My Inner Warrior: Discovering The Rest of Myself

Xena_warrior_princessI was recently in a counseling session, the first I’ve ever been in that involved professional psychologists. (Side note: If you ever have the chance to see a professional psychologist, do it! If you get the right person, the results can be amazing!) During the session, sub-personalities were mentioned. Sub-personalities, in this context anyways, are parts of ourselves that are very prominent but often hide under the surface. It’s the personification of our major personality traits. I realized that I had two very prominent ones.

I have an inner healer and an inner warrior (I picture Xena Warrior Princess in my head lol). I’ve always had both of these traits within me, but for many years they were out of balance. Let me explain.

Violence can be good or bad. Sound strange? Well, self defense is still violence. Physically defending your loved ones from an intruder or marauder is still a violent act, but it is not an immoral one. Whether or not violence is good or bad depends on the context. I watched an episode on the TV show Bonanza where a traveling group of pacifist religious people were in trouble. They were being attacked by a group of awful cowboys who wanted to take the money they’d collectively saved to buy themselves a community piece of land out west. But they were complete pacifists- they believed it was even wrong to defend themselves if it involved violence or weapons. If it hadn’t been for the Cartwright brothers stepping in to help them, they would have been robbed and likely physically harmed by these evil men. The brothers used violence to defend and protect, thus making it a moral act.

There are two sides to all of us, and we must embrace both sides in order to thrive. If you only heal and never fight, you cannot protect yourself from harm or stand up for those who need help. If you only fight and never think of others, you will hurt people. A balance between the light and dark must be found; an accord between angel and demon. For many years my inner healer called all the shots. I sacrificed myself for the sake of others- all the time. And I did it to the applause of a Christian community that idolized servanthood and demonized selfishness even when it was in a healthy context. While self-sacrifice is sometimes necessary and valiant, it’s unhealthy as a continuous lifestyle. I was so bent on making life better for everyone else besides me that I didn’t even think I should have my own individual opinions because I hated being contradictory. My inner warrior was stifled; she gained some expression through religious avenues such as preaching against sin and high intensity outlets like Civil Air Patrol (a military cadet program), but overall she stayed mostly dormant and followed the orders that others gave her.

Now I have more of a balance. My inner warrior has been fully released to do her job- to fight the battles that I didn’t even know that I needed to fight. I no longer ignore my own needs and desires- I stand up for myself unapologetically. My healer is still there, very active and extremely prominent in my life- she drives me to support causes that help others, she drives me to protect those who are being hurt. Instead of being at odds with each other, my healer and warrior are now working together in more harmony than they ever have before. I’m still working out the balance between the two, occasionally my newly-freed warrior gets a little too enthusiastic (lol), but I have a feeling that this is a life-long endeavor for balance that never really ends.

But people who knew me before my deconversion don’t always understand this dichotomy shift. Where I once was always apologetic and overly accommodating and avoided conflict at any cost, now I have very strong opinions of my own and I’m not afraid of conflict. I don’t mince words or pretend I agree in order to make others feel more comfortable like I used to. I don’t play the mind games that I used to rely on, I speak my mind bluntly and openly. I have discovered my own opinions and thoughts, and I will never stay silent again! But to those who don’t understand, they see this as anger and darkness. Yes, I do get angry sometimes. But anger is not always bad. It must be kept in check, like everything else, but it is a tool that can be used for good. And to be honest, I’m still grieving for what I’ve lost and struggling to reconcile the trauma of having my entire worldview fall out from underneath me; and in grief and pain there is anger that must run its course.

