My co-worker in apologetics Mike Licona alerted me to a paper that is supposed to going around college campuses these days titled, "Essay on the Intrinsic Flaws Inherent in Christianity." This item of 1650 words or so turns up as one of those "other people's papers" selections that you're able to go online for, purachse, turn in for credit, and get an F on because the professor recognized it.

Let's take this a piece at a time; it has nothing new in it, and we'll mostly be providing links to places with essays which go into greater depth.

Christianity is a religion in which events are claimed to have occured but which can never be proved.

What's this about? It would be nice to have some kind of explanation about what it means to say that events can be "claimed to have occurred" but "never be proved." If we want to argue this, every history "claims" that events have occurred which can't be "proved" and it doesn't matter if it is a miracle of Jesus or an account of Nero eating bacon and eggs. As it is this is just a declaration, not an argument.

Those who practice it live by different morals than are preached by the most holy texts.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean, either. What "different morals" and what "holy texts"? Usually the objection is that things like the Ten Commandments are copied from the Code of Hammurabi, or the Golden Rule is copied from Judaism. So if your morals are the same as anyone else's, you're copying them; if they're different, you're still criticized.

It is an institution in which the most holy scripture is contradictory, and wherein the supreme being, by the very definition, cannot exist. Christianity is, therefore, a fundamentally flawed religion.

So what of Biblical scholarship and the entire raft of theistic proofs philsophers and theologians have worked on for thousands of years? Those who want to look into claimed "contradictory" texts can check out our Encyclopedia of Scripture texts; those who want to read up on theistic proofs can try out authors like Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and William Dembski.

According to the Bible, events have occured which are even more miraculous than the resurection of Jesus Christ. Events such as the stopping of the sun by Joshua (Joshua 10:12-14), the reversal of the sun's course by Isaiah (Isaiah 38:7-8), the resurrection of the saints, and their subsequent appearance to many (Matthew 27:52-53) were witnessed by thousands of people.

It's not sure how it is decided how "resurrection" was less spectacular than sun-stopping, but let's continue with the "why":

The stopping and reversal of the sun would have been visible worldwide. The idea that people could have witnessed these events without having been amazed by them is, quite simply, ludicrous. Other cultures having witnessed this would certainly have offered their own explanations in keeping with their own cultural and religious beliefs. Surely a society existing at the time would have documented this miraculous event. Yet nowhere have such works been found.

Well, here's the deal: In the ancient world anywhere from 95-99% of the people couldn't read or write. That's problem 1. More problems with this are dealt with in detail here.

In the instance of the resurrection of the saints, Matthew is the only person to mention this occurence in the Bible. Surely other first-century Christians would have used this as further proof of Jesus' divinty. It would fall to reason that Paul and the gospels would have mentioned it.

No, actually, it doesn't. The Gospels and Paul's letters, you see, are no "kerygmatic" documents. They are all written for people who were already Christians, and for whom the resurrection of the saints was something already known, already taught.

The main purpose was to provide information on the life of Jesus (the Gospels, ancient biographies) or to solve current problems (the letters) in a church that would have nothing at all to do with resurrected saints in Jerusalem hundreds of miles away and decades ago.

For more on why, see here.

This is not,however, the case. Nowhere else in the Bible is this mentioned or even hinted at. These events are then, at best, highly unlikely to have occured. The fact that Matthew is alone in writing of the resurrection of the saints leads us to believe that certain writers of the Bible had differing views on christianity.

We already have the "why" above, but again we are curious as to what "differing views of Christianity" could be resolved from this omission by others. The raising of the saints does not act as the focal point for any Christian doctrine. At best one might say that these others had different reporting priorities when it came to the life of Jesus, but "differing views of Christianity" is a little unreasonale.

The christian Bible is highly contradictory, not just to modern day christian beliefs, but in and of itself. Today's society is of the belief that all people are created equal, and Christians submit that their god is of the same belief. Modern Christians believe that their god loves everyone, and that they are all equal. However, after Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree forbidden by god, this deity said to Eve "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master." (Genesis 3:16). This tells us that, according to the Christian religion, women shall naturally be dominated by men. This kind of behavior is not conducive to a being who believes in inherent equality.

More on this subject in a moment; let's get to what is said about Genesis 3:16. There's a big series of articles we'll be referring to here; for this specific though see here. This verse predicts a power struggle between the sexes -- not an inequality in relationships.

Women are repeadtedly treated as objects and told to be submissive in the Bible. "According to the rule observed in all the assemblies of believers, women should keep silent in such gatherings. Rather, as the law indicates, submissiveness is indicated for them. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. It is a disgrace when a woman speaks in the assembly." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

The series linked above notes this, but we'll provide the simple answer: In these verses, Paul is quoting his OPPONENTS whom he disagrees with in the next verses.

"Man was not made from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, a woman ought to have a sign of submission on her head." (1 Corinthians 11:8-10).

