6 Contradictions of God

There are a lot of reasons to see Christianity as false. As an atheist, I usually have some semblance of a rebuttal for every argument I hear for the religion that everyone believes except me (or at least it feels that way). Of course, some arguments against Christianity are better than others, including “Science has disproved God” (sorry, but that can’t be proven or disproven) or “Jesus was copied from earlier deities like Osiris and Horus” (this is possible, but I’m not convinced by it). I’m generally not phased when an atheist argument like this falls through, because I feel as though there are others that simply cannot be refuted. Many of the solid arguments against the existence of the Abrahamic God involve the inherit contradictions of his character.This is different from saying that the bible itself has contradictions; there are only a few hundredof those, and of course many Christians have done some mental gymnastics in order to try and untangle them all. So be it. Even without taking his mess of a biography into consideration, God himself has enough of his own contradictions, which makes his existence, as described by his followers and in his books, a paradox.

Supposedly, the Christian god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. There are more characteristics, but these seem to be the most salient and all-encompassing. Just to cover my bases, I made sure that in addition to Christians’ constant proclamations of his perfection and transcendence, that their ideas actually have a biblical basis. Each one was referenced in several places through the canon, but I chose verses that seemed the most straightforward in attributing these characteristics to the deity.

God’s omnipotence is referenced in Romans 1:20, where he is described as having “eternal power.” In Psalm 147:4-5, God’s understanding is said to have no limit; thus, he is omniscient. Proverbs 15:3 emphasis his omnipresence, saying that God sees everything. And finally, he is described as being perfect, merciful, just, almighty, and the like throughout the bible, specifically in Psalm 145:17, where he is said to be “righteous in all his ways / and faithful in all he does.”

To take it a step further and to avoid any straw man accusations, I’d like to point out that if the Almighty Christian God was not considered omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then many arguments for his existence would inherently fail. Consider the moral argument, sometimes overlapping with the ontological argument. If God were not entirely perfect, a standard to which we hold all good, then the arguments from morality and ontology would point to someone more perfect than he is or nothing at all. Additionally, if the Christian God cannot do the impossible then the Kalam argument as well as arguments from miracles fail. Many Christians view the “creation of something from nothing” (which seems to be not quite the case but still what they believe) as impossible, yet God is said to be the solution to this quandary.

I’m always finding new paradoxes that come with having all four–or any–of these attributes, especially with observable truths in the world around us. Some of these include:

  1. Omnipotence – Can God create a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it? Before you say anything: no, I don’t like that overused cliche either. But… it’s something to think about. Especially when it’s re-worded into a less tired phrase. Can God create a being powerful enough to destroy him? Can God reconcile a paradox such as the question at the beginning of this paragraph? If you can “do anything”, does that include the impossible?
  2. Omnipotence and omnibenevolence – If you are all-perfect, then you are incapable of doing anything bad. If you are all-powerful, then you can do anything, whether it is good or bad. Logically, God could only be one or the other.
  3. Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, and unbelief – If God exists and knows everything, can do anything, and is completely good, then he would not want me to go to hell. As a matter of fact, according to my family’s Lutheran beliefs, he wants unbelievers to convert and be “saved”, but somehow he can’t make us. Besides that little tidbit contradicting his omnipotence, he really should be able to make me believe, if he truly wants to, and if he is all-perfect then he should want to. And it wouldn’t have to be forceful; he would simply have to show himself to me or at least show me substantial evidence of his existence. What exactly would I find to be acceptable evidence? If he’s omniscient, then he knows. Yet here I am, unconvinced and hell-bound.
  4. Omniscience, omnibenevolence, and prayer – This may be my favorite flaw of Christianity. I don’t know if having a favorite makes me a dork, but I’ll continue: people pray to God, asking him to do things for them. It’s not the only purpose of prayer, but it is one of them. People ask God for things, ask him to tell them things, or rattle off things they want as if he’s Santa Claus or something. It’s a popular old paradox that I’ve written about before, but if God is omniscient, then he knows what you want, then you shouldn’t have to tell him. If he just wants to watch you beg and prove that you really want it, then that’s pretty cruel, and not omnibenevolent.
  5. Omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, and horror – Cancer. Hurricanes. Disease. Even heartbreak. If a deity can prevent these things and he does not, he is not perfect or he is not capable of preventing them or he doesn’t know it’s happening. The problem of evil is talked about enough and has been maneuvered around enough times that it doesn’t need to resurface here, but it is probably the most famous contradiction of the Christian god, so I had to include it.
  6. Omniscience – This one’s interesting, possibly because of its subtlety. One of my Christian professors actually articulated his difficulty in comprehending this one. He asked, “Does God know what it’s like to be a strawberry?” Now that’s not something you ask yourself every day. But obscure things like this don’t seem like the type of thing that can be known. So can God know things that seem unknowable? Does he know what your life is like? Or mine? Does he know how we atheists have struggled with religion, and not being convinced, and how hard it is to be in the closet and come out? Is this really what he wants? If not, he’s not doing anything about it or reminding us that he’s there after all.

I hope you didn’t take away from this some kind of classic atheist-being-angry-at-God bit. If a deity like this existed, he would be legitimately illogical. I know that these contradictions are said a lot, but there is a reason for it. Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence don’t work in theory, they don’t work for God in the bible, and they don’t work in reality.


Read next:

i am not a scientist

119 Replies to “6 Contradictions of God”

  1. Some good arguments in there. While science can’t argue for/against the existence of a God, one could argue that the Christian God isn’t real because they depend on the scriptures being all true – and that’s something which doesn’t have scientific backing (particularly Genesis).

    Speaking of Genesis, does your church in a literal young earth? The flood narrative has some striking similarities to other stories such as parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh. I’m not 100% sure if the Genesis writers borrowed that but some of the similarities are striking.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I claim to be a Christian. I was raised in two different worlds tho. My dad and mom divorced when I was 6. My Dad was what I call religious in that he lept at the opportunity to condemn someone yet he did the SAME thing. On the other hand, I had my mom who came out as bisexual, drank, did drugs, and was even sent to federal prison.

    For the longest my dad had ruined me on Christianity. He always had something ugly and hateful to say regarding my mom who I loved. Thankfully, I realized as I got older that being a Christian didn’t mean I had to be hypocritical like my dad. My mom still does a lo of those things. She knows what I believe and I don’t spend every opportunity badgering her to come around to my way of thinking. I live my life aligned with what I think a Christian should be without condemning others for being different. If they happen to approach me about what I believe then I share in an informative way and not a pressuring way.

