ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Atheism & Agnosticism

The Brutal Honesty Christians are Deathly Afraid of

Updated on January 25, 2012

Christians like to define themselves as tolerant and moral, and claim that these virtues can be found in the bible, the divine words of their god. While I might be able to randomly open the bible and find some verse that may resemble some form of tolerance or morality, I could absolutely guarantee that I could open that same bible 100 times and each and every time find at least a dozen verses that contradict that supposed tolerance and morality Christians are so inclined to claim. There is an obvious disconnect with reality here, and Christians, most of them, do not seem to "get" it--or they do but completely deny it. At the same time, however, I can name half a dozen other ancient religious texts, non-Christian, of course, that do not contain even a fraction of the violence and blood shed that the Christian god demands in the bible--many of these texts written before the bible. How can Christians defend or even explain that?

The fact is, Christians are in denial, and have been for centuries. With each new discovery that embarrassingly proves how ridiculous their ancient text is, they make excuses in hopes of providing a believable rationalization for their book's erroneous content. As modernity advances us with science and technology they try to fit scientifically sound laws into their Iron Age rusty box of tricks and magic. As society pushes forward and views of human rights, homosexuality, and women's statuses align with a more correct and educated way of thinking, Christians struggle to defend the slavery, homophobia, and misogyny that their god perpetuated. The only conclusion a logical, rational, brain can form here is that the bible and its god are wrong and not even close to anything remotely tolerant and moral. But, to prove my point, I will indeed list just a few of those ancient religious texts I mentioned earlier, and we can see how the morality of the bible stacks up to them.


The Lotus Sutra

Written in the 1st or 2nd century CE, this is one of the most popular texts for Buddhism, specifically followers of Nichiren. This text is mostly an epic poem which relates stories of the Buddha in an ephemeral land that transcends time and space, but the main message or point that this text conveys is that salvation is attainable for all. Now, like the bible, the Lotus Sutra contains parables and emphasizes the need for faith and devotion to the Buddha, but to the dismay of Christians everywhere, nowhere does it advocate slavery, violence, war, or any other violent act. So, while it may be full of mythology, just like the bible, and while it may depend completely on the faith of the reader, just like the bible, at least the Buddha doesn't demand blood sacrifices, or punish entire populations of people with slavery or genocide. The message is quite positive, in fact--salvation for all--whereas in the bible you are sure to meet your demise in a fiery hell for even thinking of worshiping another god. And that is just one of the many number of ridiculous acts that can win you an eternity in hell. So let's see, Buddhism 1, god 0.



Jainism is perhaps the most non-violent of all religions. This Indian religion's philosophy is simple--non-violence to all living beings. Going back to as early as the 9th century BC, this religion and many of its texts truly do out date the bible by at least a few centuries. Jainists practice vegetarianism, meditation, pacifism, and would be hard pressed to kill a fly even, literally. If ever there were religious texts that advocated true morality, Ardhakathanaka and Shauraseni are it. You will not find a blood thirsty god here. No human ownership of any kind. No cruelty to women or children. If Christians' claim to a moral life is truly in some vague interpretation of the bible, they have gone about it the hard way, because it is laid out perfectly clear, no interpretations needed, in Jainism.


Tao Te Ching

The Dao, or The Way is a work and philosophy attributed to Laozi, an ancient Chinese philosopher that the Chinese believe lived in the 6th century BC. Now, while all of this is subject to historical criticism, just like the bible and it's claims are, we aren't focusing on historical facts, here, just the messages conveyed in the texts. So, for the sake of moving on, let us assume that Laozi was indeed the author of The Dao. This text tries to guide readers to their "natural state," one in harmony with nature. Basically this text is a collection of ideas explained with paradoxes, analogies, ancient sayings, and rhymes. The message is simple, man upsets the natural balance of the Dao, so this acts as a guide to a harmony with nature. No killing, no violence, no blood sacrifices here. In contrast, the bible is perhaps the very cause of this unnatural balance The Dao speaks of. Surely the human ownership, genocide, and live sacrifices that the god of the bible demanded made it that much harder for Daoists to attain that natural balance.