Once again, the scene changes when you realize that women and men alike were supposed to cover their heads as a sign of submission. For more on this, see here.

The Bible also permits bondage. "Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among neighboring the nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and raised in their land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves." (Leviticus 25:44-46).

So it is, but don't take a few words as the end of the story. Take a look at this extended article -- this was not chattel "slavery" but indentured servitude; and it was a system designed to benefit the servant and allow them to survive in a harsh world. Don't judge the ancients before you have walked in their sandals.

This same Bible gives laws on the punishment of slaves. "When a man strikes his slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21)

The link above discusses this passage; generally, however, let it be noted that this was a provision against the servant's master being charged with a death that was NOT the result of being struck -- and let it be added, that compared to other codes of servitude of the day, it was unheard of for a master to be held responsible for the death of a servant like this.

We find further examples of prejudice in Deuteronomy. In the Bible, it is stated that "No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the Lord. No child of an ncestuous or adulterous union may be admitted into the community of the Lord, nor any descendant of his even to the tenth generation." (Deuteronomy 23:2-3). Consider the first statement. If a faithful Christian were to get in an automobile accident with a resulting injury to his genitals, he would not be admitted into Heaven.

There is nothing in these about being "admitted to Heaven"; this is only about being admitted into community meetings. At issue here are concepts of ritual purity, not salvation. Furthermore, what happens to the genitals here was no "accident" -- it was a form of ritual castration indicating dedication to a pagan deity.

The second statement is even more ridiculous than the first. An innocent child, through no fault of its own, is born a bastard. He may not be admitted into heaven. But more than that, none of his descendants may ever be admitted. These are not characteristics which are normally associated with justice and goodness. These are petty, cruel actions.

As noted, this "admitted to Heaven" bit is false.

This is not the only discrepancy in the christian Bible. Judah's daughter-in-law, Tamar, is said to have been a harlot (Genesis 38:24). Because of her harlotry, she became pregnant (Genesis 38:25). She had twins and named them Perez and Zerah. "These are the descendants of Perez: Perez was the father of Hezron, Hezron was the father of Ram, Ram was the father of Amminibad, Amminibad was the father of Nahshon, Nahshon was the father of Salmon, Salmon was the father of Boaz, Boaz was the father of Obed, Obed was the father of Jesse, and Jesse became the father of David." (Ruth 4:18-22). Therefore David, King of Israel, was a descendant of a bastard and subsequently should not have been allowed into the community the Lord. This is a huge contradiction, as David is such an important figure in the bible.

See here.

The contradiction involving David pales in comparison, however, to the one of the very definition of a supreme being. In Christianity, Christ is central in atoning for the sins of mankind. Had there been no sins of mankind, there would be no story of Christ. The nature of sin must then therefore be analysed. It is accepted by Christians that god created everything. If this is true, then this same god created evil. It is written in the Bible that god is all-knowing (1 John 3:20). God is, in effect, omniscient. If god is omniscient and creates, he then knows all possible outcomes of all possible creations of all possible universes. If he created our universe, he chose what its destiny would be. In doing so, he chose the paths of our lives. Thus, we can conclude that the universe is completely deterministic to god and, by being a creator, he cannot allow freewill to exist unless the universe is no longer predetermined to him. If this is true, then humanity is merely a collection of automotons. If this is not not true, then god cannot be omniscient.If the Christian god were omniscient, then he could foresee his own future. If this being knows its own future, he does not have the power to change it. Considering, however, that god is omnipotent, there is a major conflict with his omniscient nature. If god were able to change his future, that would mean that god would not be able to foresee when he would make sudden changes in his future and what changes would result, eliminating the possibility of his being omniscient. Therefore, these qualities cannot be held simultaneously by one being. It is important now to look at the possibility of omnipotence. The Christian god is perfectly good and omnipotent. Yet evil exists. If god is omnipotent and perfectly good, he could and would dispell evil. Three possible conclusions arise from these statements. God is perfectly good but evil exists, so he is not able to dispell evil and thus is not omnipotent. The second possible conclusion is this: that god is omnipotent but evil exists, and god is therefore not perfectly good. The last possible, and most feasible, conclusion is that god does not exist.

For some more detailed discussions that answer this matter, see here and here. "Completely deterministic" is a straw man; primary causality does not equate with full direct responsibility. This is like blaming your mother for leaving the cookie jar where you could reach it and steal cookies.

It can easily be seen that Christianity is a religion based on falsehoods and has many intrinsic flaws. They are seen by the fact that the followers of this religion do not conduct themselves in the manner proscribed by their most holy texts. These errors reside in the facts that these same texts are contradictory, and that their very god cannot possibly exist. These errors and omissions are then covered by a vague concept: faith.

"Faith" as defined properly and from first-century language means trust based on evidence.

-JPH