I will always respect your right to have your beliefs. I will not attack you as a person for holding those beliefs, and I will try to understand you and your opinions as best I can. However, I will also be blunt and unapologetic about what I believe and how your beliefs and attitudes affect me and others I care about. If you are homophobic, expect that I will call you out on it if it’s an appropriate situation. I no longer care if it makes you uncomfortable; it is silence that allows hurtful ideas and attitudes to permeate and poison our society.
Beware my warrior. She will never again let you walk all over her, she will not allow you to use guilt and shame to make me conform to a box I don’t fit in. She is, I am, strong and unafraid. Share your opinions without fear- but be prepared to be met with someone who is strong and not afraid to challenge you. And if you belittle or attack others for their beliefs, sexual orientation etc., you will see my true inner strength manifested in your direction.

How do you define and determine morality?

7OBThe issue of where we get our morals from is one that comes up often in my conversations with Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. According to them, morality can only come from God by following his laws, therefore non-believers are incapable of morality. I would like to challenge this idea.

Morality is defined as: “Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.” It is also defined as “A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.”
So how do we figure out what’s right and wrong? Here’s a question to start with: Is it wrong to kill another human being?

Christians and non-Christians alike would probably say the same thing: It depends. Is it in self defense? Is it in wartime? Is it the execution of a violent criminal? Both groups generally agree on one thing: Whether or not killing is right or wrong generally depends on the circumstances, and applying the same punishment to everyone without knowing the circumstances would be unjust. Most people would agree that it’s not wrong for me to kill someone who is actively trying to kill me, because that’s self defense. Most people would also agree that a mugger killing his victim is morally unacceptable.
It’s impossible to say that killing another human being is always wrong, because sometimes it’s not. It’s relative to the situation- hence morality is relative.
When we try to apply the same moral answer to every situation, we end up with an unjust system. That’s why we cringe when we hear about starving children being brutally punished for stealing food; sure they did something wrong, but we also take their age and desperation into account. This is also why atheists are horrified at the idea of Hell, because the same brutal punishment is unjustly applied to everyone- good people who simply believed incorrectly are burned right alongside child molesters and genocidal dictators.
So how do we determine whether or not killing another human being is acceptable? Sometimes there is no clear answer, but here are some basic questions to ask.

  1. Are my motives selfish? Am I killing this person for my own personal gain?
  2. Is killing this person necessary? Is there another way to remedy the situation?
  3. What will happen if I don’t kill this person? Will they harm or kill me or someone else?
  4. If everyone killed people for the same reasons I am killing this person, what would our society look like?

Combining these types of questions with general moral principle such as:
Empathy: “The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.” That means I am able to understand the pain and hurt that my actions will have on another human being. Empathy is what causes me to not desire to harm another person.
Social perspective: Humans are social animals, and we’ve learned that some societies are better to live in than others.

We’ve become smart enough to figure out that societies that condone senseless violence are not as pleasant to live in. We also understand the concept of individual rights as it applies to a functioning society. That means that taking someone else’s life intrudes upon their right to live, just as someone taking my life intrudes upon my right to live. I am capable of understanding that since I would not want someone to take my life away from me, I should not take the life of another person. In Christianity this is called the Golden Rule, but it is a concept found in every religion and outside of religion as well.
Of course, we rarely have to sit down and sift through these questions and concepts every time we are faced with a moral dilemma. Most of the time these thought processes happen very quickly and even subconsciously. This is where our conscience comes from- our subconscious understanding of these concepts which we have evolved to understand.
As you can see, we are more than capable of determining what is right or wrong without the Bible’s guidance. But if you’re still not convinced, my other blog goes into more detail.

Why so Angry? Here is the Reason- It’s Probably Not What You Think.

Why so Angry? Here is the Reason- It’s Probably Not What You Think.

Why do these feelings of anger arise within my bosom when certain issues are discussed or brought to my attention? I used to think that I was simply argumentative by nature (not actually the case, I actually hate confrontation). So why I do I post publicly about hot topic issues, even when sometimes the responses I receive are hurtful and make my non-confrontational inner person want to run and hide? Why do I get angry and upset over certain issues when they come up? I can sum it up in a single word:


It is empathy that drives me to post about equality issues, because not saying anything means I am allowing the oppressors to continue unchallenged.