With still numerous other works and philosophies that truly can claim morality and tolerance as the backbone of their beliefs, Christians will read this and rattle off a number of excuses for why their immoral book is still the best example of morality we have. Not only is it the best example, it is the only one that anyone need follow or pay any heed to. A book that nowhere denounces slavery, advocates misogyny, propagates incest, and demands blood sacrifices to a jealous and vengeful god? In what possible way is this book moral? Christians, you are not being honest with yourselves. And I do believe that not lying is one of the Ten Commandments. By clinging to this silly notion that your book is the most moral of them all you are breaking one of your god's own rules. Doesn't breaking one of the Ten Commandments get you an eternity in hell? Perhaps it's time to change religions, Christians--to one with a more peaceful agenda--perhaps to a religion I have suggested in this article even. Because, you know, the chances that you would still be a Christian if you were born in China, India, or Japan are pretty close to zero. So, do what you do best, and just cherry pick your way out of this one.

Vote Up and Tweet!!

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • emmaspeaks profile image

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Colton, slavery is slavery no matter how you want to justify it. If you read my article you would have seen my argument against the defense that it was to pay off debt.

    • profile image

      Colton Plumley 5 years ago

      Just wanted to get the context right here. The slavery of the Bible, which it agrees with, and the slavery that happened in North America and is happening now (Human Trafficking) are two different things.

      The slavery of the Bible is a way to pay off a debt. If someone owed a debt to another and didn't have the money, they would simply work it off. Sometimes that involved the entire family because it was such a large debt. The Bible does not advocate people going into debt, but if they do they have a way to pay it off.

      I hope that you understand that the Bible does not support the slavery that went on in North America not too long ago. I also hope that you understand that the Bible does not support human trafficking.

    • Ore N. Mavro profile image

      Ore N. Mavro 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Ok, Emma. well my point was simple.

      All the scriptures of all the religions tend to mirror each other. They were all written by men. Divinely inspired or just well-intentioned, they're flawed.

      It really is up to us to read between the lines and find context. Especially considering they were all written in antiquity. They all talk about slavery matter-of-factly. And maiming their enemies. Genocide. Usually it was justified as retaliation or righteous anger. Still. Same thing. I should encourage you to look at the instance of the Pandava brothers and the Mahabharata. There we have curses being thrown, people being maimed, etc etc.

      That's just one instance in hindu scriptures.

      I know you have a bone to pick with fundamentalist Christians who harp on morality, dogma, and are hypocritical. We all do. Ironically I know Christians who do, also.

    • emmaspeaks profile image

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Nick, I admit I didn't cite any specific verses in this article, but I have written other articles where I do cite form the bible. You can check those links out under "More on the Bible".

    • profile image

      Nick 5 years ago

      What verses or parts of the Bible do you use to justify these claims? Can you cite anything? It seems that you haven't read the bible as much as you claim that Christians haven't either

    • emmaspeaks profile image

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      What the hell is your point, anyway, Mavro? It doesn't matter if it was mentioned casually or not. I am not parading the bible around as the most moral book in the world. As far as moral books go, the bible SUCKS. The purpose of this hub was to demonstrate that contradictory to what christians say about the violence in the bible being either necessary or explainable, there are ancient texts, also hagiographies, that do not include the level of violence that the bible does. That is all. Slavery IS sanctioned in the bible and if it is the claim of a christian that their god and book are perfect, they have some explaining to do on that count. It shouldn't matter that slavery was all the rage back then because a truly moral god would have put an end to it. And it certainly shouldn't matter that other religions or cultures also condoned slavery because according to christians, their god was the best and came to change all the immorality in the world. Except, that he forgot to make it clear that humans aren't property. BIG FAIL on god's part. So, unless you have anything else to say on that point, I don't understand what you are trying to gain by excusing this utterly ridiculous book of lies.

    • Ore N. Mavro profile image

      Ore N. Mavro 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona


      as a general rule? of conduct? was it one of the commandments? you're grasping for straws here. We both know my point. The Hindu religious texts also said some really f'd up stuff, about murdering people. People bought wives, cursed people (and actually had them die a horrible death) etc. It was all mentioned, so matter-of-factly otherwise it wouldn't have been written by:


    • profile image

      AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

      @ mavro

      "And I'm not sure where it says in the bible anything about having slaves as being acceptable."



