Congratulations. You've found the hidden box!
I used to have an easter egg hunt that started here, but I closed that down. If you want me to reopen it, let me know here.


Anonymous Asked:

/watch?v=D1FdtpH8lSI - I have a tentative interest in mythology/theology and the links between religions has always fascinated me, I’ve never really considered how a Christian would respond to the link. I know the video isn’t a credible source per se but it succinctly collates most of which I’ve read. This isn’t an attack or anything, I tend to avoid in engaging in theological debates, but I’m interested how a christian would respond.

These “paganism turned Christianity” kinds of theories died out almost entirely in the 19th century, mostly because there’s no evidence that they’re true. Let’s look at just a few of the claims made by the video and see how they hold up to even some brief examination.

The story of Horus.

According to the video, Horus was born on December 25th, of the virgin Isis-mary, with a star in the east, which three kings followed to adore him; he grew up a wise child teacher; he was baptized at 30 by Anup; he travelled with 12 disciples performing healing and nature miracles; he had such names as “the way,” “the truth,” “lamb of God” and “the good shepherd;” he was betrayed by Typhon, crucified, buried for 3 days, and then resurrected. The video even claims that our words “horizon” and “sunset” come from the Horus story; a claimed “daily battle” in which the resurrection of Horus was seen (really though? Every night? Christ only rose once; there’s no parallel). [As a note on the etymology of those words, “horizon” comes from Old French, and “sunset” is a compound English word. Unless Egyptians spoke either of those languages, I think the similarity is simply coincidence.]

Wow! That sounds a lot like Christianity! But should we throw away our faith just yet? Probably not. In fact, the video makes a very telling admission: “These attributes of Horus, whether original or not…”[x]. See, in the 19th century, a whole lot of people figured out that we don’t have any evidence of these claims as part of the Horus mythos until the 2nd or 3rd centuries after Christ—but more on that later. 

Here’s the thing: The video doesn’t even get the basic facts about Horus right. Let’s go over them again:

Read More



osram-akoma:

The awkward moment when people do not know the history of Christianity or that the Bible had 600 books before the council of Nicea selected their top books for political agendas. The awkward moment when Christ was taken to Kemet for protection from Herod, which is Africa. The  [censored]  awkward moment when the Black Israelites are made to seem non-existent even though they were there before the migration. The sad and awkward moment when Jesus was always portrayed as black before Byzantine art And finally the ridiculously [censored] awkward moment when the first beings were African. 

That awkward moment when no canonical list ever had 600 books. That awkward moment when the Council of Nicea didn’t talk about the canon at all. That awkward moment when you confuse the Da Vinci Code with a reliable historical source. That awkward moment when the rest of your post isn’t awkward for anyone but the American nominal Christian who isn’t actually a Christian in the first place. 

Well that was fun. I mean no harm, but you’ve made a lot of truth claims that seem to be blatantly wrong or irrelevant. If you’d like to supply some sources for those claims (like where on earth you got 600 books in the Christian canon from!) I’d be glad to review them! But I think it would be to your benefit to revisit your sources and do some fact-checking, so that you don’t unintentionally make intellectually dishonest claims on the internet! 



Sam Harris vs. WIlliam Lane Craig: The God Debate II.



Anonymous asked: EVERYTHING you say is bullshit. god is seriously not real, you are your own guide and only you can save yourself.

I don’t normally indulge this nonsense, but this is filled with such ignorance that it’s hard not to leap headlong with education, that said ignorance might be chastened. 

You say God does not exist. It seems that you are asserting—for assertion it is, overwhelmingly devoid of any argument (or intellectual content, for that matter)—that there has never been, and never will be, at any point in space or time, such a person or persons as might be called ‘god(s).’ This is, of course, self-refuting. You see, to make such a statement, you must hold absolute knowledge of all points of space and time; you are claiming that you are omniscient. As omniscience is one of the attributes ascribed to deity, you are, if your claim is true, such a person that might indeed be called god. Your claim inherently refutes itself. 

I must ask (and I paraphrase Lewis here): What do they teach in these schools?

Tags: apologetics



threequartersup asked: I stopped reading that post about atrocities when you said Hitler was an atheist. Please, research your history. He used the Lutheran church to gain power. He thought he was doing God's work. Don't embarrass yourself like that anymore. It happened so long ago, that someone really can't be that stupid. Sorry.