    I think it’s great that you are posting thought provoking posts to cause people to question WHY they believe WHAT they believe. Thank you and keep it up!

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Sometime back on my blog (2015), I asked … “exactly where did the beliefs that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent originate?” The words themselves are not found in the bible, yet they are frequently used to describe “God.”

    I never got an answer.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Again, I would have to disagree with your first point. Theoretically, science can’t prove anything with absolute certainty. It can however prove that god doesn’t exist to the same benchmark that it can prove that the earth revolves around the sun, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt.
    As ever, the religious expect to discredit atheism by demanding unreasonable levels of proof, while expecting their ideas to be automatically accepted, even though they offer no credible evidence to support them. If us atheists are ever going to make progress we have to stop accepting the distorted, biased and unfair rules of debate that the theists try to impose (and rely on to avoid defeat).

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Hello there!
    Just wanted to drop by and share my views on your questions.
    the first question you asked has a flaw. You see, God is Omnipotent. You said that and then you asked a question that followed the theme ‘if this is true then…..’. You see if you consider God as omnipotent, then there is ‘nothing’ he cannot do. So you considering God as omnipotent and then asking him to create a nothing is not consistent as then ‘impossible’ no longer is a worthy candidate as it has no substance and is a logical flaw. I have not written about this yet. C.S. Lewis I believe has addressed this well. If you wish to know more, this is one website where I found a satisfactory answer:
    https://creation.com/if-god-can-do-anything-then-can-he-make-a-being-more-powerful-than-himself-omnipotence

    You second argument is based on the first so I hope I’ve already answered that.

    With regard to your third argument- God does want you to be saved. But he has chosen to give you free will. If you don’t want to be with God, he will not take you to a place where you will be forced to be with him for ‘eternity’. This would be wrong since God himself gave you free will. He will respect it. And it does not in anyway show that he is not omnipotent because, if he forced himself on you and made you ‘saved’ that would be effectively throwing free will out of the picture, essentially making you, a puppet! I have written about this in the first post of my new blog: https://amorningcoffeewithjesus.wordpress.com/2018/04/06/a-small-prologue/
    if you want to check it out.
    Hell on the other hand, is a place where you will no longer be bound to God and who he is and all the ‘thou shall nots’. People always think that the fire and the worms are what distinguished hell and gives it its pain. Not exactly. It is the absence of God that makes it what it is. It is the absence of God that creates the contrast between heaven and hell!

    With regard to your fourth argument- You are saying that God’s omniscience is in question because Christians have the right to ask God what they want even when knowing that God knows about what they are going to ask. As I said before, God respects your free will. He knows, yes, but he will not force himself into your life. You have the right to ask God to help you with something. But if you don’t want God to interfere, he will not, though he will try to tell you that you are going the wrong way through the circumstances you go through and the people you meet. Why do you have to be born again? Because you area being with free will and it is important that you make the choice for yourself, especially with regard to something that will affect you eternally! And another point is, it is not just what you need that God knows. God also knows what you are going to say about him, about others. This completely cuts out communication, the very basis for a relationship. When God came and lived among us as Jesus, going through the same bodily pain and feelings we go through every day, he sometimes had compassion. Isn’t compassion something an omniscient God shouldn’t have since he knows the end and the outcome of humanity. Isn’t immediate feelings like these often connected with surprise? God chooses to live through life with us, sharing the pain of those who are paining, walking with them through life. That is why he is comfort to the born again Christian, his eternal limits means he is able to take in all my pain and all my troubles. I don’t have to worry!

    With regard to your fifth argument- As I said we are people with free will. What we do has an impact on our surroundings and we have a responsibility for that impact. It is not always right to blame God for many things that come ultimately from the choices we make with the free will he has gifted us with. Why did he give us free will then? Well if you want to be a chair or a table, with no means to think or change whatsoever…… You get the idea. We don’t even know the smallest substance, the essence of the things around us. Atoms? Nah…There are things smaller than that. We don’t now yet. So who are we to blame everything on God when we have free will? Without the infinite knowledge needed, are we sure what we do as a result of our choices have no impact whatsoever?

    With regard to your Sixth argument. Does God know what it is to be a strawberry? Does God know what it means to be you and me? Of course he does. If I base this answer on the Bible, Jesus, who came down to the earth in flesh, he did live like a man. To even come down in flesh, he has to know everything about being a man! And to give a logical answer, this question by the professor is also influenced by our progress in science. We are not able to know what it feels like to be strawberry, because our science doesn’t deal with it and our science doesn’t answer it. If it did, the professor would not even ask he question. ‘If we could, surely God could’ would have been his way of thinking. Why compare God with mans and his progress and his imperfections. Compare God with who God says he is. Things may not always make sense in the Bible. The secret is, you have to ‘choose’ to understand. Free will there again. It is God who reveals who he is through the scriptures. ‘Choose’ to know God without judging and he will show himself to you and it will make a lot, a lot of sense to you.

    I hope I was able to answer all your questions. God bless you!

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks for reading my comment. It was great to comment. I would have replied earlier but I didn’t know you had replied to my earlier comment. Sorry about that.
        With regard to your reply. This question I believe is a result of a colloquial mistake on my side. What I meant was actually this. When you presented your first argument, your question was essentially ‘if God is omnipotent……why can’t he do this?’
        Answering the question should therefore be by considering that God is omnipotent and that is how I have answered that question. That is where I used the phrase you have refereed to in the reply to my comment.

        How is God Omnipotent? The Bible tells this perfectly.
        Some good examples are Matthew 19:26 and Revelation 19:6.
        And because I have found the Bible to be true, I believe what it says.
        Thank you so much for replying. It was great to connect with you. If you post your questions on
        amorningcoffeewithjesus.wordpress.com
        I will be able to reply faster.

        Like

        1. Sorry, the bible cannot be used to demonstrate the veracity of your claim that Yahweh is omnipotent. That’s like using a Harry Potter novel to ”prove” that Harry Potter can fly on a broomstick.
          So, once again how do you know that Yahweh is omnipotent?
          Thanks.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Hi again. I was intrigued by your answer. I am curious to know why you compare the Bible with a Harry Potter novel. What makes you think so? And besides you are asking me to do something that is logically flawed. To talk about the God of the Bible, you must include the Bible. But of course that would raise the question of how consistent the Bible is. Which is why I ask you why you think the Bible is similar to a Harry Potter novel. I thank you for your interest once again and hope you get back. God bless!

            Like

            1. Both are works of fiction although the bible can at least claim to be historical fiction in some parts.
              Are you going to answer how you know Yahweh is omnipotent or are you going to continue to equivocate?

              Like

            2. Dear Arkenaten,
              Unless you are able to give a direct and stable answer to why you consider the Bible to be a ‘historical’ fiction, I will not be able to move forward.
              I believe that proving that the Bible is true and then moving on to the omnipotence of the God of the Bible is a perfectly logical and stable way of answering the question of God’s omnipotence since Yahweh is what he tells he is, right?

              I am not equivocating in any way. I always keep my personal feelings and leaning out of the argument. If asked you to show that Harry Potter’s invisible cloak( consider here that you can’t feel it too) is real, how will you show it without first proving that the Harry Potter Series is true?

              And right now, you are the one not answering the question perfectly. I asked you why you compared the bible with a work of fiction( Harry Potter) to which you gave an answer not related to the question at all. I am asking you why? I am not asking you for the similarity between a Harry Potter novel and the Bible but I am asking you why you see it as fiction.
              I am sorry for the long answer but I had to make the point.

              Like

            3. I am not equivocating in any way.

              Yes you are. I have asked several times how you know Yahweh is omnipotent and you have yet to provide a sound answer.
              I repeat, you cannot use the bible to prove the bible, especially as I said it is primarily historical fiction and in some parts outright fraud.

              Also if we consider:

              There are two creation stories. I am sure you are aware of the history of this and why?
              Adam and Eve are fictional characters as demonstrated by the Human Genome Project. (Francis Collins)
              Exodus is fiction as demonstrated by archaeology and namely the Settlement Pattern.

              That’s three things to start and I’m sure you are aware of many more.
              So, please tell me how you know Yahweh is omnipotent.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. Ark, not to jump into the middle of this discussion… (but I guess I will)….

              How could anybody “know” that? One might believe it but knowing in the scientific sense is not possible. I think we would both agree on that.

              Like

            5. Yahweh’s omnipotence as a conclusion from the Bible will depend on whether the Bible is true or false. So: which two creation accounts are you referring to? And why/how do they establish that the Bible is “historical fiction”?
              Thanks

              Like

            6. You listed three examples (and now we’re focusing on the first) but have not made yourself clear.

              Are you saying that

              “The Bible mentions creation (but evolution took place), and this shows the Bible is fiction”

              OR Are you saying that

              “The Bible contains TWO creation accounts and they don’t agree with each other, and this shows that the Bible is fiction”?

              Like

            7. The latter.

              And as you will likely refute this please use a non apologetic source.
              Thanks.

              And to clarify: Are you truly suggesting the Human Genome Project is in some way wrong?

              Like

            8. @ Stefan.
              Actually, re-reading your comment , both examples are in fact accurate.
              Evolution did take place so irrespective of anything else the creation accounts are nonsense

              Like

            9. You’ve given two responses so here goes:-

              “The latter”

              What contradiction do you find in the two creation accounts? [The Wikipedia article you linked to did not list any]. After we discuss your examples of contradictions or you concede that you cannot find any contradictions (and therefore your “latter” argument was wrong), I would be happy to take up your second response, namely:

              “Evolution did take place so…”

              Regarding the HGP or any other ethical issue, ethics follows from worldview. According to the Bible (which is the basis for my worldview), killing human life (even if it is unborn life) is wrong. Research and technology by themselves are good. I don’t know everything that the HGP involves.

              Like

            10. I mentioned there are two creation accounts in Genesis. This is a fact recognised by biblical scholars.
              Are you aware of the two accounts? Yes or No?

              The H.G.P is the Human Genome Project.

              It has nothing whatsoever to do with killing.

              Do you actually have any awareness or understanding of what the HGP is about, what it determined or even who Francis Collins is and the work he did?

              Like

            11. Yes there are 2 creation accounts in Genesis. I didn’t learn this from “Biblical scholars”. I read the Bible for myself. I’m still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that there are CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THEM (or admit you were wrong). Feel free to copy and paste claims of contradictions from “Biblical scholars” but be prepared to defend them.

              Since the HGP does not involve killing humans or harming them in any way, I have nothing against it. Yes I’ve heard of Francis Collins and his work. I had a slip of mind between it and stem cell research (which sometimes involves destroying human embryos)

              Like

            12. I did not state there were contradictions
              I stated there were two creation stories.
              However, for the record ….
              In the first creation story, the first man and woman were created simultaneously.
              In the second account, the man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man’s rib.

              There are others but that will do to illustrate the point.

              So as you have nothing against it ( the human genome project) you obviously understand why the HGP destroys any notion of the creation of an original couple as described in Genesis.

              So shall we discuss Noah’s Ark, or Exodus now?

              Liked by 1 person

            13. Where does the first account say that the man and woman were created SIMULTANEOUSLY?
              Where does the second account say that the animals were CREATED AFTER the man?

              Please quote the verse VERBATIM.

              After you defend your claim of contradiction (or retract and admit that you were wrong), you’re most welcome to defend your claims about the HGP debunking Genesis, Noah’s Ark and Exodus in the order you prefer (one at a time please). Actually, there was this earlier statement you made: “Evolution did take place so irrespective of the details, a creation account establishes that the Bible is fiction”. I had promised to respond to this after the contradiction bit. So you might want to have me respond to that before the HGP, Noah’s Ark and Exodus? Choose the sequence you like.

              Like

  6. Another good post. Especially the part about “What exactly would I find to be acceptable evidence? If he’s omniscient, then he knows.”

    Christians can say all they want that “But God doesn’t WANT you to go to Hell!” Of course he does. If he’s real, then he wants me to go to Hell. There is no getting around this. If God is real, and is as described in the Bible, then he very clearly wants me to go to Hell. Because I don’t believe he exists, and in fact CANNOT believe he exists without just a nudge of evidence.

    And IF he DOES exist, and is as described in the Bible, then I would be his enemy. I would regularly protest such an immoral beast as Yahweh, and he would still want me to go to Hell.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. My thoughts

    “Can God create a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it?”

    This question raises another question: Why does God create in the first place?

    Find an answer to that question, and you will find an answer to your boulder question.

    “…If God exists and knows everything, can do anything, and is completely good, then he would not want me to go to hell.”

    Goes doesn’t want you to go to Hell. But he will also respect your ability to make your own choice. Why? Because he loves you and wants to have a relationship with you.

    In your relationship with your fiance, do whatever you want with no regard for his thoughts and feelings. See how that goes.

    “…if God is omniscient, then he knows what you want, then you shouldn’t have to tell him.”

    What is the foundation of any relationship? Communication.

    “If you are all-perfect, then you are incapable of doing anything bad. If you are all-powerful, then you can do anything, whether it is good or bad. … If a deity can prevent these things and he does not, he is not perfect or he is not capable of preventing them or he doesn’t know it’s happening.”

    Or: God is allowing disease, cancer and hurricanes for a purpose that you or I do not yet understand.

    If God is who I believe he is, he sees the big picture. Which is something that you and I, being human, do not see.

    “So can God know things that seem unknowable? Does he know what your life is like? Or mine? Does he know how we atheists have struggled with religion, and not being convinced, and how hard it is to be in the closet and come out?”

    If God is who I believe he is, the answer to these questions is: yes.

    “Is this really what he wants?”

    No. (Genesis 3:11)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thinking more about my words, one thing I would like to add:

      The reason I said “In your relationship with your fiance, do whatever you want with no regard for his thoughts and feelings. See how that goes,” is: To make the point that a relationship with no regard for the other person’s thoughts and feelings (no love), and no communication, is a relationship that will soon end.

      God does not want you to go to Hell, because he loves you.

      And, because God loves you, he will not disregard your thoughts and feelings; he will allow you to make your own choice. Even if that choice means an eternity of separation from him.

      On another note:

      “Yet here I am, unconvinced and hell-bound.”

      Speaking as a Catholic: just because a person is an atheist does not automatically mean they’re going to hell.

      Test everything and be open-minded (1 Thessalonians 5:21, Philippians 4:8), treat all people with love (Matthew 25:31 — 40), and make use of your talents and passions (1 Corinthians 12:7), and you might be surprised at where you end up spending eternity.

      Like

  8. You’re right that “can God create a boulder so heavy that even he can’t lift it?” is a tired cliche. But your expansion on it doesn’t actually add anything to that tired cliche. Philosophers and theologians for centuries have agreed that the answer to “if you can ‘do anything,’ does that include the impossible?” is no, and few theists who have thought about it for very long see any problem with that.
    If you’re interested in some technical reading, here is a paper that lays out a precise definition of what omnipotence is, the main motivation for the definition being that omnipotence does not require you to be able to do impossible “things” like creating a “square circle,” and it successfully avoids the kind of paradoxes that you talk about: https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/mp.htm

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Certainly. The diachronic answer is I grew up that way. The synchronic answer is that now, when I look at the arguments for and against the existence of God and the truth of the resurrection (trying to be as unbiased as possible), I find the arguments for more compelling than the arguments against. Simply put, theism (and Christianity in particular) make the most sense of reality to me.
        The arguments for present a pretty reasonable case for the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus.
        The strongest arguments against are all along the lines of “supposing God exists, we wouldn’t expect him to have created the universe to be the way it is.” But those are all vulnerable to the objection that God could have reasons for acting as he does that we simply do not have epistemic access to, since we are not omniscient beings.
        I’m exploring these arguments for and against on my blog currently, so if you’re interested, check it out: https://structureoftruth.wordpress.com/

        Like

        1. What is this strong argument for the Resurrection of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth?
          To date, I have not encountered it.
          Could you briefly outline it and list the verifiable evidence?
          Thanks.

          Like

          1. The basic argument is that we can establish as reasonably certain the following historical facts: that Jesus was crucified and buried in a tomb, that his tomb was then found empty, and that his disciples (and at least two people who were not his disciples) then claimed that they had seen him raised from the dead, and moreover, they believed it. The evidence that we have (early Christian written and oral traditions, particularly as found in the writings of the apostle Paul, the Gospel authors, and the apostolic church fathers, contemporary non-Christian references such as Tacitus and Josephus, and the very fact that Christianity got started at all) cannot plausibly be explained without these facts.
            Then the argument moves on to explore the possible explanations for these facts. The alternative explanations are all either implausible or fail to explain the facts very well, compared to the resurrection hypothesis, which arguably is not all that implausible given the arguments for God’s existence and the context of Jesus’ life, and which explains the facts very well. Inference to the best explanation then justifies belief in the resurrection.
            There’s lots of resources out there to fill that out. I think William Lane Craig goes into a good level of detail assessing the historicity of the resurrection in his podcast series starting here: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-christ/doctrine-of-christ-part-35/ (It goes for 10 or so episodes from there, exploring the evidence for the above facts and then assessing the various explanations.) If you search for “minimal facts approach” you’ll probably find some similar material. I’ll be posting a series on my blog about this argument, though that won’t be fore a few months.

            Like

            1. Sorry , I should probably have added, that the accounts by Josephus and Tacitus are not contemporary and there is a lot of doubt surrounding these sources as well. But I’m sure you are well aware of this, pf course.
              So if you have any independent contemporary evidence to verify the facts you mention I am still very interested in reading about them.
              Thanks.

              Like

            2. If you think Josephus and Tacitus aren’t contemporary enough to the events in question, and that there is much doubt about them, then you may need to re-examine your standards for historical investigation. The evidence that we have for the facts that I mentioned above is as high quality as we have for just about any historical event in that time period.
              If by “independent” you mean non-Christian sources: we can establish the existence of Jesus and some of what Christians believed about him from non-Christian sources, but yes, for more detail we need to turn to what the early Christians themselves were writing and saying. Since you asked the question, it seems like you think that this makes them less valuable as historical sources. That isn’t necessarily the case.
              Are those sources biased? Almost certainly. So is every other piece of writing in ancient history. Bias does not automatically mean that it is all made up; historians routinely work with sources they know are biased, and they reason out what is truth and what is fiction. And it is the reasoned opinion of most historians of that time period that Jesus was crucified, that his disciples claimed to have seen him raised from the dead, and that they believed it.
              Here is a website that (among other things) has a lot of citations to back up the claims I am making here: https://beliefmap.org/jesus-resurrected/
              And here are a couple blog posts (written by an atheist, even) on contemporary references to Jesus:
              https://historyforatheists.com/2017/05/did-jesus-exist-the-jesus-myth-theory-again/
              https://historyforatheists.com/2017/09/jesus-mythicism-1-the-tacitus-reference-to-jesus/
              https://historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/

              Like

            3. Firstly, I have had plenty of experience with this type of brush-off regarding what Christians regard as contemporary evidence.
              Bearing this in mind I suggest your first port-of-call is to consult a dictionary.

              And while you continue to use the word ”facts” where is pertains to the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth all you are doing is reducing your credibility to little more than zero, and this makes you come across as a sort of indoctrinated apologist.

              So let’s start again shall we?
              It’s probably best you know I am fully aware of the passages by Josephus and Tacitus and the variety of claims surrounding them, in case you wish to try to continue to hammer this point of contemporary?

              So, here’s what I would like you to do: Please provide contemporary independent evidence regarding the claim you are making regarding the resurrection and additional claims surrounding this apparent event of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth.

              And for the record no secular historian will support your claim of any resurrection or any supernatural claims for that matter.
              And I have read enough that O’Neil has to write and to be perfectly clear we are not talking historicity of the character, but solely the claim of fact/s you are making about the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

              Over to you.

              Thanks.

              Like

            4. Hi Ark, this is a fascinating question. I have always thought that 55 years or so away from the actual events is pretty contemporary, at least for ancient history. So I want to make sure I understand what you are asking for: a non-bible, non-christian related source that references this person called Jesus that is earlier than 90 AD? How much earlier would it need to be to be contemporary and is there any other criteria?

              Like

            5. Wotcha, Jim!
              How’s your Monday?

              We are not talking about the historicity of the character in general, ( we can discuss this later, if you like?) but the specific claim made about the Lake Tiberias Pedestrian about whom the Resurrection is stated to be an historical fact as claimed by Structure of truth.

              All, I want to read is the evidence that confirms this – nothing else at this stage.
              Of course, if you have evidence and want to help out a fellow Christian – and put yourself in line for a Nobel Prize then please, be my guest!
              I am all ears.

              Like

            6. OK, got it. I thought you wanted contemporary non-bible/christian evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. and I wanted to clarify what you meant by “contemporary”

              Like

            7. My definition of contemporary likely differs slightly to yours, as I prefer to stick to the dictionary version, but irrespective, neither Josephus or Tacitus could be called contemporaries in any real sense of the term.

              Just out of curiosity though, what contemporary non-bible/christian evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person do you have?

              Like

            8. If you take away Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny etc, you really don’t have any non-biblical references to Jesus of Nazareth circa 33AD. I am curious, why you would eliminate them from consideration, at least in establishing the guy as a historical person?

              Like

            9. Pliny mentions Christians, Josephus was debunked ages ago and the so called ”core” of the TF is a fairly recent position. It isn’t referenced at all by anyone prior to Eusebius and if your are aware of the history of the passage in annals then you might not be so steadfast in your acceptance that Tacitus is as valid a reference as you have been led to believe. Irrespective, his mention of Chrestus is hearsay anyway.

              Liked by 1 person

            10. Granted, it is hearsay. The eyewitness evidence is suspect because it could very well be biased and there isn’t any independent evidence one can point to to corroborate it. I get your point and I think it is strong point.

              But there is a lot of other types of evidence that leads many, (dare I say most?) historical scholars to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was at least a real person. They don’t agree on much after that.

              Like

            11. Well, it depends when you say ”most”, how many are you talking about and how many can you list by name?
              Not being facetious , I assure you, but the internet is not always the best place to affirm our beliefs.

              And it is worth mentioning that to challenge mainstream history with regard certain trends could be the death knell for one’s career.
              Mike Licona, for example, was forced out of two jobs after the witch hunt started by Norm Geisler after Licona stated in his 2010 book the the raising of the dead saints in Matthew was not to be taken literally.
              Oooh, old Norm didn’t like that one bit, and when poor old Mike refused to offer a retraction the knives were out!
              I love a bit of internecine cat scratching among your brethren!
              If there was a real bloke behind it all then as Bob Price wrote, he is so far lost to history as to be unrecoverable.
              And I know this is bordering on mysticism but there really is no verifiable evidence and
              when you honestly consider just how much crap is contained in the bible – from fantasy to outright fraud and just how many lies the Christian church has promoted one can be forgiven for at least considering that Jesus of Nazareth is simply a made-up or at best a composite character.
              And as for the flying god, the Lake Tiberias Pedestrian able to forgive hookers and cure dandruff with a single word, well, you strike me as far too intelligent to actually put any stock in such nonsense.
              Let’s be honest here, Jim. I we are talking about a god then surely free will or not, with what’s at stake, what would it take for such a being to wave his hand a make things right with his creation?
              I mean, he brought Lazarus back to life and put a demon into a herd of pigs and sorted out the weather, so he’s the man right?

              Like

            12. “I assure you, but the internet is not always the best place to affirm our beliefs.” Oh really? 🙂

              “there really is no verifiable evidence and
              when you honestly consider just how much crap is contained in the bible – from fantasy to outright fraud and just how many lies the Christian church has promoted one can be forgiven for at least considering that Jesus of Nazareth is simply a made-up or at best a composite character.”

              True, it seems that you have a good point there.

              Off topic: Are you a musician?

              Like

            13. I shall. Tell me when you manage to see through your faith.
              Here is a great guitar song from Jimi you might enjoy.
              Sort of tells about where I reckon you are with god belief.

              Liked by 1 person

            14. Arkanetan, please let me apologize for being dismissive in my previous response. You are right, I should not have said that Tacitus or Josephus were contemporaries of the events in question. My intended point was that they were reasonably close in time to those events, as far as sources for most events in antiquity go, and that is what I should have said.
              Again, the main sources that the argument for the resurrection uses are the accounts that we have from the early Christian movement. There are multiple independent sources within those accounts, and Paul at the very least was a contemporary of Jesus. But if by independent you mean non-Christian, then I’m afraid I can’t help you. I don’t think it’s justified to reject the Christian sources, but I doubt there’s anything I can say to change your mind on that if you disagree.
              And of course secular historians don’t grant the resurrection; if they did, they wouldn’t be secular. I’m not claiming that they grant the resurrection. I’m claiming that what they grant as most probably historical, based on the evidence, is in turn best explained by the resurrection.
              If that is totally unconvincing to you, you may write me off as indoctrinated if you wish.

              Like

            15. My intended point was that they were reasonably close in time to those events,

              No, not really. Decades is not ”reasonably close” in any environment and in the one these two were in it was positively tumultuous, especially after the Tenth had marched into town.

              Again, the main sources that the argument for the resurrection uses are the accounts that we have from the early Christian movement

              Of which, there are no contemporary or verifiable accounts whatsoever, so I am even more curious what or who on earth you are referring to?

              No, there are no multiple independent sources at all. There are only the gospel accounts, which can be dismissed with impunity.
              I sincerely hope you are not referring to the nonsensical claim of the 500 witnesses in Corinthians for goodness’ sake?
              And Paul did not believe in the physical resurrection. Furthermore, there are no independent non christian accounts of Paul either.

              I’m claiming that what they grant as most probably historical, based on the evidence, is in turn best explained by the resurrection.

              This also is palpable nonsense.
              The average historian will tell you that the bodies of criminals executed by crucifixion were dumped in a communal grave or left to rot.
              There is nothing that is most probable one can say other than a hearsay account that Tacitus wrote about someone called Chrestus who was crucified under Pilate. And even this is not accepted as genuine by all historians either.

              Yes, I am afraid it does sound as if you are suffering from indoctrination.
              However, I am interested why you remain a Christian when in truth all you have is faith and a complete lack of evidence for your claims?
              Do you remain a Christian because you believe you are a sinner and require the salvation of the god-man Jesus of Nazareth?

              Like

            16. The sources I’m referring to are the letters of Paul (who, by the way, certainly did believe in a physical resurrection) and the sources behind the gospel accounts, along with some of the writings of the early church fathers, who knew the original disciples later in their lives. (Sorry I didn’t make that clear. )
              You seem to think that these, particularly the goodies, can be “dismissed with impunity,” but I don’t see the justification for that dismissal. Which means I disagree with you: my faith is not lacking in evidence to support it.

              Like

            17. The sources I’m referring to are the letters of Paul (who, by the way, certainly did believe in a physical resurrection)

              No he didn’t . Read a genuine biblical scholar.

              and the sources behind the gospel accounts,

              What sources? There is no evidence for any sources. And for the gods’ sake don’t site Q as this is simply conjecture.

              along with some of the writings of the early church fathers, who knew the original disciples later in their lives.

              You have no evidence to demonstrate the early church fathers knew any disciples. Where on earth are you getting this tosh?
              Is William Lane Craig or Milke Licona spoon feeding you apologetics 101 over the phone or something? Or are you getting apologetic updates from some place such as CARM?
              Good grief! What next? An affadavit from Ken Ham that Noah really existed and you can purchase a piece of the ark faithfully recovered by the late Ron Wyatt?

              Have you got anything else or are so entrenched, so indoctrinated in evangelical apologetics that you are going to tell me the Human Genome Project is a plot driven by the devil and Francis Collins is a tool of atheists?

              Like

            18. By “genuine biblical scholar” do you mean any biblical scholar who agrees with you, as opposed to biblical scholars who don’t, like Robert Gundry or NT Wright?

              You’re right, Q is totally conjecture. What is also totally conjecture is that the gospel authors just invented what they wrote from whole cloth, without drawing from any eyewitness testimony or oral tradition whatsoever.

              No evidence the early church fathers knew the disciples… except for what they wrote. But you seem to think that you can dismiss any early Christian written material without justification.

              I would like to know, if you’d be willing to tell me, why you believe that the Gospels are historically worthless and can be written off that way. How do you know that, for example, the resurrection appearances they record do not reflect at least in some way what the disciples thought they experienced?

              The rest of your response above irrelevant, but just for fun:
              WLC: yeah, I’m a fan. He’s got a lot of good material.
              Mike Licona: haven’t read much of his stuff but he seems pretty reasonable. Heard him speak once.
              CARM: no thank you.
              Ken Ham: I’d rather side with Francis Collins.

              Like

            19. To avoid any serious bias, a genuine biblical scholar will most definitely not be Christian.

              Please identify the church fathers who knew the disciples personally and the evidence that corroborates this?

              Also: Do you beleive the gospels were eyewitness testimony and written by the names allocated to them, namely: Matthew, Mark Luke and John?

              When you say ”historically worthless” would you please elaborate on exactly what you mean by this term?

              Like

            20. Ark, are do you believe that a scholar who is a Christian can not avoid bias?

              There is Clement. But the only evidence you would have for any of this would be christian based. That type of evidence isn’t something you consider meaningful. Remove that and there is none.

              But I am curious what kind of evidence would you expect there to be, other than that? Those guys were pretty obscure in their day. Who would be talking about them other than people in the small christian movement of the time?

              Like

            21. Ark, are do you believe that a scholar who is a Christian can not avoid bias?

              No, because they would then not be a Christian.

              There is Clement…

              Yes, we all know of Clement … no evidence to support the claim. Next!

              I am trying to establish how Stefan can back his claim concerning Yahweh. So far he has done a dreadful job, either demonstrating his ignorance, indoctrination.
              As you are a Christian perhaps you could help him with his ignorance?

              Like

            22. Stefan is confusing what he believes to be true with verifiable facts. One can believe God is omnipotent, but one can not know for certian that is true. I think that is really what he means.

              Regarding scholars…do you think any scholar who is an atheist would likewise not be able to avoid bias?

              Like

            23. Stefan is confusing what he believes to be true with verifiable facts

              And aren’t you exactly the same, Jim?

              Regarding scholars…do you think any scholar who is an atheist would likewise not be able to avoid bias?

              There is always the chance to get it wrong. That’s all part and parcel of being human.
              Humans err.
              However, if you have any verifiable independent evidence to support a single Christian claim regarding the basic tenets of your faith then any genuine, honest biblical scholar will consider any such claim.
              Hell, as unschooled in this regard as I am I’ll still have a serious look.
              What have you got, Jim?

              But people like Habermas, Licona,Craig, Strobel, Wallace etc are simply useless when it comes to trying to establish any serious degree of veracity.
              Even a highly regarded person like NT Wright is first and foremost a Christian.
              If he doesn’t firmly believe that the character Jesus if Nazareth had to be brutally executed just so he could be ”saved”through the blood of Christ (sic) then he has no business being a Christian.
              And when one accepts this premise one is hedging one’s bets from the beginning.

              Like

            24. “And aren’t you exactly the same, Jim?”

              I don’t think so. I understand that the things I believe are beliefs in things that can not be verified as fact via the scientific method.

              I would agree that it is difficult for anyone who has taken a hard stance on any issue to fairly look at the other side of the argument. But I don’t think it is impossible.

              Like

            25. I understand that the things I believe are beliefs in things that can not be verified as fact via the scientific method.

              Then why on earth do you believe them?

              I would agree that it is difficult for anyone who has taken a hard stance on any issue to fairly look at the other side of the argument. But I don’t think it is impossible.

              Ask any deconvert and they will tell you that reality, tough as it may be sometimes, is light years better than the false notions engendered by religious indoctrination, especially those that include some sort of belief that one is unworthy, a sinner, and damned if one does not believe.

              Or in the case of Muslims condemned to death for apostasy.

              Give one straightforward reason why you believe in Christianity?

              Like

            26. The better question is why I am not an atheist, because that shapes the foundation of my beliefs. But the reason I like to read CA and Violets and your blog among others, is because I prefer reading people who have a different opinion on these things than I do. But, I really am not trying to change anyone’s mind. I prefer clarity over agreement.

              Liked by 1 person

            27. Oh, I am not for one second suggesting you are trying to change minds … although you are welcome to give it a shot if you think you are up to it?

              But the question remains on the table, Jim.
              If you recognise it is faith not evidence – why on earth do you believe it?

              Like

            28. I think the answer is obvious. You require independently verifiable evidence, and I don’t. You dismiss the early church writings as well as the gospels, and the church’s existence as an acceptable type of evidence and I accept them. Put those things all together add a couple of other things and that is enough for me.

              But we could potentially agree on guitars: Telecasters are better than Strats, true or false?

              Like

            29. Again, this is STILL not answering the question as to why you believe when you know the evidence refutes the faith.

              As I own a Strat , I suppose I would be a little biased. But I have never played a Tele, so I can’t be completely honest in this regard,
              And there are plenty of very fine players of both instruments.

              Like

            30. Did I say I know that the evidence refutes the faith? I don’t remember saying that and I don’t believe that. What I do believe is that the evidence you require (“Independent and verifiable”) does not exist.

              Like

            31. Don’t mean to derail the conversation you folks have going on here by any means just felt like making the point that (at least I believe) it is quite possible for a Christian or an Atheist to be an excellent biblical scholar/biblical historian. Conversely, it is just as possible for an atheist to be biased by their atheism as it is for a christian to be biased because of their Christianity when it comes to issues of study in the history of religion. For the record I’m an atheist thought I grew up Christian but I find value in the study of religion (in this case Christianity) from a host of Christian and atheist sources alike including but not limited to: Marcus Borg, Spong, Luke Timothy Johnson, Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, J.D. Crossan, Tillich, Karen Armstrong, Amy Jill-Levine, etc. A truly honest and quality scholar of any subject will put aside (as much as is possible) their own personal beliefs when doing their work. Sometimes scholars who study religion enough end up atheist (Ehrman, for example; happened to me personally too) and occassionally secular and atheist folks convert to a religion. It’s interesting that even most of the Christian scholars of the Bible that do their work honestly disagree with most apologetic methods of interpretation and are miles away from the average “view from the pew” belief though.

              Liked by 1 person

            32. Wow, you’re right, I forgot that us Christians are categorically incapable of seeing past our biases and therefore are automatically disqualified from studying the bible academically! How fortunate for you, it makes disagreeing with us so easy! I suppose the only way I can respond to that is to keep my bias blinders on and side with the scholars who exegete Paul correctly. (And by the way, it’s not because I’m just picking the conclusion I like, it’s because I’ve seen the arguments for and against Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection being physical, and the arguments for it are stronger. But that’s just what a biased Christian would say.)

              Regarding the church fathers: Clement of Rome knew Peter, which we know from the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Jerome. Polycarp knew John, again reported by Irenaeus and Tertullian. Ignatius and Papias also knew John, according to Irenaeus. There are other somewhat later sources for those as well (Origen is one, I think. )

              I think there’s a very good chance the Gospels record eyewitness testimony, and a good chance they were written by the traditional authors. I’ve looked at arguments for the later dating of the gospels, and honestly, they seem pretty weak to me.

              What I meant by my question was: why do you believe that the Gospels can be “dismissed with impunity” (as you said earlier) when considering the historicity of events like the burial, the empty tomb, and the resurrection appearances?

              Liked by 1 person

            33. Well I am pleased you acknowledge there ARE arguments against a physical resurrection. And the fact that you have chosen to believe the arguments for demonstrates that faith comes first.
              It HAS to, so why are you even bothering to try to justify this on evidentiary and historical grounds?
              And every non-christian biblical scholar I have read – and granted, it is only a handful – has stated that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection.
              Now I wonder why that is?

              No, you do not KNOW if Clement knew Peter at all, or any of the other claims either.
              Not withstanding the controversy surrounding Clement for example, there is no genuine non-christian historian I am aware of that supports this view of any church father knowing the disciples.
              And Knew John? Which john are you even talking about?

              So, Strike 2.
              And your claim about the gospels recording eyewitness testimony is the evangelical fundamentalist icing on the Gateaux.

              You are aware that Matthew, for example, is merely a rehash of Mark and contains over 600 verses lifted from Mark, some
              almost verbatim.
              And this in itself is enough to confine your belief to the scrap heap of failed apologetics.
              And the so called virgin birth? The prophecy delivered to King Ahaz that has nothing whatsoever to do with a messiah.
              The completely nonsensical and geographically inaccurate description of Nazareth in Luke. What city? What synagogue?
              That Jesus believed Moses was a genuine historical character should be a massive clue as to how ridiculous these ”books” are.! How could a god not know the truth about the Exodus?
              The Johannine comma.
              The adulteress story: Recognized as fraud
              The long ending of Mark: Recognized as fraud.
              Some of the farcical tales in Acts – the shipwreck story and the silly tale about being bitten by a snake, for one.
              And again, your claim of the arguments being ”pretty weak to me” demonstrates that your presuppositional view comes to the fore the instant your indoctrinated evangelical view is challenged.
              How the hell, for example, can the account of the raising of the dead saints as recorded in Matthew be a true physical historical account?
              Think like a rational person for the gods sake!
              Even Licona stated this was not to be regarded as literal and he summarily lost two jobs after Norman Geisler went after him for tarnishing the view of biblical innerancy.

              And it is such examples that show why the gospels as reliable historical sources can be dismissed with impunity and there are a myriad of further examples and until you take off your rose-tinted glasses, and recognise that you have the same degree of skepticism, if not worse, regarding similar claims Muslims and Hindus make then you will forever be shackled to this nonsense.
              And if you don’t accept my word as an atheist then discuss the matter with any former Christian.

              As for the reusrrection and the tomb etc.
              Tell me where the tomb is and offer a single piece f independant testimony and I might consider your claims.
              Oh, and please don’t come back with Habermas or Strobel or Wallace, I beg of you.

              Like

  9. This doesn’t take away from your argument, but here’s a fun fact: the classic omni’s come from Greek philosophy (which shaped the thinking of the early Gentile church, but not the authors of the Bible, who were all Jewish/Isrealite). That language doesn’t appear in the Bible. Omnipotence, in particular, is difficult to find in the Bible. In the Bible, God changes his mind (impossible if God was omniscient), declares events which took place to be against his will (impossible if God was omnipotent), and of course endorses some pretty brutal stuff (impossible if God was omnibenevolent, in the sense that we mean today). God even comes “walking through the garden” in Genesis, which would be impossible for something omnipresent.

    The understanding of God that most of us grew up with is pretty different from what shows up in the Bible. Ever since the early days, Christians have read the Bible non-literally, which often included pretty openly contradicting what the Bible says about God (and other subjects).

    Trying to argue against the God of the Bible is far more challenging for a number of reasons: it’s different from what we assume it to be, it’s written from a context we (as 21st C Americans) can hardly fathom, it’s mostly narrative and poetry (not philosophy, which is easier to argue with), and it’s not even consistent (since the Bible was written by a very diverse group of people over a very long time).

    But I get it. To paraphrase Dawkins’s the preface to God Dellusion, Why bother arguing against an understanding of God that most religious people don’t even hold? (To clarify, I’m not arguing with you. Just throwing out some relevant info I find interesting.)

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Are you trying to say that the god of the bible is nothing more than a capricious monster with a giant ego problem and what sort of half way intelligent person would ever consider believing in him let alone worship him?

      Like

  10. In terms of #3; Calvinism is quite the monster. The recipe uses this mix:
    God is Sovereign – using his omnipotence, he controls everything
    God is the Prime Mover – he chooses the elect, he makes the elect able to choose to be saved, he chooses the not-elect, he prevents the not-elect from being able to choose to be saved.
    God controls free will – the elect freely choose to be saved because He made them, the not-elect freely choose to not be saved because he made them.
    Blame sin – we live in a fallen world, and even though God is sovereign, he’s good – so birth defects like Anencephaly are the result of sin and not something that God would do – because He’s benevolent. (But apparently not so benevolent as to prevent birth defects altogether because he’s sovereign like that and controls everything – ???)

    Somehow, Calvinism has become really popular in my old denomination and it’s all over the place. I think it’s pretty contradictory in and of itself.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Regards the being that can destroy God I’d say it’s we, mankind that could destroy him. Having read the entirety of the Bible in the past I can say the people who compiled it weren’t the brightest bulbs – there are numbers WTF and logical traps in it. Starts in Genesis 4 and goes from there. I mean come on, who were those other people in Nod?

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Catchy title!

    I think that this post is more “6 Contradictions of Evangelical Christianity” than it is “Contradictions Against God.”

    For example, there could be some type of “god being” who has the ability to prevent Cancer, hurricanes disease, etc from happening and chooses not to do anything about them. Those things don’t prove that this being doesn’t exist or contradict its nature. It just makes you question what type of being this “god” would be like if it existed. But if we are talking about Christianity, especially evangelical christianity, then you are making a much stronger argument.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. As most dec-converts we (one?)bump into in blogland are former Christians then it’s a safe bet this is the god most people are referring to. Certainly, you would not be commenting here in this manner if CA was talking about the attributes of Hanuman, now would you, Jim?
      Therefore, Contradictions against God is, in fact, spot on. And Ihope you noticed that CA even afforded the title of your arse-wipe of a deity a capital G.
      How nice, right? Yo! …Respect!

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Well, you are right about that. I wouldn’t be following CA if that was the case. BUT contradictions in the Bible and Christian Theology doesn’t mean that there is no theistic type being. There are lots of theists that believe in some kind of deity who also reject christianity. So I think my comment makes sense in that way.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Except this is a blog by a former Christian and most interactions of this sort are among a few Christians who visit, such as you, and normal people.

          Out of curiosity, if I may?
          1.Why did you become a Christian?
          2. Why are you still a >Christian

          Like

          1. Hi Ark,

            I will give you that much. Still..

            That is a long story…
            I am still a Christian primarily because I find the arguments against the existence of god to be less compelling than others do. That is the short answer.

            Like

            1. Like I said, it is long story. Next time I’m in Johannesburg, I’ll stop by the bakery for some cupcakes and if you really want know, I tell you then. 🙂

              I am more interested in CA story than telling my own, especially on her blog.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. No, but that was a good one. I bet you are truly funny in person!

              This is CA’s blog about coming out of the closet as an atheist. My beliefs are irrelevant to anyone but myself. I am am only here because CA has such a compelling story, and it is very similar to my own, except mine is the reverse: the one who left a family of agnostics and became one of those non-normal people. :). Plus CA is a great writer. But if my presence here in the comment section bothers everyone else, I can stop commenting.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. Not at all. Write away my good man!
              Seeing some of these visiting Christians drop these little subtle bombs makes me grin from ear to ear.

              I really would love to hear your story, Jim.
              Conversion stories fascinate me as they seem to be the supposed ”Ace in the Hole” for some Christians to show us Hellbound Heathens why your God is so wonderful as he managed to convert this poor atheist who had nothing but emptiness and bitterness and now he is best pals with Francis Collins and William Lane Craig, dontha know?

              I have been asking about conversion stories for several years now and without exception, every individual had some sort of emotional crisis, often related to the usual suspects, sex drugs and rock n’ roll which resulted from guilt about something or other.
              For example, Francis Collins emotional upheaval was related to a form of death anxiety if memory serves
              So I am still waiting for someone … anyone to tell me their conversion was based purely on evidence, with little or not emotional issues at all.

              Are you perhaps that individual I wonder?
              Well, are you?

              Like

            4. Sorry for the delay i replying, we just had a power outage.
              Well, if this is not you, I am even more intrigued why you converted.
              I am going to take it you were at least brought up in a Christian environment if not raised in a Christian family/household.

              Like

            5. Nope! Non-religious home for sure! When I converted, my oldest sister basically disowned me. Which is one of the reasons I am so intrigued by CA story. I am hoping her family doesn’t disown her.

              Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s