    • emmaspeaks profile image

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Mavro, I'm a history major and I study historical texts, but there are historical texts, called hagiographies, that are NOT historically accurate, like the bible, because it's sole purpose was NOT to recount history, it was to convince people about this god. Yes, slavery was included because it was the way at the time, but since their purpose in writing this book was to tell the story of god, god then allowed slavery. Does that make sense? God does not exist, just like Zeus doesn't exist, so I am not worried. I am concerned for the future of society, though, if this religion is left unchecked, so I am merely providing a reality check.

    • Ore N. Mavro profile image

      Ore N. Mavro 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona


      Honestly, I'm really not here to debate the validity of the bible, nor it's text. Obviously, like any other spiritual text it was written by men.

      There will be inconsistencies and contradictions. As there are in any other. Unless you want to claim the others are which case you'd be inferring there are "true" religions on Planet Earth (the insane asylum of the universe).

      My point is that like every-single-other religion there are good and bad in Christianity. Though I agree they've accrued a really bad rap, and it is the fault of many people who claimed to be part of it, down to the very tonic, that's not even true Christianity.


      The bible, along with being a spiritual text is a sort of history of the people of Judah. Jahweh's "chosen people". During the times back then, when they were thus, slavery was acceptable, as it was in say, Rome or Greece, China, India, etc...go figure. India had a CASTE system, and that was well into modern times. How enlightened. A set-in-stone socially accepted form of bigotry.

      Humans all are very...funny creatures. Like I said. We have the ability to be extremely profound, altruistic, pleasant in general, but turn around and (often when in groups) be very unfair.

      And I'm not sure where it says in the bible anything about having slaves as being acceptable. It simply states what happened in a period of time where things like that happened. Should the writers have omitted that? Should the people putting together the new translations redacted it? Erased it from [History]? That's rhetorical, of course.

      I keep saying this, but I think you're all missing it, though Christianity, like all religions is flawed at the core, because it is created and moderated by men, like all (most.. maybe barring stuff like Scientology [snickers]) there are true and less true versions that adhere to the principals behind it.

      Christianity wasn't even meant to be anything more than a *way* of life that diverged from Judaism. That's it. Ironically, it was supposed to be a lot like Buddhism or Jainism. Of course, different. They worship a different version of "God" differently due to cultural differences.

      You don't have to worry about "God" shaking his head. Really. Just look in the mirror seriously. If you aren't bothered that you're bothered, and you can't coexist with Christians...well I can't help you.

      Here's a funny little parable I read the other day.

      There were two monks traveling and they saw a woman who was trying to cross a river that was torrential a bit. One that was shallow enough to walk through. She was afraid she couldn't make it through, and asked the passing monks for help but the oldest of the monks said "No...we cannot. it would be a sin to touch a woman!"

      The younger monk wasn't so bothered and wanted to help. Eventually after the woman all but pleaded, he ignored the older monk and put her on his shoulders and they walked across. The older monk, of course grumbling the whole way. And after they got to the other side and parted, the older monk continued to grumble until they got to their destination.

      "I can't believe you did that!" he said, among other things. The younger monk, finally irritated enough to reply said "Sir, that woman was on my shoulders for all but a few minutes, yet she has been in your head for the past few HOURS!"

    • emmaspeaks profile image

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Mavro, slavery IS sanctioned in the bible many times, so is condemning homosexuals. I'm not worried about god shaking his head at his. He doesn't exist.

    • profile image

      AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

      @ore N Mavro

      "...actually is a lot of context in the bible to be considered. Such as, the translations, the times and how people spoke and the meanings in their culture in the language it was written."

      Who alive has this context? Even assuming that there are actual events which the bible is based upon, there is no one who wrote in any of the languages of humanity at any time who is alive now that was alive then. (the gods themselves excepted of course, assuming they live at all, but then they certainly don't seem to be writing any adendums or corrections to the translations).