It is empathy that drives me to challenge religion, because I have seen and personally experienced the harm and pain it can and does cause on a regular basis.

It is empathy that causes me to encourage others to start thinking critically, because not thinking through our beliefs is detrimental to ourselves and to society, and knowledge empowers us to make better decisions.

It it empathy that causes righteous anger to rise up within me as I read about yet another male politician enacting laws to limit and oppress women in a nation that’s supposed to be so advanced.

It it empathy that puts knots in my stomach as I see young children being indoctrinated with ideas and beliefs that are not only based on fiction, but can also cause harm and unhealthy views of life.

It is empathy that drives me to address our sexuality, because I was raised (by my Christian circles in general) to believe that girls who had sex outside of marriage were broken and used, and when I hit puberty and masturbated I hated myself for it. The needless guilt and shame I felt about my natural sexual urges is something I don’t want other young people to experience.

It is empathy that drives me to support a woman’s right to make her own choices regarding abortion and birth control, and makes me fight to counteract the negative stigma that hurts so many women.

It is empathy that makes the idea of hell repulsive to me, because the idea of burning people alive forever for ANY crime is horrendous and immoral, and using fear tactics to promote a religion is abusive and hurtful.


When I was a Christian, I wanted to be a missionary because I had been taught that this was the most empathetic thing I could do- save lost souls from the torments of hell. Now I try to save people from the torments of the real world.

This is where my empathy now takes me.

Morality: Human Trait or Divine Standard?

Morality: Human Trait or Divine Standard?

Morality: Human Trait or Divine Standard?

“…the morality of atheists is in a sense more noble by definition than the morality of theists. While theists believe that god will punish them for immoral acts and reward them for moral acts, atheists have no motivation to be moral other than their own innate sense of morality. It is morality for its own sake, not out of fear for punishment or desire for reward.” (

I often hear Christians talk about how morality comes from God. Supposedly, without God, there is no morality; the world would descend into chaos and corruption if people stopped serving him. Without this unchanging moral standard called the Bible, there would be no justice or kindness. Here are a few assumptions about morality that I would like to address.

“Christians have an unchanging moral standard.”

This is not true- not by a long shot. If it was, then what was wrong 300 years ago should still be considered wrong today- but the opposite is true. If you look back through history, you can see dramatic changes in what Christians deem “moral”. For example, Christians in the past century believed that slavery and repression of women’s rights was not only ok, it was God’s natural order. In the Middle Ages, the Crusades and Inquisitions ravaged their part of the world- torture, murder, and suppression of other ideas was the norm. And it was accepted by the majority of Christians at the time as “moral”. Even today we can see major differences in how Christians interpret the Bible: in many African countries today, Christians are oppressing and murdering gay people and conducting genital mutilation in the name of God, Christians in the US refuse to grant gay people equal rights (which causes a lot of harm), and modern modesty standards range from Amish clothes to Brazil’s racy skin-tight garb. There is very little that is the same across the board for Christians; even major doctrines are debated, with scripture being used by all of them.

Now, you might say that these cannot be “true Christians”, that they must not truly understand God’s heart because they don’t follow Christianity the way you do. But one has only to read the Old Testament and the description of hell to see how easily these horrible actions could be justified by believers. You can’t say that anyone who doesn’t follow this book like you do is not a “true” believer, because how do you really know? All of these people firmly believe that they are following God’s wishes; who knows for sure which group has it right?

Ironically, Christians have an incredibly diverse range of “morality standards” throughout history and even today. You can easily see how morality has evolved for humans in general, Christians as well as atheists. Saying that they have a single, unchanging moral standard is not only not true, it’s a bit ridiculous and rather insulting to any intelligent person!

“Atheists have no morality.”