Even if you removed Hitler’s work, the total is still 51 million deaths on atheism’s count (unless you’re prepared to say Mao and Stalin were religious), over 51 years. 1 million people dead per year at the hands of atheistic regimes.

This is actually a pretty common claim by the uneducated atheist: “Hitler was a Christian! You don’t know what you’re talking about!” So was he? Was Hitler a Christian? It’s a bit more complicated than a simple no, but…no, not really. In fact, the questioner here gives away the truth: “[Hitler] used [religion] to gain power.”

What Hitler espoused was not Christianity as we know it today. Hitler stressed Christ as an Aryan figure, fighting against the Jews. Hitler mocked the idea of a bodily resurrection of Christ in favor of a spiritual resurrection. This Positive Christianity removed any Jewish aspects from Christianity (i.e. the Old Testament, the Apostle Paul). This was rejected by prominent members of the Confessing Church (Protestantism, and more specifically Lutheranism) such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer. More on clergy later. For now, Hitler’s idea of Christ:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

Speech April 12, 1922 (as cited in Norman Baynes “The Speeches of Adolf Hitler.”

This kind of Aryan Christ hints at Hitler’s study of Nietzsche, and the Übermensch mentality that Nietzsche taught. To be fair, Nietzsche didn’t teach that this was inherited, and also did not teach the antisemitism of the Nazi movement, but Nietzsche and Darwin are clearly two of the greatest influences on Hitler’s ideology. 

So what happened to clergy members who didn’t agree with him? Clergy who held to the fundamental confessions of their faith, whether Catholic or Protestant? For the most part, Hitler had them sent to death camps. The Catholic Church in Poland was under particular attack: 3,000 clergy members (or %18) were murdered, with 1,992 of these killings taking place in concentration camps [see here]. Further plans were in place for the complete destruction of German Christianity, subverting fundamental Christian doctrine with Positive Christianity (which is, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with antisemitism) [see here, and here]. Hitler himself told Hermann Rauschnig that he aimed “to stamp out Christianity root and branch” (as qtd. in Paul Johnson, “The Necessity of Christianity,” Truth 1, 1995). 

If you must label Hitler as religious, then you must also realize that this man was his own god. He payed lip-service to providence, but never once did he act in such a manner as to be called “Christian.” However to call Hitler religious would be to equivocate “religion”—a set of beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe—with what was actually a socio-political ideology. It’s a blatant lie to say that Hitler’s actions were religious in origin. 



The Gospel for Islam



Did religion really commit the greatest atrocities in history?

The following is a response to a statement made by mythoughtsnwords about how awful religion is and how many bad things we’ve done over the years. Needless to say, this is a complete misrepresentation of facts. Let it never be said in your hearing, dear reader, that such nonsense is true. The facts stand ever in our favor, and just a few moments of research can demonstrate this quite handily. Read on.

mythoughtsnwords:

[D]id you know that the greatest atrocities ever committed on this planet have been in the name of God[?]

No they haven’t, and I’m sorry that someone lied to you. If you look at this site—not a Christian apologetics site, by the way, but a man who writes books about this kind of thing for a living—and scroll to the table of “(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other,” you’ll see that one of those was religious in nature,—the Muslim invasion of India, for which I owe no apology, concluding that Islam is indeed a violent religion—and three of those (Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedung) were atheistic in nature. I’ll examine some of your later accusations in detail, but let’s just take a quick look at the atrocities of just those three atheistic regimes, just for some context. (By the way, that site’s author has this to say about your claims.)

Joseph Stalin: No less than 11 million people died under his regime. Hitler, no fewer than 10 million people. Mao Zedong killed 40 million. All of these figures come from this source, which has done a survey of the literature. I took the lowest figure given for each regime. The total? 61,000,000 people. 61 million. And that’s not counting deaths of foreign soldiers in the wars. Religion will have to work pretty hard to keep up with that death toll. Oh, and by the way, do you know how many years this spanned? Stalin started in 1924, and Zedong ended in 1975. That’s 51 years, or 1,196,078 people dead every year, on average. And remember that these are very conservative estimates, with more realistic numbers spread across the 100 millions. 

mythoughtsnwords:

[T]he US was founded on the Puritans, for the expressed [sic] purpose of oppression free worship.