      The context is filtered by the perceptions of the writer. Those perceptions get influenced every time there is a new writer. There have been a great many different writers, languages and cultures interpreting the bible. The differences from version to version just in English alone is subject to the editor's education, culture and belief system.

      Any English version of the bible that I have read, clearly, clearly supports slavery (at least in Leviticus), complete with rules on how slaves should be treated and punished, limits on what population slaves can be procured from, gender limitations and etc.

      How does the bible go from not sanctioning slavery in its 'original' form to sanctioning it by virtue of translation?

      the works of William Shakespeare are much younger than the books of the bible. Like the gospels, many of our oldest surviving copies of the 'accepted' version of Shakespeare's works were first published after his death.

      The differences between quarto and folio versions is subtle and astonishing. To take an example from Hamlet:

      Modern accepted line:

      "... you are the queen, your husband's brother's wife,

      and would it were not so, you are my mother."

      vs the First Folio

      " are the queen, your husbands brothers wife.

      But would it were not so. You are my mother."

      The second line is significantly different in intent. This from a single word and two punctuation marks worth of change.

      It is unlikely that either writer saw the play as first performed by shakespeare's company.

      This is a significant variation between two versions of a text written by those who spoke the same language much less than 400 years apart.

      Some variations differ so greatly as to be barely recognizable as the same source, again, both from english and both within 400 years of each other. Some within 50 years of each other. (based on their publishing dates.

      So really, what are the odds that the original intent of an entity capable of shaping the universe would survive intact in human brains from the time of the event through the number of versions and translations and interpretation that the bible has had subjected to it over the last 2000 years?

      The current bible in english supports slavery, unequivically.

      The current bible in english is therefore a book who's morality should legitimately be questioned.


    • Ore N. Mavro profile image

      Ore N. Mavro 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      I do feel, it is partly the Christian karma to be picked on by the masses, considering all the harm the fundamentalists have done over the ages to society and people at large, but, we still have sense enough as individuals not to get into that group mindset of persecution--the same mindset, I might mention, that lead them to mislead tons of people into thinking slavery was biblically sanctioned (it isn't), and that homosexuals are "damned" people (they aren't).

      There actually is a lot of context in the bible to be considered. Such as, the translations, the times and how people spoke and the meanings in their culture in the language it was written. People who've really studied the bible in various translations and in a scholarly manner, know this.

      But I hear you. Really, I do.

      But religions in general are all "clubs" on who worships "God" or "Gods" better and who are the better human beings. And who's going where, after life, and when. And it's all moral, in different fashions. We all suck. Period.

      I think "God" if conscious, is probably shaking his/her/it's head at us and wondering why we act like little kids at a playground or some treehouse. That's just my personal opinion. Not based on anything but a deep inner voice.

    • profile image

      AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

      A snappy introduction to other ways in. Thanks for writing.


    • emmaspeaks profile image

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Thank you for all the comments, guys! Secularist, thanks for the compliment, too! Yes, I agree, most Christians have never really read the bible, so they are dumbfounded when a freethinker makes a claim like I have that their bible is not moral. I think that is the problem, most of the time, but there are those who will just deny, deny, deny. Yes, ignorance can be to blame, also. I have to wonder, though, sometimes.

      Mavro, yes, i am very familiar with Buddhism. I have written several hubs about it and have studied it in college for several semesters, not so much on Jainism, though, but my point was to illustrate that the bible is far from moral. I'm sorry you feel that Christians get picked on. I feel a moral duty to point out certain truths and this is one of those truths which, while it may be painful to hear, needs to be said. So, if that is your problem with this hub or the criticism of Christians in general, we have to disagree.

      Thanks again for all the comments!

    • profile image

      Jimmi 5 years ago

      - responding to Mavro

      "(the history of Judaism--which preceeds Christianity--that is where the sacrificing was, not Christianity, which is a separate theology)"

      While I agree that people harp on Christianity too much when arguments should be posed to all Abrahamic religions- Christianity is most definitely a cult based on blood sacrifice. That was the whole point of Jesus. The fact that Catholics replace blood with wine doesn't change the fact that they are celebrating vicarious redemption through blood sacrifice.

    • Ore N. Mavro profile image

      Ore N. Mavro 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      O.K., I'm no "Bible Thumper". Actually a reformed one. I'm not even one to consider myself christian, though I think the Christ person was amazing, as was Buddha, Krishna and the avatars, and such--if they actually existed in the ways their followers claim,

      but all religions have "it" right, though they have a lot wrong.

      I'm kinda sick of people taking shots at Christianity, only for the fact that it's such a easy target. But also, because most people don't even know what true Christianity is and the dynamics surrounding it's advent (the history of Judaism--which preceeds Christianity--that is where the sacrificing was, not Christianity, which is a separate theology), just what they've seen of how certain "believers" display.

      Christianity, for one is split into factions. Fundamentals, and Non-denominational or what I like to call "pure" Christians, because in the New Testament, Jesus himself stressed the need for no sects and he didn't want a religion, he didn't like what the Pharisees and Saducess were doing to continue having control over the minds and spirits of the people. Why would he advocate it, just in a different form? He preached something very simple: Love and tolerance. He also died for everyone. So despite the fact that someone may be of loose morals, or homosexual they're all given salvation. Sound familiar?

      As far as budhism goes, and most eastern religions, there is still the same thing: fundamentals, greater and lesser dogmatic people.

      Most eastern religions preach a comfortable emptiness or detachment from your fellow man or the material plane, but simultaneously claim a connection to all. It's often a bunch of convoluted self-oriented-ness masquerading as enlightenment.

      They also advocate a strict diet, consumption (of "things"--period), chemicals, or else: reincarnation, possibly transmigration into another (worse) body, or an animal--until you get it right. And THEN you get to go to Nirvana to be with God.

      What you forgot about Jainism, is that, you can swat a fly or kill a cockroach and end up killing a God or someone, and well, you can end up in a very deep pit of hell. Have you read about that shit, it's pretty gruesome. The Jainist Hell is WORSE and way more intensive, specific, and in-depth than the Christian Hell where you just burn for all eternity.

      Granted, there is a chance for your soul to "ascened" whatever level you're in, but it's.....a looong time you suffer, especially the deeper you go.

      Christianity, like All religions are faulty by this: they're all based on beliefs strung together by men. Some wise, but always some clever, shrewd, and others just mislead or deluded.

      Men can't comprehend God, or Gods. We can try. We can get close. But we don't know. Though when we get together and have our minds together our faith is powerful. We make it so.

      It's one reason I consider myself agnostic, but I also believe in a Pantheon--to an extent.

      Actually, I've felt the power of many different "faiths",hell, even satanism. The problem though, lies in the fact that it never fully felt right. there is always a flaw. Because men create religion. Religion is a problem, at its root.

    • secularist10 profile image

      secularist10 5 years ago from New York City

      I love it! I also love your sharp, clever writing style. Christians indeed are in denial. It's kind of sad, actually.

      It always fascinates me how the Christian apologists rationalize and talk about the need for a "contextual reading of scripture." How the hell are we supposed to determine what is a metaphor and what is not?

      Truth be told--and this is another dirty little secret of modern Christianity--many Christians actually don't read the Bible. Instead what they have done is listen to many sermons that quote abundantly from peaceful and tolerant passages, whilst completely ignoring the unpalatable ones. The people themselves have not actually read the full text.

      Surveys have shown that atheists actually are more knowledgeable about the Bible than Christians! How hilarious is that? Not only do Christians know less about their own book than the atheists they gleefully lacerate, but as one gains more knowledge of the Good Book, one is more likely to leave the faith.

      I remember watching a debate on Catholicism that included Christopher Hitchens and others, and there was a Catholic Latin American woman in the audience who asked a question. She seemed like a nice, normal person, who considered gay people humans, but it was revealed that she pathetically did not know the Catholic Church considers homosexuality a disorder. I was actually embarrassed for her.

      So simple ignorance is a major factor.

      And we haven't even gotten to the contradictions in the Bible.

      I wrote a hub on the genocides and atrocities in the OT (and the apologies for them):

    • lisadpreston profile image

      lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

      You wrote a very truthful hub. Thank you!

    • profile image

      Zena24 5 years ago

      Well said.