Again, given the range of moral standards Christians have, this is very insulting. Atheists most certainly have morals. In fact, it could be argued that atheists actually have a better moral standard than Christians:

Christians do good because they’re hoping for reward in Heaven or because they’re afraid of Hell. Atheists do good simply for the sake of doing good. Christians rely on an ancient text that has been interpreted hundreds of different ways over centuries; atheists use logic, reason, and empathy to determine their actions and beliefs.

For example: If I asked you whether killing a child was right or wrong, most people would say it’s wrong. But what if God told you to kill that child? Most Christians respond with “Well, he is just and kind so he wouldn’t ask me to do something wrong like that.” You say this because you know that killing a child is wrong, even if he told you to do it. But according to the Bible, he HAS asked people to kill innocent children- more than once. Abraham was asked to kill his son, the Hebrews were commanded to wipe out nations including children, disobedient children were executed, and so on. If this bothers you, and you still would not kill a child, then you have your own inner morality that contradicts your religion. If you think you would kill that child if God told you to, then you have no business saying that your morality is better!!

“If a country is not governed by God’s laws, it will revert into chaos.”

Our world today shows the exact opposite. Countries that are highly religious rank much lower on the scale of the best places to live, while countries that are less religious top the lists in good education, economy, healthcare, and low crime and pregnancy mortality rates. Even in the US you can see the difference: the states in the “Bible Belt” aren’t doing as well as the states that are less religious.

This doesn’t mean that religion is bad, nor that atheism automatically means a nation will succeed. However, it very effectively destroys the myth that a country (or people) cannot function properly without God. When a country is built upon equality and promotes knowledge and kindness, that society will succeed whether it’s religious or not. When religious values are valued above those things, a society will suffer.


There are good and bad people on both sides. There are wonderful Christians and wonderful atheists, horrible atheists and horrible Christians. Morality does not come from religion, it comes from within human beings. Now you can say that perhaps god created us with this inner morality, and that could be true; but either way, I do not need to follow your religion to be a kind, good person.  Saying so is very arrogant and hurtful to those of us who live our lives to help others, with no religious motivation.

Thanks for listening to my rant. This is a major peeve of mine, sorry it’s long! If you want to read more on this subject, here’s a great resource:


“Why I am No Longer a Christian”

“Why I am No Longer a Christian”

I found this post circulating on Facebook a while ago. I don’t know who the author is, if you know please comment with their name so I can give them credit. It explains why so many of us are no longer Christians… I agree with this whole heartedly.



This essay was inspired by the consistent assumption of Christians that if I believed the Bible were true, I would become a Christian. There are several reasons for my atheism, the leading of which is the idea of a higher power is not probable in light of current scientific data. The second of which is I do not find the state of the world in accordance with an idea of a loving and merciful higher power. Then of course there is the factor that the basis of this essay shall be about; I do not find the Biblical God fit for worship. Over the course of this essay there will be some times when I will speak as if I believe in the Bible, when in fact I do not.

I plan to examine the Bible with critical inquiry. This essay will not be based upon scientific facts and how they disprove the Bible. It shall be an application of my emotions regarding compassion, love, mercy, patience, and justice. I hope to explain more clearly why the God depicted in the Bible violates my idea of a moral being. This shall be done over a series of topics. Each pointing out how Jehovah is undeserving of my worship. I will utilize Biblical verses to support my claim as well as what I consider to be logical reasoning.

Now would be the time to ask you to please take out your bibles for consultation. (I personally prefer the NIV or KJV) I will only cite the verse and a brief overview. I do not have the space to write out the verse in its entirety. I especially don’t wish to spew out so much information that I run the risk of overloading those people who dislike reading. (Funny confliction here, isn’t it? We are online, in a purely textual world, and people still have the audacity to complain about reading.) In the case that you dislike reading online essays, I recommend you print this out and thumb through it at your convenience.


Hell, of course, is the mother of all of my problems with the bible. It is perhaps the most despicable and hideous of all of the Christian God’s crimes. Indeed, the cruelest of all concentration camps. (Certainly far worse than the ones created by the Nazis.) Described biblically as the “lake of fire”, “the place of eternal torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth” Jesus said in Mark 9:42-48 That it is better to commit suicide or self maiming then to be delivered unto hell. So, according to the bible I assume that all here can agree that there is an existence of hell, and that hell is the worst of all circumstance. Knowing this, let me indulge you as to why the existence of hell paints the Christian God as not fit for worshiping.

I am a moderately compassionate individual, rational, moral, and nurturing. Most of all I am a creator, a mother. I propose this to you, a human question. Can all here, Christian or atheist, safely say that if there is a God, he is our greatest thought magnified? Whatever emotion we feel as human, being created in his image, God is infinitely more feeling? For he is the creator of all things created, I believe this concept is pretty safe to assume. With this being so, my love for my daughter must be a fraction of God’s love for his children. Speaking as a mother, I can safely say that if my child were to commit the greatest harm upon me tomorrow, I would never wish her harm. Why? Simply because she is my creation.

If my daughter were to maim me, slander me, etc. I would still love her, for my instinct and emotion demands of me to protect and care for her regardless of her actions, much like all rational beings (animal kingdom included). So now I pose the question, why then would God condemn us to hell for something as menial as lack of faith? If he is not infinitely more so loving then me, why would hell even exist? Any true loving being would never condemn his own children to everlasting torment, especially one that proclaims himself to having the very essence of forgiveness.

But “God Is Just” You Claim:

Most Christians have responded to this statement with the following rationalization. “God can not let all of his creations into heaven because he is just.” I ask in rebuttal to this, since when is justice more important than love in the heart of a parent? Is hell even justice, or is it simply cruel and unusual punishment? The bible states the system of justice very simply. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. There is also another variation of that system with the biblical verse “eye for an eye”. The Christian God violates his own system of law when he damns his creations to eternal suffering for sins as menial as theft or blasphemy. I hardly think, nor would any logical person, that throwing someone into a gnashing jaw would be justly befitting of nearly any crime. (With the exception of murder, and even so, eternal punishment is pretty excessive.)

Most courts of law would take custody of your child from you just for an excessive spanking. We as a people enacted these laws, for we thought them to be logical. Is God above logic, or what we deem as compassionate behavior? After all he pitches a majority of his children into a lake of “fire and brimstone.” How many of us would want a parent such as that? Anyone of us would immediately sever our ties with such an abusive person. Yet Christians knowingly continue the insanity of giving worship to a God so cruel!

“Free Will”, You Say?

It is also written that I was given free will with which to choose if I will go to hell or not. How can you possibly deem something free when you must fear consequences? That completely conflicts with the definition of free. If I were to hold a gun to your head and say “you have free will to not give me your wallet, but if you attempt to defy me I will kill you.” Does it really feel as if you have a choice in the matter? Of course not. Free means to give or receive something with out an expectation of return. The whole free will concept is self defeating. Call it Circumstantial Will, for that is what it truly is.

Despite this, I have still had the displeasure of debating with those Christians who accept hell as a rational and fair wrath of God. They defend Jehovah’s creation of hell with the opinion that those who are committed to hell go voluntary, as if it is a consequence rather then a punishment. That indeed, we as children of God, chose rather to be hell’s inmates then God’s disciples in heaven. It’s an interesting idea. However, you don’t have to hurt anyone to get into Hell. All it takes, according to Scripture, is knowing about Jesus and not accepting him as Savior. It doesn’t matter how virtuous you are, how much good you do, how happy an environment you create for others. Given this, the voluntary entry argument doesn’t make sense. The same argument could be used to justify the sending of Aryan opponents of Nazism to concentration camps: they voluntarily chose not to give homage to Hitler, so they chose to be interred. Why should we blame the Nazis for the inmates’ choice? Why should we blame God for the choice of the damned?


I hear a lot from Christians about God’s “infinite compassion and mercy”.