Yes it was. If you agree with that, stop trying to oppress my freedom of both religion and speech. All I am doing is preaching the Gospel. You claim to espouse free worship, so let me worship freely.

mythoughtsnwords:

Your attitude is the same arrogant, fearful fundamentalism that fueled the hatred of the Crusades an [sic] the attacks on 9/11.

Both of these events, the Crusades and 9/11, are incredibly tragic, and I would hope that no one ever forgets these atrocities. 9/11 I don’t have to defend, because I agree that Islam is not a religion of peace. I’ll still take the death toll into account for the final tally. 

The Crusades were, at their heart, a war about land. Religious motivations are clearly evident, and one must be a fool to deny that, but at the same time, the Crusades were sparked by the Turkish invasion of Jerusalem, and the subsequent massacre of the Christians there (for an interesting essay on the Crusades, read this). Was it right? No. Was it strictly religious?—in other words, was it something that was taught by the Christian religion? Absolutely not. In fact, Christ Himself taught to “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39). The Pope, denying the teachings of Christ, instead chose to exercise an “eye for an eye” mentality. My point is this: The Crusades were not the result of “Christian fundamentalism.” It was the result of human pride denying the love that Christ taught. That being said, let’s take a look at the death tolls of religion, starting with the Crusades.

According to the same source as earlier, and taking the highest possible death count for each event, and giving you several events you never listed, and taking responsibility for religious events that were not Christian in origin, we begin with the Crusades, weighing in at 9 million total deaths [source]. We’ll move on to witch hunts in Europe, the greatest estimates (none of which are cited favorably, and are probably grossly overestimated) being another 9 million deaths [source]. The Spanish Inquisition adds another 350,000 to this total [source]. Add another 37 for the Salem Witch Trials [source], and, most recently, the 9/11 attacks and the 3,037 deaths caused by them [source, plus the 19 terrorist]—something that Christianity could never be blamed for, but I’ve added here anyway—and the total number of deaths caused by religion, spanning the 905 years from 1096 to 2001, is 18,353,074.

That’s roughly %70 fewer deaths at the hands of religion than atheism; a mere 20,279 deaths per year compared to atheism’s 1 million and change. Your argument falls apart in face of the facts. Face it: What your argument really shows is that people are selfish and do bad things to other people. Religion may stem the tide, but even the most pious of our race are subjected to their sin nature. Mankind is evil, through and through. 

mythoughtsnwords:

If we are not allowed to worship God in groups and individuals free from persecution and respectful tolerance, there is only one outcome. Again, TOLERANCE. the RESPECT of others! :)

You seem to be intolerant of my preaching of the Gospel. That’s a little hypocritical of you, isn’t it? Why is your position exempt from it’s own standard? That hardly seems right. Perhaps you should respect my belief that I must preach the Gospel lest others perish and I be held accountable for it. Can you do that? Because it doesn’t seem like it. Maybe we can all grow up and agree that disagreement and hatred are not synonymous; just because I think you’re wrong doesn’t mean I’m going to kill you.



Two anons, this time!

Here we go guys! Final count: 2,603 original words, starting after the second anon’s question. Whew!

Anon 1:

Well again I apologize for offending you. Could you explain why you believe in creation over scientific theories? I’m not trying to offend you, I just want to understand creation more.

Anon 2:

are there reasons other than the book of genesis to believe in creationism and not evolution? i don’t think there are.

Before hitting the jump, I warn you: This post will challenge you, regardless of who you are. This is not an easy read. Continue at your own risk.

Read More



l-o-n-g-d-i-c-k-style asked: Sounds like you have time for an open debate for how I'm going to hell because I follow Hinduism. If you wont talk with me about Satan you can at least help me gear up for the eternity you believe in store for me, should I die today.

I’m getting to the Satan question. That requires a much more complex answer. 

As it stands, having rejected the work of Christ on the Cross, and elevating Creation to the same level as the Creator, you are blaspheming God. If you die in this blasphemy, the Law demands that you be separated from God eternally. If you place your faith in Christ, and His teachings, you will be saved. I don’t know what there is to debate about that. It’s pretty clearly taught in Scripture. 



skepticblog asked: Hi. What is your argument for the soul?

Technically, it’s not my argument. Alvin Plantinga wrote a piece defending substance dualism, and arguing against materialism. Rather than restating his argument, I’ll leave this link here. If you have any questions after reading that, please feel free to ask. I’m hopeful that I can clarify any confusions.