Bible Verses not Read in Sunday School

I used to go to church a lot. My church of choice was the First Christian Church, Disciples of Christ. But I’ve also been to other protestant denominations including Lutheran, Methodist, Nazarene, Baptist, Pentecostal, and Assembly of God.

I’ve heard a lot of sermons in my day. Most of the sermons centered around the teachings of Jesus, as would be expected in a Christian church. The Pentecostal preachers really focus on the Book of Acts for some reason. Acts tells about how the early churchgoers practiced their faith; it has very little to do with what Jesus said or taught.

Many sermons are based on the writings of St. Paul. Here was a man who never met Jesus but could tell you everything in Jesus’ head. There are four Gospels in the bible, all written after Paul’s letters. But there is no Gospel of Paul. Jesus told Peter that he was the rock upon which his church would be built, but it turns out that Paul is the real foundation, at least in most churches I’ve attended.

And once in awhile, the pastor will go back to the Old Testament for the source of his sermon. They preach a lot from Genesis and a lot from the so-called books of prophecy. But I’ve never heard a sermon based on any of the following bible passages. I’m not saying no preacher has ever uttered them aloud, but if they have, it was probably in the context of trying to explain what God really meant to say. But it is God, after all. And it is the bible, God’s supposed word. Why does He have to be explained?

2 Kings 2:23-24 – “Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, ‘Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!’ So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.”

It would be difficult for a preacher to work into his sermon on this chapter why God would stoop so low as to kill 42 children for being childishly rude. And couldn’t God have just stricken them dead instead of sending bears to maul them to death? This is one sadistic creator of the universe.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 – “If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.”

Ok, let me get this straight. To guys are fighting. The wife of one guy comes to and grabs the other guy’s testicles in order to stop him from killing her husband. Did this happen a lot? Were there any repeat offenders? Maybe that should have been one of the Ten Commandments in place of, I don’t know, “Thou shalt observe the Sabbath and keep it holy.” Not too many people follow that one anyway. But cutting off her hands seems a bit strict.

Malachi 2:3 – “Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces….”

This is God talking. I can’t think of any way in which a preacher could smooth this one over. I mean, if the Almighty gets so angry that he is compelled to smear feces on someone’s face and make him infertile, that’s sinking pretty low. Maybe the Lord was just having a rotten day.

The above passage comes from the King James Version, which some other versions also state similarly. But the New International Version cleans it up a bit. It states that offal from sacrifices will be spread on the faces. That’s still pretty bad, but probably not as bad a dung. The NIV was translated by fundamentalist Christians with the intent of bringing in more souls. In other words, the writers had a clear agenda, so it is no wonder they clean up the bible a little and remove some of the inconsistencies that are obvious in other versions.

Ezekiel 22:20 – “There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.”

This verse, obviously from the Larry Flint edition, could be a bumper sticker. I guess the preacher could elaborate on this one if he sent the kids off to the Sunday school rooms for cookies. I’m surprised the fundamentalists don’t demand the bible be banned from the bookstore for this one.

Oh, and here’s one for the Christians in the women’s liberation movement, if there are any:

1 Timothy 2:15 – “But women will be preserved through the bearing of children….”

Maybe some sleazebag could use that verse as a basis for a new religion. Their mantra: “Keep the women pregnant, for it will save their souls.” But a regular preacher of an existing religion would preach unto his flock that verse at his own peril.

I could go on, of course. The bible is a huge compilation, chock full of misdeeds and pornography. But you get the idea. If you’re a churchgoer, challenge your minister to center his next sermon on one of these verses that strikingly highlight some of the bible’s R-rated content.

Fundamentalist Christians are Hypocrites

After living for years in a sort of religious limbo (no pun intended) I now call myself an atheist, not because I know there is no god, but because I do not believe in one. God might or might not exist; I have no way of knowing for sure, so I’m an agnostic atheist.

I used to call myself just an agnostic, and before that I called myself spiritual but not religious and before that I called myself a Christian because that’s how I was raised. But after reading Dan Barker’s book, Godless, I know that if I cannot specifically answer in the affirmative if someone asks me if I believe in God, then by definition, I’m an atheist.