Instead of harping on me about something so unapparent, they should go tell it to the Midianites. (Please open your Bibles to Numbers 31) The following verses are a classic example of wholesale slaughter and rape under the direction of the same God they claim to be so merciful. A quick sample of this tale: On the way to the promised land, God had Moses wage a war campaign against the Midian. Moses was told to put every Midianite to death, plunder anything of value, set fire to their towns where they lived and all their encampments. Moses gave the orders to his troops (the sons of Israel) and went on a further campaign. On the return of his troops Moses was enraged with the commanders of the army. He said, “Why have you spared the life of all the women and children? You are to kill all the children and kill all the women who have slept with a man. The lord says spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves, so that we may multiply into a great nation.” Yes, friends, this is biblical infinite mercy and compassion for you. I particularly like the way that Moses got upset with them for sparing women and male children, but allowed the young girls to be kept for later raping.

I have had some Christians proclaim that these Midianite girls were not taken for raping but marriage. How ridiculous! If you continue further in the scripture you will find that marriage to a Midianite was a crime against God. A man named Zimri, broke the law and married a Midianite woman this angered God so he sent a plague among the Hebrews. Fortunately, a zealous son of Israel speared Zimri right through the genitals, and the plague went away. So now I ask you, if you could not marry a Midianite, just what were these “virgin woman who were to help multiply” good for?

I don’t think the first born in Egypt during the captivity would have agreed with the verdict of compassion and mercy either. (Exodus 11:5 & 12:29) First of all, Jehovah is the one who purposely hardened the heart of the Pharaoh so that he would not let Moses and the Jews go. God messed with someone’s free will. God could have even teleported the Jews out of captivity without bloodshed, or put the Egyptians to sleep while they left, but no. God decided to set up a situation in which he knew he would have to punish the Pharaoh. Though this he didn’t even do. He punished the children instead. Judging from God’s previous actions, killing innocent children is much more his forte.

Lastly, please attempt to read the entire book of Joshua some evening. It is a long sequence of atrocities. I have not given all these quotes for space reasons. I urge you to look them up for yourself. Especially for Christians who are not familiar with the bible. It will leave you not only shocked and in question of just what you are worshiping, but it will give a new definition to all morality you claimed was a derivative of God. If by some chance you read Joshua and you are still compliant with the loving notion of God, I suggest you re evaluate your code of ethics.

Here is the place I will now speak of common rationalizations used for this slaughter. I have discovered via my discussions that there are two major forms: the corruption argument and the mercy argument. The former says that those slaughtered were evil and deserving of their fate; the latter says that since they were religiously incorrect, it was a mercy to terminate their existence.

The corruption argument simply does not hold up. The people slaughtered in the Old Testament were almost uniformly blameless (with a few exceptions, of course for instance, the Sodomites violated the conventions of hospitality.) Usually, no justification is offered beyond the fact that since they were of another tribe, it was OK to kill them. It goes with out saying that the hordes of slaughtered children were innocent. (*Quick tip-If God was anti abortion he wouldn’t have ordered the murder of pregnant women and young children.)

As to the mercy argument: If I don’t claim to be suffering, and don’t ask to die, neither you nor any god has the right to decide that you know better. (This would of course be a violation of my free will.) If a person tried to do this to me, I would quite frankly attempt to kill him; if a god tried, well, the only weapon I would have would be withholding my worship. Are you beginning to see why I do not comply with the worship of the Christian God?


Most of us, given omnipotence, would be able to do a far better job than Jehovah. What would you do if given omnipotence? If your answer is anything other than “abolish world hunger, disease or save the earth”, there’s something more than a little skewed in your perception of mankind. There is no question that the very balance of life is in peril. To wish for these things doesn’t take “infinite mercy”, just normal compassion and a bit of common sense. God’s supposed infinite mercy is apparently the same thing as no mercy at all.

