesus Christ. All Christians believe that Jesus Christ suffered physical death and shed His blood because death was the penalty for sin. Therefore, teaching millions of years of death, disease and suffering before Adam sinned, is a direct attack on the foundation and message of the Cross.

http://www.cbn.com/

Who Behaves This Way?

Who talks like that?

An abusive spouse?

Or a loving god?

You'll find comprehensive answers at these sites:

http://atheism.about.com/

http://www.patheos.com/

Christian Preacher With Secret Desires

Here's a nice young Christian preacher. 

His parents think he's wonderful.

Full story here

Christian Vandals

If the vandals (assuming they are taxpayers) knew how much their spray painting activities were costing them they might wonder if it was really worth the effort.

The State will replace the sign at taxpayer's expense.

-----

Many years ago I worked for the highways department when some vandals were operating in the small town of Melrose about 70 kilometres away. Every weekend the vandals would lift the white posts out of the ground and put them back in the holes upside down. You can see a couple of those white posts in this photo:

The vandals were actually causing a hazard because the white posts had safety reflectors (red on one side, white on the other) designed to help motorists when driving at night. Also, if somebody had become involved in an accident, they could blame the highways department and sue for damages, so the problem had to be fixed as soon as possible.

So every Monday morning my roadworks team (three of us) climbed into our truck and drove 70 kilometres to Melrose, and travelled from one side of town to other, turning all of the posts right way up. Then we'd have to drive maybe 50 kilometres back towards Port Augusta before we finally got started on the work we were really supposed to be doing.

This went on for months and months. The vandals probably thought it was great fun, but if they were taxpayers it was costing them hundreds of dollars a week, every week, for months and months!

Kenneth Copeland & Fanny Brown

You probably know Kenneth Copeland. He's an American televangelist whom most people describe as "creepy". Here's a video that shows another side of this famous Christian conman:

Australian Football (A Very High Mark)

High marks* are a feature of Australian Football.

* Catching the ball is known as "marking" the ball.

Catholic Priests Are Watching Over Your Children

The Vatican revealed Tuesday that over the past decade, it has defrocked 848 priests who raped or molested children. 

How many were sacked before reporters got hold of the story?
Which other worldwide corporation sacks 85 pedophiles per year?

The data showed that since 2004, the Vatican had received some 3,400 cases...

 One new case every day!

Source: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/05/06/


The sad thing is that so far there has been not one protest from the mugs in the pews. Not one church where the congregation has finally decided to draw the line and hold a protest on the footpath in front of the church.

A new case every day - thousands of innocent children with priestly cocks shoved up their arse on a daily basis - and not one congregation has organised a public protest!

Hundreds of millions of Catholics around the world and not one protest!

It seems that Catholics are not only the most gullible people on the planet, they are also the most timid - and callous as well. They'd rather have priests fucking their children than kick up a fuss and risk their free trip to heaven. Gutless wonders all of them.

Do you know what they do instead? They take up collections to make the compensation payments so their dear leaders don't lose any of their own money. Check out these stories:

THE Melbourne Catholic Church is paying victims of sex abuse by its clergy with cash donated in collection plates.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/

The Catholic Church in Ireland’s capital may have to tap parish funds to pay compensation to people sexually assaulted by priests
http://blogs.reuters.com/

And if the mugs in the pews can't cover all the payments, the church steals the balance from school children:

CHILD sex abuse victims are being compensated out of interest the Catholic Church earns from investing the billions of dollars it receives in government grants for schools.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/

If the children don't get fucked sexually, they get fucked financially, but either way, they get fucked. And the mugs in the pews just turn up at church every Sunday and moan about the terrible things people say about their religion. Not one church has organised a public protest against the priestly pedophiles. Not one!

Twenty Questions Atheists Struggle To Answer

At his Christian Medical Comment blog, Peter Saunders introduces himself as the CEO of  the Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organisation with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members.