Theists believe in a god. In the U.S. most theists are Christians. And most of them have no reluctance to tell me how wrong I am for not believing. I can point out that they only believe in one god, the Christian god, and therefore, are atheistic with respect to all other gods. What if they picked the wrong one? But logic doesn’t faze most fundamentalist Christians. They, after all, have their bibles.

It doesn’t matter that the bible is chock full of contradictions and horror stories of a vengeful god. It doesn’t matter that the bible has absolutely no independent historical corroboration. It doesn’t matter that not one word of the New Testament was written by a person who knew Jesus personally or witnessed any of the events they wrote about. None of that matters to Christians. They have their beloved bible, which is the unerring word of God. And how do they know it is? Well, obviously, because the bible tells them so.

Logic, reason, and rational thought don’t work at all with fundamentalists and their bibles. They can be the most reasonable, intelligent people in the world when it comes to all other aspects of their lives. Maybe they are whizzes at business or art or music. Maybe they have a photographic memory or are champions at playing Trivial Pursuit. But they are able to compartmentalize their daily, rational lives and keep all that separate from their religious beliefs.

It doesn’t matter to them that scientists have proved that all species of life on Earth, including humans, have evolved. They simply say, “Oh, it’s only a theory.” They don’t realize that, in science, a theory is as good as it gets. Theories have been proven, even though they can be modified by new evidence if necessary.

Fundamentalists say they have all the proof they need that God exists, in the trees, the flowers, a baby’s cry. It doesn’t matter one bit to them that everything they point to as proof of God can be explained perfectly well by science using only natural laws. It doesn’t matter to them at all that the personal feeling they have that God lives within them can be duplicated, and is duplicated, in other religions that they might call heathen religions. And those feelings can all be explained by neuroscience anyway.

I am often asked why I care what other people believe. I care, partly, because I am a teacher, and I like for people to understand how things really work. I at least like for them to be open minded enough to try to understand.

Mostly, though, I don’t much care that people believe in God. After all, if there were solid evidence, I could be convinced myself of God’s existence. I used to believe in God. So I get it. But what really bothers me is not their belief in God or even in Jesus, but that so many of them rule out what has been proven by science in favor of biblical mythology. And some of these people who rule out evolution as viable in favor of six-day creation find no problem accepting help when they need it from a doctor. Many medicines, such as immunizations and antibiotics, have been created based on the theory of evolution. Evolution is useful to scientists, and therefore, to everyone else.

If the religious fundamentalists would denounce the use of anything that comes from what they do not believe in – the theory of evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the earth and Cosmos – then I would say they are missing out on life, but at least they would not be hypocrites. But if they make use of any of these things, then they are, indeed, hypocrites. They use the advancements of science for their own benefit, even if those advancements could not have come absent the theory of evolution.

I say to all the fundamentalists who do not accept evolution as factual, despite 150 years of evidence supporting it then stop using the benefits of science. Live like the Amish. You should not accept the fruits of the labor of evolutionary biologists if you do not believe in evolution. You can’t have it both ways, unless you are a hypocrite. If you are a hypocrite, then you are being dishonest. And isn’t that what you would call a sin?

Nobel Peace Prize often Given for the Effort

America does not exist in isolation. The isolationist policies that existed prior to World Wars I and II cannot work in the global economy of today. One can argue that they didn’t even work back then, since those wars might have been prevented by a United States that was more engaged in world affairs.

The United States, if we are to be a world leader, needs to have the respect of the nations we are leading. During the eight years of the Bush administration, we did not have that global respect. Our enemies loathed us to the point of actually attacking us, which enemies often do. But enemies are also often open to diplomacy. But the Bush administration wanted none of that.

Our friends did not respect us and often criticized the saber-rattling policies of the Bush administration. They were more than willing to stand behind us as we attempted to weed out terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but when we decided to invade a sovereign nation using the unproven excuse, which later turned out to be totally false, that Iraq was somehow tied to the 9/11 attacks and was hiding weapons of mass destruction, our friends mostly refused to go along with us. The countries that did back us did so tentatively and out of a sense of obligation, not admiration.

But in the few months that Barack Obama has been president, we have gotten our friends back abroad. The U.S. is still reviled by its enemies, but the rhetoric has been toned down and some of them are eager to engage with us in diplomacy. The nations of Europe, our staunch allies since World War I, are proud to have the U.S. as a friend again. We no longer stand as a monolithic war-mongering black-sheep nation. We are no longer a nation of peace that has gone rogue. No one has reined us in; we reined in ourselves, thanks to the policies and promises of our new president, Barack Obama.

So why did Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize? Some are wondering why. Some of Obama’s supporters are wondering why. And his detractors are out right livid that he won. Never mind that it speaks volumes of how the U.S. is perceived by the rest of the free world. Never mind that the award is a great honor to its recipient and his country. Obama detractors and the right-wing party of “no” can’t bring themselves to squeak out a limp congratulatory comment. It doesn’t matter to them that the prestige of America is rising again or that we are now seen as a peace-making nation rather than a war-monger. All they care about is that Obama has gotten an award he, in their minds, does not deserve.

But I don’t wonder why he received the Nobel Peace Prize, not after hearing the explanation from the Nobel Committee. He received it for his extraordinary push for worldwide diplomacy, for his effort to bring nations together to figure out common solutions for our problems, and for advocating a nuclear-free planet.

Prior to his nomination last February, Obama campaigned on abolishing nuclear weapons worldwide. He campaigned on creating a policy of diplomacy. Once in office, he abolished torture as a national policy and signed an order to close the constitutionally-questionable Guantanamo Bay prison facility. He stopped the saber rattling of the previous administration. And he opened up a dialogue with the rest of the world, including the Arab world, urging cooperation over condemnation to solve the world’s problems.

Some of Obama’s supporters, though happy he received the award, say it might have been too early. Maybe he should have been in office at least a full year before being nominated. And his detractors say he should turn down the award; they claim he hasn’t done a thing to deserve it. But the Nobel Peace Prize is not always given to accomplishments; it is quite often given for effort.

Pres. Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in creating the League of Nations, a world organization that was supposed to act to stop all future wars. There was no appreciable disconcert over the fact that he won the Prize, even though the League of Nations was a dismal failure. But Wilson’s effort was awarded nonetheless. If the Nobel Committee had waited to see if the League actually worked, Wilson would never have won the Prize.

Desmond Tutu of South Africa won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his effort to end apartheid. Never mind that apartheid did not end until 10 years later. Was the Nobel Committee premature in that case, or should it have waited until after apartheid had actually ended? It awarded the effort.

Pres. Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts at bringing peace in the Middle East. If the Nobel Committee had waited until he succeeded, they would still be waiting to award him the Prize. Instead, they awarded his amazing effort.

After learning he had won the Peace Prize, Obama said he was humbled and that he didn’t feel he deserved to be placed in the company of previous winners. But he added this: “The Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement. It has also been used to give momentum to specific causes.”

While acknowledging that Obama’s achievements after only 10 months in office have been few, his efforts toward achieving lasting world peace have been awe-inspiring. After only a few months as president, he has finalized little in his bid for world peace, but he has put America on the right road to helping achieve it. It is a cause worth awarding.

A change of attitude can go along way, with individuals as well as countries. America has a new attitude, thanks to Obama. The rest of the world recognizes that. It’s just too bad the right-wing zealots who are automatically against anything Obama does or says or accomplishes are so busy hurling insults at our president that they refuse to acknowledge that the world might actually be a safer place now than it was a year or so ago, not so much because of specific accomplishments, but because of a change in attitude.

Only our enemies and those at home who call themselves conservatives do not understand why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s sad that the right-wing party of “no” has more in common with America’s enemies than it does with the aims of their own president.

The Five-Second Rule: Myth or Reality?

Most people have heard of the five-second rule. It says if you drop a piece of food, such as a potato chip or an apple on the floor, and if you pick it up right away, within five seconds, it is still clean enough to eat.

Our science class at George Washington Community School decided to test this rule. No, we didn’t use each other to test the rule by eating dropped food to see who would get sick. We used the scientific method to perform an experiment to find our answer.

Experiments should always have a set of variables, the dependent variable and the independent variable. It should also have constants and a control. We used equal amounts of nutrient agar in Petri dishes as a constant. Incubation temperature and time of incubation was a constant. The control was a clean-agar dish that had not been smeared with dropped food. Our independent variable was the time we left the food on the floor – one piece for more than five seconds, the other piece for less than five seconds. The dependent variable was the number of bacterial colonies that grew on the agar after 24 hours.

We decided that we would use bite-size Hershey chocolates as one of our constants. We would simulate the dropping of the candies by rubbing one on the floor for three seconds and another on the floor for seven seconds. If the five-second rule is correct, the hypothesis would be that the candy left on the floor for only three seconds should contain significantly fewer bacteria than the candy left on the floor for seven seconds. However, some of the students decided to state a different hypothesis, that both candies would contain approximately equal numbers of bacteria.

Our procedure, after rubbing the candies on the floor for the specified amount of time, was to rub them on top of nutrient agar in the Petri dish for five seconds each. We then incubated the Petri dishes for 24 hours at about 85 degrees F. At the end of the incubation period, we found that both the five-second dish and the seven-second dish contained considerable numbers of bacterial colonies. We performed three trials, one for each class period. In two trials, the number of colonies was approximately equal. In one trial, the three-second dish actually contained more colonies than the seven-second dish. The control dish contained no bacteria.

We, therefore, concluded that the five-second rule was bogus and simply a myth. The hypothesis stated by students who said that both pieces of candy would contain considerable bacteria proved to be correct. It is not wise to eat any food dropped on the floor for any amount of time.

See a video of one student, Emily, performing the experiment on YouTube.

What's Up with the Czar Wars?

Republicans are at it again, bashing Obama for something that they let slide under George W. Bush. This time it’s about Obama’s appointment of so-called czars to advise him on various policy issues.

The word czar originally meant an emperor, like Caesar, which is the term’s root. Russia was ruled by czars for centuries. But it is not at all affiliated with communism or socialism, which is what some Republicans want us to believe. Czarist Russia ended with the revolution of 1917 when socialism took over.

Regardless of its history, today’s use of czar in America was coined by the news media as a lazy way of saying policy advisor. In this day of fast a furious sound bites, it’s much easier to say “drug czar” than to say “the policy advisor on drugs.”

Every president has had czars, some more than the current president. George W. Bush had so many czars that he even had to appoint a czar to oversee his other czars. He had a czar czar.

Even Franklin D. Roosevelt had a czar, a rubber czar. No he didn’t have a crisis of condoms; it was about how to get enough rubber to make tires.

So why is there so much backlash over Obama’s use of policy czars? The short answer is that Republicans have no fresh ideas of their own on any matter of policy, so their strategy is to attack Obama on every single detail of his presidency, no matter how picayune.

If he did not appoint any policy advisors, they would condemn him for that. They would say he is an inexperienced leader who should be appointing as many advisors as he can.

In reality, Obama is doing as president as he did when he was running for office. He is surrounding himself with experts on specific aspects of his job so that they can advise him from a position of knowledge and intellect rather than from cronyism, which our former president was guilty of.

It has been more than 10 months since the election and eight months since Obama took office. But from all the Obama bashing that is going on these days, you would think the campaign was still going on. Former president Jimmy Carter got it right when he said that much of the brouhaha stems from racial prejudice. Nobody will admit it, of course. But it does play a role. Just look at the signs being held up at the so-called Tea Party events. They are blatantly racist.

Maybe the mainstream Republicans simply disagree on policy, but the fact that so few of them have publicly scorned the ultra-right-wing segment of their party simply gives the racist rhetoric tacit approval and provides its purveyors with legitimacy.

Everyone has a right to speak his mind in America, even if it is spoken in an inappropriate manner. But having that right doesn’t mean that those who are more moderate in their viewpoints shouldn’t take steps to rein in the more extreme elements in their party. Not doing so makes the right-wing extremists the party’s official voice. But if that’s the voice they want, then they may have to live with even more disappointment next November.

Obama to Indoctrinate Schoolkids into Communism?

Ever since Barack Obama was elected president, conservatives have been crying and bellyaching over one thing or another. I guess that’s normal in a two-party system. Democrats complained a lot when George W. Bush was president. But then so did many Republicans. After all, Bush was a blithering idiot.

Obama is an intellectual and is very charismatic. Outwardly, he is a lot more like Ronald Reagan, although with much different policies. But regardless of his charisma, or maybe partly because of it, reactionaries are faulting him for everything from the economy to the swine flu.

But over the past week, a new controversy has arisen. As off the wall and silly as some of his detractors have been up until now, this latest controversy has to be one of the most outlandish non-issues ever brought up in the name of partisan politics.

The president wants to speak to schoolchildren at a time when they have started classes again following their summer break. He wants to tell them that education is important to their future and to tell them it would be best for them to stay in school and try hard. He wants to tell them that it is possible to rise above hardship as he did to become whatever they want to be.

It is not the first time a president has addressed an audience of schoolchildren. Ronald Reagan did it. He talked about taxes for whatever reason. George H.W. Bush did it, too. And as we all know, George W. Bush was reading to kindergarteners at the moment of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. After being told of the attack, he just continued to read.

But now, Obama’s plan to speak to the kiddies has drawn fire from the conservatives who claim he only wants to indoctrinate them into some socialist agenda. Normally, such far-right propaganda would be ignored by all except their own kind. But for a reason that is beyond my comprehension, the extreme right seems to have the ear of the moderate audience these days.

The moderates have started to believe the wing nuts on the right when they make far-fetched claims about Obama’s health care plan or his economic recovery plan. And now, the claim that Obama is trying to brainwash the nation’s children and turn them into socialists or communists has gone viral.

Parents are threatening to keep their kids home on Tuesday after Labor Day instead of sending them to school to listen to their president tell them to get a good education. Even some school administrators have said they would screen, delay, or even edit the broadcast.

This is craziness gone amok. Who would have believed that a simple address by the president directed at school kids and on the topic of getting a better education would be the target of so much controversy? Some have said the speech comes with lesson plans. Well, so what? It’s a speech about education. Lesson plans seems like a logical inclusion. Teachers are not under any obligation to actually use them. But providing supplemental materials is a good idea.

Whether you agree with the president’s policies or not, whether you like Obama as a person or not, doesn’t change the fact that he is the elected president of this country, and as such, he has every right to address whatever audience he chooses. He did not obtain his position as leader of the free world through a coup. He was duly elected to the office by a popular majority and a sizeable electoral majority, larger than either of George W. Bush’s margins. In fact, Bush lost the popular vote in 2000.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that conservatives tend to have less formal education than those on the progressive end of the political spectrum. And it is these same conservatives who want to keep their kids out of school so they won’t be exposed to a speech by their duly-elected leader. Could it be that conservatives are afraid that if their kids listen to Obama, stay in school, and become more educated than their parents, that they will jump ship and become Democrats?

It sounds logical, which is probably why it isn’t true. After all, a logical conservative is an oxymoron. Most of the far-right nut jobs wouldn’t know logic if it crawled up their pant legs and bit them in the ass.

How to Debate a Christian

When I was a kid, I believed all the popular stories of the bible. I believed that Noah and his family really did build a big boat. I believed Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth. I believed that Eve spoke to a snake and that Jonah was eaten by a whale (although it turned out to be a big fish). The sad part is I believed most of these things at least a little all the way into my college years.

Lacking a single epiphany, I gradually started to question the literality of these biblical events. I was a science major in college. I knew that Noah could not have gotten a pair of all the world’s animals into a single boat. I knew Jonah could not have survived inside a giant fish for three days. But I was still open to the possibility of Adam and Eve, although I was dubious about the talking snake.

I also knew that the six days of Creation were not really six literal days. They were just the bible’s way of meaning periods of time. I certainly believed things evolved, because it’s hard to ignore scientific evidence if you’re not a fundamentalist. But I thought it was probably guided by God.

But when I was in my mid-40s, I did have a moment of epiphany. While talking to my pastor about a years-long crisis of faith, after spending 10 years going to church every week, reading the bible, praying, getting baptized, and trying to debate skeptics about the existence of God, it dawned on me that I was an agnostic. My pastor asked me what I believed, deep down. I replied I didn’t really know at that point. I told him I think God exists, but I know nothing at all about Him and I’m not sure how anyone else does either.

He told me I had stumbled on the right answer. I had been asked, and I had answered the $64,000 question. I was an agnostic who leaned toward believing. But if there actually is a god, nobody knows any more about what he is like or what he wants than I do. My pastor was, and is, a very smart man. Unlike many Christian leaders, he is open-minded and non-dogmatic.

Since then, my disbelief has grown as my belief has diminished. But I still do not call myself an atheist; that would mean I know too much about the God situation. It would mean, to me at least, that I know enough to know he does not exist. I don’t know that much yet. What I do know for sure is that I still know nothing at all about God or his existence. And I know enough to say for certain that nobody else knows either. I can say that because I do not have enough evidence to prove or disprove anything about God. And nobody has any more evidence than I do. Therefore, they can’t know either. Some only believe they know and they’re not shy about telling the world what they think they know.

So, over the past few years, and especially over the last few weeks, I have found myself in confrontational mode regarding religion. I was raised Christian and spent most of my adult life calling myself a Christian. Many of my family members are Christians. My mom is a Christian. Sometimes when we get together at family birthdays or holidays, a debate breaks out about religion. Sometimes it isn’t pretty.

I have found myself drawn into debates on Facebook, in the forums, about the existence of God, or whether the phrase “under God” should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, or whether “In God we trust” should be removed from our currency. I hear things like “This nation was founded on Christianity” all the time. I also seem to be the object of a lot of prayers from well-meaning but utterly self-righteous Christians.

Although I hold my own in these debates, I don’t really expect to win any converts. I am hopeful, however, that the lukewarm Christians or the fence-sitters will see the light of reason and not fall into the illogical abyss of Christianity.

Why do I care? I’ve been asked that a lot. I don’t really care what people I don’t even know believe. I respect their right to believe whatever kind of fairy tale they want, but don’t expect me to respect the belief itself. I care more what my family believes because I am close to them and I would like for them to be enlightened.

I’m a teacher. I can’t help but feel somehow threatened by ignorance. I can’t help but to try to correct people when they say something that is obviously incorrect, such as when they say this country was founded on Christianity. That is factually wrong. I teach science, so it bothers me that so many people prefer to believe the allegory in Genesis about God’s Creation instead of the evidence-based theory of evolution. It’s in my nature to try to set people straight, whether they want to be set straight or not.

So in an effort to make future debates easier, I have done some research. I’ve collected some counter arguments to some of the most popular claims of the evangelical Christians. I’ve produced some in-context quotes of our Founding Fathers proving that the U.S. is not really a Christian nation. And I’ve learned how to recognize straw-man arguments brought forth by Creationists and how to counter them with the truth.

It won’t make a bit of difference to the person I am debating. But, as I said, it might do those who have an open mind some good to read rational thoughts among the bible babble.

One thing I have noticed is that Christians love to quote the bible. They use it as their source of information and their one and only manual of attack. But what might not be so obvious to an innocent bystander is that almost all of their bible-based arguments are logically flawed.

For one thing, it is hard to take the bible seriously when it is so self-contradictory that you can use it to prove or disprove almost any contention. Here are just a few examples of how it is self-contradictory:

Take the first and second chapters of Genesis. They tell two completely different and mutually-exclusive stories of Creation. Fundamentalists often say that Chapter 1 gives a full account of Creation and Chapter 2 merely sums it up using different words, but that isn’t true. In Genesis 1:20 and 21 it says, “every living creature” is brought forth from the waters, including every winged fowl. But in Genesis 2:19 God brings forth “every beast of the field and every fowl of the air” from dry ground.

The order of Creation is completely different between the two biblical accounts, too. In Chapter 1, beasts were created before man; in Chapter 2, man was created before beasts. This may not seem too important a point, but it makes it difficult to reconcile obviously contradictory passages with the idea that the bible is literal and infallible. You can’t have it both ways.

The Genesis 1 and 2 contradictions are useful when debating a Creationist. But they are hardly the only biblical contradictions. There are contradictions within the Old Testament, contradictions within the New Testament, contradictions between the New and Old Testaments, even contradictions within the same book.

In Genesis, it tells us that God needed to rest on the seventh day of Creation. But Isaiah says that God “fainteth not, neither is (He) weary.” Matthew (19:26), “with God all things are possible.” But the Book of Judges (1:19), says that God could not drive out the inhabitants in the valley “because they had chariots of iron.” Apparently, God has trouble moving things made of iron.

When confronted with the fact that there is lots of evil in the world and God could do something about it if he wanted to, Christians are quick to point out that man has free will and that the devil makes evil. But God said (Isaiah 45:7) “I make peace and create evil.” So evil is God’s fault.

How about this one? “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt.7:l). And yet others must be judged? (1Cor. 6:2-4). And, “God is love.” He is “the God of Peace” (Romans 15:33), but in Exodus 15:3, “the Lord is a man of war.” The sheer number of contradictions could fill a book.

Evangelicals love using what they believe is logic to argue their point. Creationists are fond of saying that scientists think that complex life “just happened” or “came together at random.” This is a straw-man argument, one which attempts to refute a sound contention by refuting an extreme version of the contention.

Take the very banal argument against evolution that if you put a monkey in front of a word processor and have him type randomly forever, he still won’t type out A Tale of Two Cities by accident. A novel implies a writer. But evolution does not happen by pure random chance. There are selective pressures at work.

If you put a monkey in front of a keyboard and have him type at random until he accidentally types out the word “it” and then save it in a file, then have him continue typing until he types out “was” and save it in the same file, and so on, the monkey would eventually type out the first sentence of the novel, “It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.” It would take awhile, but the monkey would, indeed, eventually type out the entire novel.

Arguing by begging the question or using circular reasoning is another favorite weapon in the Christian arsenal. But it isn’t an effective one. “The bible is the absolute truth.” How do you know? “Because it is God’s word and God doesn’t lie.” How do you know it is God’s word? “Because it says so in the bible.” It’s amazing how many otherwise rational people don’t pick up on this.

Many Christians argue using false cause reasoning. For example, “Statistics show juvenile delinquency is rising. Therefore, we need to post the Ten Commandments in public schools.” It’s a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. There is no proof that having the Ten Commandments posted in school will result in less juvenile delinquency.

Then there are the slippery slope arguments. A conclusion is assumed based on the happening of a single event. “If we take ‘under God’ out of the Pledge, it will eventually lead us to be a Godless nation.” Christians also use this type of argument to conclude that atheists and agnostics have no sense of morality because they have nothing to base it on. They don’t seem to realize that morality pre-dated the invention of God. Our morality is an evolutionary adaptation that keeps us from killing off our own species.

In the poll forums on Facebook, there are often large majorities that support a pro-Christian question. So a lot of debaters use the argument of popular sentiment as proof that their side is right. But just because an opinion is popular doesn’t necessarily mean it is correct. A lot of people can be deluded. Slavery used to be popular. The only proof of an argument that is worth considering is empirical evidence.

And don’t forget that anecdotal evidence does not count. Evidence has to be repeatable and verifiable.

It is easy to stump a Christian with logic. But you probably will never change his or her mind. They are very good at cop-outs, such as “God works in mysterious ways,” or “God does things in his own time.” These are not proofs. When Christians start using these aphorisms, it means they have surrendered to logic; they just can’t admit it and still maintain their faith. But you will know that you have won the debate at that point.

There are many more types of fallacies that Christians often use to prove their point. All of them are flawed. An exhaustive list of fallacies can be found here. And a good source for bible contradictions is here. And you can find my assemblage of Founding Fathers quotes against religion here.

And, of course, if you are debating with a Creationist, some of your best sources of information are here.