What makes this particularly unforgivable is that even Jesus’ own standards demand feeding of the poor. See Matthew 25:35, in which it is stated that the blessed feed the hungry, and that the damned do not. I find it funny that God is held blameless, though, for not feeding them. Does not the old saying “practice what you preach” apply to God? Is his lack of action a hypocrisy or a sin? Could it perhaps be both?

Usually, when I bring this up in a discussion, someone says, “No. It is the evil of men that is to blame; they have lots of money and keep it to themselves rather than feeding the poor.” (Funny thing that the Christians who say this are usually conservative.) This argument uses a double standard. Men are held guilty for not feeding the poor, while God is held innocent for doing exactly the same. In fact, it would be far easier for God to feed all the poor with his omnipotence, than for any mortal man to feed even one! Mankind is certainly not blameless here, but it is Jehovah who is the true villain.

Another popular rationalization is that life without “challenges” would be boring and dehumanizing, so God does not remove them. The fallacy here is grouping all challenges together. I personally lead a very challenging and satisfying life, but I have not lately had to flee any volcanoes or earthquakes, go without food for a week, or suffer the ravages of some disease. I would be quite happy, in fact, if I never do have to face such challenges as those. There is plenty of room for amelioration of the human condition without making it dull. Does it not defeat the purpose of living life if you are to starve to death?

Faith Is Required To Know God:

Suppose you were an omnipotent god, and you demand worship, such as the Christian God. Would you give proof of your existence to those who wished to follow you? I imagine for Jehovah that it would be quite simple to perform a continual sequence of verifiable miracles. It would be quite logical in practice too, for it would keep God’s followers from delusion and doubt. There is no such luck with Jehovah though. He demands absolute fidelity without any demonstration of his existence. The only so called record of his existence is the bible. I think it pretty much goes with out saying that not only is the bible 2,000 years out dated, but it is also very unoriginal. Any Christian who proposes that the bible is indeed evidence for God’s existence is proposing a double standard. For there are many books which claim to be actual accounts of a higher power. With this in mind, why not believe in Allah from the Koran? Could it be because your faith is what determines your belief and not your so called “factual” book?

Let’s examine what faith is. The definition of faith is hope for a circumstance or thing that is not proven to be true. There is no virtue in accepting something on faith, since it may very well be false, and it is clearly not virtuous to believe the false. Faith has also been proven through out history, time and again, that it is equivalent to massive hysteria; IE: Crusades, Burning Times, Inquisitions, Holy Wars, etc. On a grand scale faith, thus far, has only proven to be an intellectual weakness, and a significant barrier to scientific and moral progress. With all of this in mind, how can God possibly expect us to view faith as the greatest way to glorify him, let alone demand this of us?

Most importantly, the point to remember here is that if we don’t believe in him, we go to Hell, and this is a greater evil than a lack of the “virtue” of faith or a stunting of science, or anything else conceivable. If God is truly concerned about the good, he will do what he can to keep us from Hell, and withholding vital information from us is the exact opposite of this.

God Is The Creator Of Evil:

I am frustrated at two specific verses in the bible, which applies to this particular topic. The first is the biblical statement that “God is the Alpha and the Omega”. Loosely defined it means the beginning and the end, the all knowing. Which of course implies that all of his actions and the results are fore known to him. I have a real problem with this notion. For if God was to know ahead of time that someday he would send me to hell for being an Atheist, I ask what was the purpose in him creating me in the first place? Was it simply to watch me be tortured? That seems to be the most logical explanation. I can think of no other rational explanation, nor neither has any Christian who I posed this question to. Some people have attempted to tell me that God has a purpose unknown to us, and that we must simply accept his will. Would you keep a friend who commits evil and offers no self-justification or remorse? Of course not, so why is this same judgment not applied to God? It’s seems rather contradictory that this trait is despised in humanity, yet, it is worshiped in religion.

Secondly, I want to reinforce the fact that God is indeed the creator of evil. Please read verse Isaiah 45:7. “I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things”. The Christian God outright claims that he is indeed the source of evil. So how can he then claim to be sinless?

To be more specific, let’s talk about the lord’s creation of evil, let’s talk about the conception of Satan. This being was created and unleashed by God. Jehovah knew (for he is the all knowing) that at the time of Lucifer’s creation he would eventually become Satan, and spend his existence reeking havoc on man kind. Leading people into criminal activities. Suppose I were to build an evil robot, that I knew would go around torturing and murdering people. Whose fault would it be if I let it loose? Mine or the robot’s? Of course it would be mine, for I created it with that purpose and unleashed it for that purpose. Now I ask you, whose fault is deviltry in the world? Is it the PUPPET Satan or the being that deliberately created Satan’s evil?

Now God Plays Switch-A-Roo And Humans Are The Creators Of Evil Not only does the bible imply, but so do many Christians, that we as a people are the creator of evil. It is clear for reading the bible that this is untrue, but the speculation still remains. Supposedly, when Adam and Eve fell from grace, they single handedly brought evil into the world. All you have to do is think logically for a moment, and you will obviously see something is very unjust with this concept. Could any rational being hold a starving infant in Ethiopia responsible for the actions of two long dead people? Or perhaps, would you find it fair to be convicted of Jack the Ripper’s crimes? The connection in both of these instances are not only ludicrous but, disgusting to nod your head at. People who use this argument are simply attempting to rationalize sadism.

I must declare that a Christian that walks into a children’s ward and insists that it is correct that children suffer as a result of the original sin, must destroy themselves of all compassion and mercy. I insist that those who worship the lord knowing this hypocrisy must be as cruel as the Christian God he/she believes in. A complete and utter moral degenerate, taking stabs at protecting their belief system. A person as such would just as easily worship Satan as God in their blindness and faith. For apparently, no amount of evidence could convince him that God was bad once they decided to worship him; their basic assumption is that they are correct, which makes them untouchable by any amount of rationality.

Human Judgment

One of the criticisms most frequently leveled at me when presenting any of the above arguments has been that I have no right to judge God. A pretty feeble grasp at the straws. Christians proclaim that God is the definition of good. All morality proceeds downwards from him, so it makes no sense to apply moral standards to him. But I must interject. God allowed my ancestors Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Thus, allowing us “to be like gods, and know the difference between good and evil”. This very biblical verse, written in the first book of Genesis, conflicts with the same argument these Christians attempt to use. If we as humans are now capable of knowing good and evil LIKE THE GODS why can’t we use our judgment? How can it be lower then God’s if God is the one who claimed that we are like him?

Let’s say for the sake of argument that I should not judge God. Well then, would it be fair to hold him up to his own standards? Please consult verses Matthew 25:41-46 We hear Jesus say: “Go away from me with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you never gave me food; I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to drink; I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, naked and you never clothed me, sick and in prison and you never visited me. . . And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the virtuous to eternal life.”

Now, I have never personally seen Jesus feed the hungry nor, have I seen him give drink to those who thirst. But, I do personally see thousands of people die of starvation. I do not recall Jesus dispensing clothes. He has never made me feel welcome, let alone acknowledged. I see the faithful sicken and die on a daily basis. In light of this Jesus himself is the worst of all sinners; if there is no double standard he will be at the head of the line into eternal punishment. He is guilty of every crime of which he accuses the damned.

In Conclusion

I don’t think I could ever complete a whole list as to what I find objectionable regarding the bible. There are many more topics in which to tackle such as sexism, infanticide, homophobia, and the likes. Frankly, I find it too tiresome to go on any further. As I read over all that I have wrote I simply wish to close this essay with a very brief summation: I do not believe in the reality of God, except as a psychological phenomenon, but if I did believe I would not worship that horror. It violates my morality to worship a hypocritical, judgmental, self righteous murderer. In punishment, it could send me to the hell it’s made for those it dislikes, and if there was no other choice but worshiping it, I would walk in proudly.