Back in 2012 he compiled a list of Twenty Questions Atheists Struggle To Answer

1.What caused the universe to exist?
2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?
3.Why is the universe rational?
4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?
5.Where did the genetic code come from?
6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?
7.How do we account for the origin of 116 distinct language families?
8.Why did cities suddenly appear all over the world between 3,000 and 1,000BC?
9.How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessity?
10.How do we account for self-awareness?
11.How is free will possible in a material universe?
12.How do we account for conscience?
13.On what basis can we make moral judgements?
14.Why does suffering matter?
15.Why do human beings matter?
16.Why care about justice?
17.How do we account for the almost universal belief in the supernatural?
18.How do we know the supernatural does not exist?
19.How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?
20.What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances and growth of the church?

Many atheists accepted the challenge and Saunders provides links to some of the responses here. I especially liked the comprehensive answers provided by Richard Carrier.

As for myself? I struggled! For most of those questions my answer would have to be, "I don't know."

And that's when Saunders pounces.

Despite denials, he is actually using a "god of the gaps" argument. He is asking difficult questions and whenever an atheist fails to provide an answer he squeezes his god into that knowledge gap: "You don't know, therefore god did it."

Saunders also uses the fallacy of the false dichotomy. He claims that his conclusion (that god exists) is one of only two possible options when, in fact, there are other possibilities. No matter what sort of answer the atheists gives him, Saunders casually declares that it is unsatisfactory and then goes on to claim his preferred conclusion (god did it) must be embraced because there is no other option.

[It would be like me saying that if your car is not red then it must be green. It is not an either/or situation. Your car could be blue, or white, or any other color that is neither red nor green - or you might not even own a car.]

Now check out Saunders' answers to the first few questions. In each case he rejects the scientific explanation as unlikely and then declares that there is only one option left - god did it!


1.What caused the universe to exist?
(blah, blah, blah. Scientific answer dismissed)

It is therefore not unreasonable to believe in the existence of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, personal Creator of the universe.

2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?
(blah, blah, blah. Scientific answer dismissed)

It seems therefore not impossible that intelligent design might account for them.

3.Why is the universe rational?
(blah, blah, blah. Scientific answer dismissed)

Does the intrinsic rationality of the universe prove the existence of God? No. But it is fully consistent with theism.

4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?
(blah, blah, blah. Scientific answer dismissed)

Thus far the mechanism by which this might have happened has proved insoluble, but it shouts ‘design’.

5.Where did the genetic code come from?
(blah, blah, blah. Scientific answer dismissed)

The genetic code, like language, gives the appearance of being the product of an intelligent mind. 

6. How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?
(blah, blah, blah. Scientific answer dismissed)

The organised complexity of these most simple of organisms throws into relief the immensity of the task facing naturalistic explanations of how life originated.

There is something else as well.

Saunders has no real interest in the answers an atheist may give to any of these questions. He is not trying to gain knowledge; he is simply trying to avoid the burden of proof:

As soon as he declares that god exists it is incumbent upon him to produce some evidence for god's existence - but he has none! So he shifts the burden of proof by asking the atheist to answer a completely different set of questions. As long as the atheist is talking about the evolution of "enzyme chains" (or whatever) Saunders is saved the bother of producing proof that god exists - and that is the sole point of the exercise; to avoid the burden of proof.

Atomic Power (God's Gift To America)

Back in 1945 the Americans had just dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. American hillbilly gospel singers were delighted when they heard that hundreds of thousands of people had died cruel deaths and over the next couple of years they sang their praises to "God's almighty power."

Atomic Power - Buchanan Brothers (1946)

Jesus Hits Like An Atomic Bomb - Lowell Blanchard (1950)

The Great Atomic Power - Louvin Brothers (1952)

Don't Mention The Inquisitions

A former candidate for USA vice-president equates torture and Holy Baptism, and one of the nation's most powerful political lobbies erupts into cheers and applause.

The incident embarrassed a group of Christians calling themselves "Faithful America" and they launched a petition that began with the words, 

For Christians, torture is not a joke

They're right about that. Christians have never treated torture as a joke. Christians have always regarded torture as a very serious business indeed. They used it to their advantage during 600 years of Inquisitions and they were mightily annoyed when secular governments forced them give it up about 200 years ago. Consider these devices invented by the followers of gentle Jesus, meek and mild: