Show Mobile Navigation
 
Religion

Top 10 Outdated Christian Beliefs

Joshua Knode . . . Comments

Most Christians are not as bull headed and afraid of change as most people think. Christianity hasn’t held on to all of the same beliefs over the two thousand years it’s existed. As times changed, Christianity has also changed and, while it’s core beliefs have always been solid, some of the stranger things on the fringes have come and gone. Here’s a list of some of the stranger early beliefs that Christians have since abandoned.

10

The Apocrypha

Cross

Many of the more bizarre beliefs on this list (and many still accepted by some denominations) come from books of the Bible that were accepted by some early Christian sects (such as the Gnostics), but were later found to be fraudulent. The Book of Enoch was a chronicle of fallen angels who gave people forbidden knowledge, but was later proven to be written by those who claimed to have “discovered” it. Another book, the Gospel of Thomas, chronicled the childhood of Jesus. It recounts him bringing clay birds to life, and resurrecting a dead playmate who fell out of a building. However, this account was shown to be written centuries after the death of Christ and has no corroborating documents. More recently the Gospel of Judas surfaced, supposedly penned by Jesus’ betrayer Judas Iscariot, but was soon after proved a fraud, like the others.

9

Biblical Restrictions

Chained Bible

The Bible wasn’t always as available as it is now, in fact, in the middle ages, some Bibles were chained up to prevent their theft – the most famous chained Bible was the Great Bible of King Henry VIII. This is largely due to the fact that a full bible was incredibly expensive (having been written out by hand by monks). The Bible was considered the holy word of God, and as most common folk were illiterate, it was deemed an unnecessary expense (and waste) for them to have copies of the Bible – especially as it was read every day in Churches (see item 9). Even after the Bible was printed on mechanical type, there was vast controversy about who should be able to read the bible, for hundreds of years. Many blame this controversy for the bloody 30-year war fought between the Catholics and the protestants. In modern times, Christians believe not only in the right of everyone to read and study the Bible, but the importance of Bible study and knowledge. To the point where modern Christian missionaries will risk their lives to smuggle Bibles into countries where they are illegal (including, believe it or not, Saudi Arabia).


8

The Occult

Aleistercrowley4

I’m sure anyone reading this list is familiar with the “Occult” or the practice of arcane magic and spiritualism. While nowadays Christianity and the Occult are very adversarial, when the Occult movement first started it was considered harmless, even healthy. In the late 19th century, seeing a psychic was considered harmless fun, and conducting a seance wasn’t considered evil or wrong in any way (though it was always considered sinful in the Catholic Church). This despite the fact that the occult and spiritual arts are quite explicitly forbidden by the Bible. Later in the 1900s, with the rise of the nastier occultists like Alistair Crowley, the Occult once again began being condemned.

7

Other Gods

1678Moloch1

The early Christian church was a bit of a mess for a while. While they held the central belief in Christ as the Son of God and his sacrifice, many still struggled with the idea of the God of Abraham being the only Deity. The scriptures at the time did not explicitly exclude the existence of other “gods”, and even made mention of several other deities (namely demons) such as Baal. However, while the early scripture acknowledges that some believe in these other gods, it never validates the deity’s existence. This belief was actually dispelled before the canonical Bible was finished, with the Apostle Saint Paul scolding early churches for acknowledging other gods in his letters, as well as Saint Peter refusing them to allow the image of the Christian God to be displayed alongside the image of the Roman gods.

6

White Jesus

Cristo-Re 2

In years past, it was common knowledge that Christ was a European looking man, with brown hair and fair features. There were a number of other depictions, but they were almost never considered canonical. In thousands of paintings and statues Jesus is depicted as a caucasian, and the early church took this as the image of Christ without any real proof of what Jesus would look like. However, most modern Christians accept that Jesus likely looked different than our image of him. While most faiths keep the white Jesus for tradition’s sake (as seen above – Christ the King), it’s widely accepted that he was actually a Galilean who, to us, would appear as a modern middle easterner. There is also a broad modern movement that theorizes that Jesus was Ethiopian.

5

Cynocephaly

Santos05

In the very early days of Christianity, there were a few carry-overs from older mythology. One was the belief in cynocephaly (see item 5), or people with the heads of dogs. It was thought that many of the more distant peoples, like central Africans or Indians, had the heads of dogs, many believing that these people would go back to normal once baptized. Different saints who are said to be from distant lands, like St Christopher were depicted with a dog’s head (see above). There was even myths about descendants of Cain, who inhabited Canaan before the Israelis, that “barked and ate human flesh”. Marco Polo was said to be surprised he didn’t see any dog-headed people in China, though he claims many people he talked to had encountered “dog headed barbarians” in Asia.


4

Satanic Ritual Abuse

Strathlocholiv

In the late 70s and early 80s, many Christians believed that there was a vast Satanic conspiracy who’s purpose was to recruit children into their ranks. Christians believed that Satanists had hidden messages in cartoons, games and popular music meant to drive children to the satanic church where they would be used for pornography, prostitution and even sacrifices. Christians claimed there were hidden satanic chants in rock songs, cartoons like He-man were meant to “replace God” and contained “Intentional Occult References” one Christian writer even saying the cartoon Rainbow Brite was “Graphically violent, and filled with Satanic imagery”. This trend largely was discredited and, when confronted by Christian leaders, many musicians and animators were baffled by the accusations.

3

Self Flagellation

Pp-Flagrum3

In the 13th century, a radical Christian denomination popped up, known as the “flagellants” who believed that the best way to absolve sin was to beat yourself silly with whips, switches and other nasty, painful devices to imitate the beating of Christ. While the Pope quickly condemned this practice, “Mortification of the flesh” (see item 3) in moderation was common from the very first days of the Church. Later, in the 15th century, the puritans briefly practiced flagellation, as was recorded in Hawthorn’s novel “The Scarlet Letter”. I was somewhat reluctant to include this one since self-flagellation does still continue in the Catholic Church amongst various religious orders and amongst some cultures in South America.


2

Selling Indulgences

Indulgences.Jpg

In the middle ages a few greedy Bishops decided to make some extra cash by selling indulgences. Indulgences are special prayers which remit part, or all, of the punishment owed for serious sins; indulgences have no effect if the person has not confessed his sins. This selling of indulgences (which invalidated them, in fact) went on for quite some time before the Pope got wind of it and banned it. Indulgences have not been sold since, but the scandalous behavior of those Bishops has them a very well known practice from the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church still practices the use of indulgences, with all modern Popes introducing new ones during their reigns.

1

Lilith

Lilith

The Early Church (mainly the Gnostic sects) believed that Adam actually had another wife before Eve. According to several Apocryphal books of the Bible, Lilith was created at the same time and from the same dust as Adam. She refused to be subservient to Adam, and eventual mated with an Archangel named Samiel, and was subsequently expelled from the Garden of Eden. Many early Jewish and Christian myths deal with Lilith, mostly dealing with the eventual offspring of her and Samiel. Many believe their offspring turned out to be the semi-human creatures of Greek myths, like the Centuar and Minotuar. Others believe they became vampires. Later cults and racist groups believe that all non-Caucasian are decedents of Lilith or “Lillam”.



  • peeyaj

    A controversial and well-written list.

    Cue the Atheists and the Christian nuts. 4, 3, 2, 1..

    • Garrett

      Enter your comment here.

    • Garrett

      OK, once more from the top…

      I am a “Christian Nut”, and I think it’s a pretty good list.

    • Robert

      Yesss! I hijacked the top spot to say nothing more important than this: I would also resurrect a dead playmate (cf. nbr 10 in the list) if her name was Dorothy Stratten.

  • Interesting list, though I feel like a lot of these are pretty well-known. I think the comment about a “broad” movement that claims Jesus was Ethiopian is misleading. From what I know of it, there was Ethiopian blood introduced into the line around the time of Solomon (I think his mother was Ethiopian), but just because it was present very far in the past, does not qualify Him as an Ethiopian. This is nothing against Ethiopians – I’m just saying the comment about how broad the movement was was misleading.

    • Joshua_the_Samurai

      Rastafarians believe in an Ethiopian Jesus, this is where i get the term “Broad” since there are a few million Rastas.

      • Julius

        If I googled correctly there’s only about 600000 thousands Rastas in the world. Still “broad” I guess…

      • James

        Rastafari also believe that their Jesus was king Haile Selassie of Ethiopia and that his death in 1975 was a hoax.

        • Smilie

          You obviously read Crack sir :D

          • archworf

            You obviously smoke Crack sir :D

        • Joshua_the_samuria

          They believe that Haile Selassie is the Messiah, but Jesus (whom they believe in as a prophit or a teacher) they belive was Ethiopian, it’s pretty complex really but they somehow think that the Ethiopeans are the only “true” Jews, kinda baffles me but I must to more research, (I like Bob Marley Music anyway)

  • Interesting list, although i dont think 4 is outdated as yet still plenty of nut cases out there who think metal is devil worship. I have a hard time believing in any form of devil worship to be honest, but any way without those Christians and their silly shenanigans the world would be a very different place. I wonder when the Christian (and catholic in particular) followers are going to decide sodomy and child rape is out dated. Until the followers and supporters (who are ultimately financial benefactors of the church) do something about what they KNOW is going on they can get fucked .

    • Ms-binks

      I was going to get angry at your ignorant comment but the more I thought about it, I realized you’re spouting nonsensical bollox so there’s no point.

  • cqsteve

    Good list Joshua, as a kid I remember being told stories which I took as the truth, but now discovered apparently came from the Gospel of St Thomas. And as for the “White Jesus” it makes sense that he would have darker skin when you think about it.

    • awake

      None of what you have been taught is the truth! Religion is the biggest scam in history, and obviously so to those who weren’t brainwashed as children. Wake up and be free, you don’t have to be a slave to organised religion.

      • Sarx

        Oh please. Put something of worth other than talking points on a forum please.

        Good list.

        Snake handling – that would be a another good one to add.

        • geibo

          Unfortunately, snake handling does not go on this list because a lot of “churches” still do it.

      • NAme

        This here is truth. Religious people are the stupidest people in the world.

        • Sune

          I second that.
          Yell at me all you want religious freaks, the terrorists of 9/11 believed in “””””GOD”””””, perharps even more than you. They were sure that their actions would send them Heaven where they would **** with hot chicks (or was it camels?) for all eternity while the innocent people they killed would rot in hell forever.
          Religion is a PLAGUE.

  • Laynlow

    Nice list! Nice to see how history and tradition have changed throughout time.

  • adifferentJamie

    If Jesus was a product of the immaculate conception, doesn’t that make tracing his bloodline or verifying his ethnic origin sort of futile?

    • magoopaintrock

      I think the general idea is that he received his ethnic heritage from his mother. He was the product of immaculate conception, but she had to come from somewhere.

      • Cazienza Puellae

        Jesus wasn’t the product of immaculate conception – that’s Mary (who was conceived by human parents without incurring the effects of original sin, which is what the immaculate conception refers to). Jesus was the product of the virgin birth.

        • Magnumto

          I didn’t know that. Thanks for educating me on that detail.

      • Rodrigo

        actually, the immaculate conception refers to Maria being conceived without the original sin, not Jesus :)

        • archworf

          Pretty sure that was Franco Harris

      • Rodrigo

        Great list, i ask a preist about Lilith and he has no idea who she was! Also i saw a documentary about her and she is really big (and evil) in the judaism!

    • Jesus was a member of the line of David on both his mother and father’s sides. In the case of his father, Joseph, the relation to David is legal (Matthew 1:1-17) , though not biological, descent (since Joseph wasn’t actually his biological father). And then obviously with his mother, the genealogy can be retraced, unbroken, since she was his biological mother. So, it isn’t futile, per se. At least, not to those who believe and take interest in it. In fact, it’s very doable.

      In terms of his ethnic origin, I don’t personally think it really matters. But, like with the bloodline, some people find it worth looking into.

      • Jesus’s ancestors are in the first few pages of the Book of Matthew. There was a span of 42 generations between Abraham and Jesus.

        • adifferentJamie

          Thanks for the info everybody. Answered my question and taught me something. Thanks, again.

      • mujabal

        isn’t mary also just a surrogate mother?

        • Quill

          Depends on what you mean by surrogate. If you mean, she carried a baby that wasn’t her child, then no, the bible story says she conceived and that Joseph was told it was by the Holy Spirit. If you mean, she was a partial donor, then yeah, a case could be made for that, theoretically anyway.

          Of course, most of theology is theoretical, anyway, so … *shrugs*

          • archworf

            Most?

          • I’ll concede you that, archworf.

            While there is some reasonable evidence that many of these people existed and had a certain set of experiences (see Josephus, minus the overblown medieval additions, for instance), what that experience means is the basis of theological discussion.

            So, yes, I’ll amend that: Theology by nature is theoretical anyway.

  • undaunted warrior 1

    I agree that the list is well written – and I think there will be lots of comments today

  • Ella

    Excellent list! Was a very interesting read. :)

  • kubrick

    isn’t every aspect of christianity outdated

    • exodiafinder687

      I found a troll. What do I win?

      • Shifty

        1000 Internets!

      • kokopelli1000

        Of course you found a troll- it’s Kubrick.

        • Davo

          he is correct though

          • MIC

            Honestly, I agree.

          • archworf

            Amen.

    • Sarx

      Forgiveness and mercy are outdated? Cool, I don’t have to be nice to anyone anymore.

      • Atehist

        Are you only nice to people because of the bible? If so you are pathetic.

        • Chuck

          Without Christ, I could be nice to people who were nice to me. But through Christ, I can be nice to people who are not nice to me! Doesn’t sound pathetic to me! Can you be nice to people who mistreat you?

      • Canadianguy

        Oh, right. Those are originally and uniquely Christian because Christianity isn’t a mishmash of other religions and philosophies.

        • suds

          Not so much unique and original to Christianity, but very much so an aspect which I don’t believe to be outdated. This is coming from an agnostic, btw.

  • magoopaintrock

    Self-flagellation is alive and well in the Philippines, and it is quite an arresting sight to see. Also, I think it’s hilarious that #9 contains a textual note to (see item 9). Haha well done!

    • milosd90

      he is actually referring to the #9 on the list that he gave the link for.

  • jum1801

    Joshua Knode, if you have the least interest in historical accuracy – something that is in some doubt from this list – your submission should be retitled “Top Ten Outdated Roman Catholic Beliefs”. A common problem afflicting those who have no understanding of or experience in Christianity that they mistake the Roman Catholic Church, the leaders and priests of which have a very long and rich history of most un-Christian tenets, policies, beliefs and actions. Those beliefs you ascribe to “Christians” are nothing of the sort: what you list are almost all solely the products of the Roman Catholic Church.

    The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is not Christianity. Christianity is an entire religion; the RCC is a mere branch of that religion. The RCC speaks only for its members, which constitute perhaps half of all Christians. The Pope’s utterances and the laws, canons, prohibitions and policies of the RCC have authority in the RCC only, and have no effect whatsoever over the tens of million s of Christians who are not of that church.

    Also,the RCC did not speak for or have authority over all Christians up until The Reformation of the late 16th century: the Eastern Orthodox Church is just as old as the RCC, and ever since ancient days there have also been non-denominational communities of Christians who were associated with neither the RCC or the EOC, and operated independently of any governing body.

    So, how about a little more care when trying to deride and mock the religion of a few hundred million persons, huh?

    • Joshua_the_samurai

      My intention was never to Mock or deride Chrstianity but show that despite what people think of us Christians we are able to adapt and change with the times, as well as admit when our leaders are mistaken. It’s important to show that Christians are always learning, and aren’t backwards or obstinate.
      Some of the items here are from Gnosticism or other early christian sects, others are from more modern Protestantism not just RCC.

      • CooCooCuchoo

        hahaaa! he just got schooled, Joshua IS a christian! he thought he was so cool…

    • milosd90

      Catholic, Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants, whats the difference?

      I’m just too tired arguing with people about religion, when everything that you say (no matter how rational and real) just deepens their beliefs in some illogical, mind-numbing stuff.

      All I say is that people need to literally grow up, snap out of it and use their magnificent brains for something more constructive.

      • Jfrater

        Orthodox Anglicans and protestants all split from the catholic church but at various times – essentially there is the catholic church and the the rest are “protesters” against her doctrines.

        • Magnumto

          Ahaaaa! (Blinding flash of the obvious) THAT’S where the name “protestant” comes from! I’ve never really thought about it, but that’s interesting to know.

      • ricej1969

        I’m just too tired arguing with people who DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, when everything that you say (no matter how rational and real) just deepens their beliefs in some illogical, mind-numbing stuff.

        All I say is that people need to literally grow up, snap out of it and use their magnificent brains for something more constructive.

        Just because you don’t believe it doesn’t make you right. Why don’t you just be tolerant to those who believe in God.

        • Damocles

          The same can be said who base their beliefs on blind faith.

          • Bennie

            More so really… You have very little evidence to back up your accusations.

          • archworf

            Cause I’m wasted and I can’t find my way home

        • Davo

          we’re just perplexed by people who believe in something that’s obviously not real. Imagine if you’re next door neighbour sincerley believed in Santa Claus, played to him and spoke about how he has made life better for the neighbour; that’s how we think of religious people. But it’s only the Nutters that really piss me off though.

          • That’s part of the point, though – you don’t know for certain, any more than we do. You – believe! – he doesn’t exist. Since faith relies on something that’s supposed to happen after death, neither of us are going to absolutely know until then.

            You’ve said it’s obvious God isn’t real. Well, for a lot of people, the idea of the whole universe just suddenly going ‘pop!’ into existence for no reason doesn’t make any sense, either. God is AN answer to that. Obviously he’s not the only answer, otherwise we’d only have one religion. But faith is a way for people to logically reconcile that. Whether their FAITH revolves around logic, well that’s a whole ‘nother kettle right there.

            (And, incidentally, there is a passage in the New Testament that says that faith through reason is every bit as valid, if not more so, as faith through mere blind obedience. So it’s not all about ‘assume God, reject rational thought’)

            The stuff we teach each other about God, that can be a load of bull, and God gets the bad rap for that. Doom and gloom and God wilt smite thou for thy wickedness – erm, no, mostly it’s that we go our own way and then curse God when our decisions go foul on us.

            In the end, the lessons of Jesus can be summed up in 3 sentences: Love God, Love each other, Treat each other kindly. Anything outside of that is pretty much up for discussion.

            The Americanisation of the faith, today, is just as frightening as the Romanisation of the early church, in my book – something we’re still living under the crushing shadow of. I rather like my God one on one, thanks.

            The Nutters, well they ***** me off, as well.

            * this message is spoken in the interests of discussion purposes only, and not intended as a tool of conversion. All opinions expressed are of the commenter only, and does not necessarily represent the views of any deity, fictional or otherwise. :)

      • Bassbait

        Something more constructive, like using “literally” when it actually makes sense?

        Because “literally growing up” means extending vertically. So are you saying people are too short?

        Sorry, I just get annoyed with people who have no clue how to use words that they constantly use anyways (like “technically”. People use that WAY too much)

        Sorry, but you are using idiotic logic by trying to convince them on your terms. If you want to convince anyone of anything, make your case, apply it to THEIR case, and then build from there. If you say “God doesn’t exist”, you’d better be prepared to back it up from biblical references that support your case. I can’t disprove Evolution by using the Bible, and I can’t disprove the Bible by using Evolution. You can’t win an argument unless you use their own arguments against them. Don’t say their beliefs are wrong, SHOW it. Otherwise, you’re wasting your time, and being just as illogical trying to use YOUR beliefs against them.

        • DRMProd

          AMAZING! “you’d better be prepared to back it up from biblical references that support your case”? For real? Is that really what you are saying? I am just baffled… so STUPID.

        • Conor

          WHAT?! I’m sorry, so we should use references from a book that was written by people with the intention of convincing the public to believe in a God to try and disprove God … because that’s ever going to work, isn’t it? using a book written by a group of religious believers to disprove their belief … seriously … where’s the logic in what you said?

        • archworf

          So if you say “God does exist”, you’d better be prepared to back it up be cold, hard science. Their argument is circular. God is proven to exist by the word of God. Smart, sane people can’t get their heads around a belief with “proof” like that. Evidence is the opposite of faith. If there were a god who wanted everyone to follow him, it is illogical to play hide-and-seek. An omnipotent being could not be illogical. QED God, as presented, cannot exist.

    • Jfrater

      Jesus founded the catholic church only when he gave pope Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven – you need to seriously look at history if you think the church didnt have authority until Luther decided to break his vows and take a wife. Read the epistles of Clement 2nd century in which he specifically states that all must obey the will of the pope in Rome.

      • archworf

        Your use of history is incorrect much as the old song lyrics “our love’s gonna be written down in history, just like Romeo and Juliet.” Since when is literature-FICTION-considered history? “Okay, students, your essay counts for 50% of your history grade. The subject is ‘Animals and Dinosaurs Fred Flintstone Used for Appliances. JFrater, you seem so smart in your mainstream lists, but the nonsense you spout in your religious lists makes me despair the species.

    • dalinean

      The fundamentalist religious faiths all need mocking and deriding.
      The current swing towards christion fundamentalism is a swing towards the ‘authority of the church’.

      As opposed to the private conscience apparently esposed by protestantism

  • Joshua_the_samurai

    Jamie, I always loved that picture of Alistair Crowly, sure he’s downright evil but it’s impossible to look at that dopey get-up and not laugh at the guy.

    • Methian

      Just for the sake of interest; Where did you get the information that both Book of Enoch and Gospel of Judas are fakes? Because as far I know both these texts are genuine in their historical contexts.

      • Joshua_the_samurai

        My main studies of the book of Enoch and the Gospel of Judas comes form the “lost books of the bible” reprinting from a couple of years ago. The gnostics were notorious for being less than honest about where their “hidden knowledge” came from, often making their books sound older than they were to legitimize them. The gospel of Judas was categorized as nothing new by most scholars, only a slightly different translation of some of the Gospel texts the went a little easier on Judas. The book of Enoch is ancient, but was not written anywhere near the time of Enoch as claimed, more like the 2nd century. The book was excluded from biblical cannon for this reason, and the fact nothing in it matched up with the other old testament books.

        • Methian

          Thanks for the reply. You are basicly saying they are “fake” same way the books of Bible are. Though I’d like to point out that the way you wrote the piece makes it seem that they are recent frauds or forgeries, when they really are very old and genuine (admitting that they might be, and probably are, in large parts made up).

        • Jack Collins

          The rejection of the Book of Enoch by Christians is WAY more complicated than that (trust me…I’ve written hundreds of pages on the subject…). It had less to do with questions of authorship (although Tertullian does address that issue) than it did with an increased awareness among Christians of the emerging _Jewish_ canon (which excluded it), and a growing discomfort with apocalypticism in general. Even then, the book wasn’t viewed as “fraudulent” (it was, after all, quoted in the canonical Epistle of Jude), but as corrupted and unfit for the general public.

          Still, many concepts from Enoch (like the fallen angels, and the idea that demons inspired idolatry) remained in Christian discourse long after the book was rejected by most authorities.

      • Jfrater

        They are fake insofar as they claim to be written by people who didn’t write them. The gnostic gospels were largely written in the 4th century but claim to be written by apostles who were dead 200 years by then

        • ouiareborg

          It’s acknowledged by most in the fields of study that MOST of the books of the bible were not written by those whose name is on them. It’s presented as fact, but if you really do the research, it’s very much divided amongst scholars.

          • John

            I would disagree that “most” believe. Some do, but most conservative scholars find no solid arguments for multiple authorship for Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Pentateuch. “Higher” criticism of biblical authorship only began to truly manifest itself in the 19th century and began in Europe, primarily Germany. The arguments used to disprove those authorship claims have been refuted strongly for nearly as long.

  • Melissa

    It’s spelled “Aleister”

  • jcs299

    I think part of the race question has to do with the misapropriation of the term “Caucasian.” How did that term come to mean “white”? Look at someone who is actually from the Caucasus and they are clearly not the same as someone from Europe. True Caucasians do look more Middle Eastern because that’s what they are.

    That said, Jesus probably did look Caucasian, true Caucasian.

    • Julius

      In the time it took you to write these 6 lines you could have just googled Caucasian and found it out yourself but regardless.

      “The concept of a Caucasian race or Varietas Caucasia was developed around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German scientist and classical anthropologist.[4] Blumenbach named it after the Caucasian peoples (from the Northern Caucasus region), whom he considered to be the archetype for the grouping.[5] He based his classification of the Caucasian race primarily on craniology.[6] Blumenbach wrote:

      “Caucasian variety – I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men, I mean the Georgian; and because all physiological reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought with the greatest probability to place the autochthones (birth place) of mankind.”[7]”

  • Vera Lynn

    Ya

  • BRIK

    Lilith certainly is hotter than Eve.

  • dalinean

    Where is ‘the inerrancy of the bible’ on this list?
    I was taught as a catholic going to a private catholic school that the early books of the bible were stories, allegorical fiction, as they obviously are.

    AND
    The book of Judas, recently discovered, is ancient and while probably fiction and fraud, where’s the evidence?…. same as the other gospels maybe?
    Part fiction part fact or all made up.

    • Auburn Tiger

      The evidence is in they know who wrote them, and they know that whoever wrote them has no first hand experience of the lid of Judas. If you’re going to ask questions like that, you might want to look into Mormonism. They like doctrines that your average person is incapable of believing in. Call it logic or call it skepticism, either way most people don’t believe in newer doctrine.

      • ouiareborg

        “The evidence is in they know who wrote them, and they know that whoever wrote them has no first hand experience of the lid of Judas.”

        You’re going to have to do better than that. Because half the New Testament would be missing if we went by that.

        • Auburn Tiger

          Not really. The gospel were four different first person accounts of the life of Christ. The difference is that (as mentioned by the author already) that the book about Judas was an embleished translation of another text that was essentially like a book of the gospel, but went easier on Judas.

    • sarx

      This would require you to have knowledge of textual criticism in order to make these claims and/or have a debate. Which is more reliable – Plato’s “The Republic” or the Gospel of John? Or to make it a little easier Josephus’ Wars of the Jews or the Gospel of John?

      Answer: The Gospel of John. In fact the New Testament books are the most reliable ancient documents in existence. I’ll have to leave it to you to find out why. Read Aland to start. Many books have been written about this.

      • dan

        I would say “History of the Peloponnesian War” is the most reliable, it has history that can be cross checked.

  • xDr

    Hey! Just had a thought: If Jesus’ mother was dark skinned (obviously) and he was dark skinned, what color is God skin? Dark? If it’s white, does that make Jesus mixed race? If God is made of light could Jesus be albino? Puzzling!

    • xDr

      P.S. One belief that is still popular: The name Jesus Christ isn’t his real name. Do you think his father last name was Christ? And Jesus means “Lord Savior”. You think It would be clear by now! :)
      P.S.S. Did you know that Christianity has only one God and that’s Jesus? I didn’t! He is his own father!!! But I didn’t know why did he say: Father forgive him they know not what they do! He was speaking with him self!!!! Freaky

      • Christianity just doesn’t make any logical sense!

        The Holy Trinity is absurd….

        But then again are we supposed to be able to understand it if it really is the truth?

        Questions……

        • Lifeschool

          The Holy Trinity: If it were possible for one ‘force’ to be the only ‘force’ in the universe, and the source of material from which all materials are made, than that is known as the Father (the source), the Son (those products/materials) and the Holy Spirit (the force which moved these materials into existence).

          If this was the weather cycle, then the Ocean would be the father, the raindrops, pools and lakes would be the son(s), and the rivers and streams would be the Holy Spirit; which transports the ‘source’ around and eventually brings it all the way back to the Ocean.

          Human beings are said to be ‘created in Gods image’ because they are Fathers of creation (often literally), the Sons of creation, and the means by which creation occurs – therefore, we are creation itself. JMHO.

          • I would say that the Holy Spirit would be evaporation, condensation, and all that business. But good analogy :)

    • Madison

      You can’t ask what colour God’s skin is because God is not an image. Jesus was a human, but God is not. He is a spirit, not a physical being.

      • Auburn Tiger

        That sounds true until you remember that he created man in his image.

        • allyb10

          That depends on how you look at it. We are made “in God’s image” in that we have God-like qualities. For instance, we have the capacity for love and free thought, a sense of justice, and a secondary sense of consciousness (meaning, we are aware of our own existence) that other creatures do not.

          • MIC

            I would like to point out that there are other animals that recognize themselves. I believe there was an experiment with elephants in which they painted a spot on their heads and had them look into a mirror. The elephants seemed to have understood that the reflection was of itself.

          • allyb10

            @MIC: I agree that there are some intelligent animals. But they don’t have the ability to ponder their own existence. If we want to, humans can sit around all day and think about what it means to really be alive. Even the smartest animals, such as elephants and dolphins, do not have the capacity for that type of thought. Even if they understand that their reflection is not another animal, you won’t find them engaged in deep thought about their existence or the meaning of life.

          • Abii

            @Allyb You don’t know that.

        • What God created in His image is our soul, not our body.

          • Secret Sam

            Nice, I like this and haven’t thought of it this way. Thanks!

      • archworf

        If god is NOT an image, how can man be made in his image? Also, how come Godfreaks don’t want to be evolved from “lower” creatures, and prefer to be made from dirt?

  • Waterboarder

    Call me anti-Catholic if you want, but I HATE The Roman Catholic Church. It`s as bad as Nazi Germany.

    • Ben

      You’re anti-Catholic.

    • Ben

      Also, voicing such a bigoted hatred of a denomination would result in a mass beration of you, were it another sect. Catholicism is apparently free to be insulted by Western society. Hypocrisy in its purest form.

      • yeah because they act to high and mighty but then continue to rape and cover up the rape of tiny innocent children . if catholics were so good they’d put a stop to it. God looks at you with shame .

      • Waterboarder

        Yeah, you can call me a bigot and a racist. I just don`t like Catholics. There bloody ignorant. I`d kick them all out of the country if I could.

        • Chiles

          BishopAccountability.org

        • Julius

          Oh, the humour…

        • It’s ignorant to include every person who identifies with Catholicism with the few priests who are clearly unfit to be serving in the church. Grouping masses of people together is just generally not a good idea.

          • ricej1969

            Where is the outrage of the people with their hands clean. The Pope and all of his henchmen at the Vatican should all go to jail for life. They knew about what was going on and hid it from the people. The priest were moved from one church to another or to the Vatican. The police were not notified and the church hindered any investigation from the police. That is criminal. Apparently, the priest (and money) are more important than the children. There is no way that I can support the Catholic church and the Catholics who don’t fight for the children.

          • Flonkbob

            Sure, and I can see your point here. However, ricej1969 has a good point as well. Moderate theists (no matter which god they claim) are guilty of collusion if they don’t come out in protest against their coreligionists abuses.

            A Muslim who doesn’t decry the murder of innocents in the name of Allah bears some of the blood. A Catholic who doesn’t protest and fight the abuses of children, and hiding of pedophiles from the authorities, bears some of the guilt. Hindu believers who refuse to come out against the attack and murder of Muslims by gangs in India and Pakistan has aided and abetted the violence. Christians who refuse to see the murder of doctors at abortion clinics may has well have pulled the trigger themselves.

            Do the activities of the few paint the rest of the members of their religion with guilt? Yes, they do if the other members of their religion don’t protest and eject those few from their fellowship.

            I think religion is stupid, but I know intelligent theists. Why can so few of them see this?

          • allyb10

            @ricej1969, @Flonkbob — I agree with what you are saying. Like I said in my other comment, I refuse to hate all Catholics based on the actions of a few (clearly UNholy) men. However, a huge problem with religion–and I say this as a religious person–is that so many people refuse to look around at what’s going on and think freely. They see something incredibly horrible happening and continue to do nothing. While I do know many Catholics that do not support their own churches right now due to the child molestation problem, those that continue to put blind faith in that system right now are wrong, in my opinion.

          • Carole

            I think it is more than a few priests. The outrage is due to the fact that these monsters have gone unpunished. How can the Catholic church preach morality, when it is so immoral in the way it has handled the massive sex abuse scandal.
            I am Catholic, but no longer practise the faith, for this very reason.

      • Dani

        The Roman Catholic Church is not the same as Catholics. They’re probably referring to more so to the actual church organization and all the bullshit they say, promote and hide.

        Honestly, it’s disgusting what they do and what they teach people.

    • allyb10

      I disagree with the Catholic church as a whole, but let’s not get carried away. Putting aside Catholic doctrine, there are many shady things going on in the church right now, the biggest one being child molestation. However, I don’t think it’s fair to denounce the entire denomination and everyone in it. There are plenty of church-going people out there whose hands are clean and whose hearts are in the right place. So to be clear, I hate most of what’s going on in the Catholic church, but I don’t hate Catholics as a whole.

  • not impressed my comment wasn’t posted . Didn’t realize Listverse was based in Iran .

  • Good list.

    Just not very accurate in places, number 2, the selling of indulgences was banned more to do with a pretty well known person called Martin Luther.

    Ever heard of him?

    :)

    • Julius

      That anti-semitic German dude? XD

      • Waterboarder

        Martin Luther wasn`t an anti-semite. His masterpiece, “On The Jews And Their Lies,” just spoke the truth. He was excommunicated for critizing the then Catholic Church, where the Popes were off their rocker and were corrupt. What is it with the Catholic Church anyway? They excommunicated King John for dieagreeing about who should be Archbishop of Canterbury and Henry VIII for wanting a divorce.

        • Lurker

          It’s all to do with politics.

        • Philip Hades

          Actually Von den Jüden und jren Lügen is pretty antisemitic. So much so even the Lutheran church has divorced itself from Luther’s teachings on the subject.

          To quote the Bavarian Lutheran Church: “It is imperative for the Lutheran Church, which knows itself to be indebted to the work and tradition of Martin Luther, to take seriously also his anti-Jewish utterances, to acknowledge their theological function, and to reflect on their consequences. It has to distance itself from every [expression of] anti-Judaism in Lutheran theology.”

  • Good list.
    Just not very accurate in places, number 2, the selling of indulgences was banned more to do with a pretty well known person called Martin Luther.
    Ever heard of him?
    :)

  • chiles

    whats with the comments section?

    • Chiles

      been on this site nearly everyday for 2 years , had +90p points before the comment changeover (even more than you JFrater) now all my comments are deleted before publishing like I’m a common troll. The language restrictions on this site looks like its catered to 83 year old autistic nuns with heart conditions. dont forget who was no.1 best exalted awesome first commenter .

      • shroom

        aaw you poor thing, you lost your meaningless internet ‘points’ go outside you basement dweller!

        • Chiles

          i dont wan the points i want to be able to comment , cant you read are you dumb ?

          • Julius

            “now all my comments are deleted before publishing like I’m a common troll”

            seems about right…

          • Chiles

            @ Julius V – im not a troll. Love bluesman87….

          • Chiles

            @jules – bluesman is disappointed in you .

          • Julius

            Oh that’s you? sry, wtf you were able to comment with the new system yesterday weren’t you?

          • Chiles

            yup ,haha no worries – i think Jamie is just getting more strict. incidentally i like the look of this system better . .

  • br0ck

    all religions are outdated unless you live in asia

    • Madison

      Obviously written by someone in Asia. Why don’t you go visit some churches in North America or Europe? Maybe you’ll learn something about the world.

      • Auburn Tiger

        You must be new here. Just read some of his comments on other lists. Then you’ll understand. That boy ain’t right.

      • br0ck

        well i live in europe only older people go to church there

      • Atehist

        The only thing he will learn is that 90% of America are stupid enough to believe that 2 of ever animal can fit and survive in one arc for an extended period of time.

        • ToneRowes

          2 of every land animal most likely not fully grown and most of them were not from each species but from each group of animals with the same amount of chromosomes. Also, it was a very big arc.

          • archworf

            IT’S A FRAKING ARK! WITH A K! NO C ANYWHERE TO BE FOUND! You are so intelligent you can’t spell a 3 LETTER WORD! Plus the fact that the ARK as described couldn’t hold even ONE animal of every species extant! I’m surrounded by IDIOTS! ARK! ARK! ARK!

    • Eye-Licker

      I fail to see how any religion’s validity is a product of your current geographical location. Christianity is just as outdated if you are in Europe as it is if you are in Asia.

      Unless you meant that Asian religions are more valid than other religions, in which case: lrn hw 2 wrt prprly so ppl can undRstnd u bettr k?

      Religion, spiritualism, dualism; utter idiocies all of it. Designed to prey on the weak and emotionally vulnerable. Not blaming the religious though, they are victims of a great evil, and my sympathy is very much with them.

      “Dislike” this as many times as you like, for hurting your feelings or general lack of P.C.

      The scriptures need to be preserved, as they have historical and anthropological value. Still, all “holy” scripts need to be abandoned as any form of truth or ideological guidelines.

      • Bennie

        Well said!

      • archworf

        @Eye-licker- AMEN and well said. May I worship you?

  • Julius

    The practice of indulgences is still alive and well you can’t buy them anymore but if you walk the Way of St.James for example, you can still get one.

  • kizzler

    Nice well researched list. A lot of the info might be well known to some people but for me a lot of it was still very new. The bible can explain a lot of stuff. but you just explained everything that wasn’t there. THUMBS UP

  • Lifeschool

    The section on the occult seems to imply this was once part of Christian faith, although I’m not sure if this is true. People like Crowley were independant in their own right, being more in line with earlier occultists such as John Dee (philosopher and adviser to Queen Elizabeth the 1’st), and before him the Alchemists – such as Issac Newton. The ‘occult order’ as we know it today is actually a mish-mash of many ‘religious’ texts – which cherry-pick all the weird stuff from whereever they could find it.

    “Its principal ingredients have been identified as Gnosticism, the Hermetic treatises on alchemy and magic, Neo-Platonism, and the [Jewish] Kabbalah, all originating in the eastern Mediterranean area during the first few centuries AD. Kabbalah was later adopted by the Golden Dawn and brought out into the open by Aleister Crowley.” – Wikipedia, 2011

    Similarly, the list also lumps modern Spiritualism in with all that, which is another totally separate entity, and has more to do with Madame Blavatsky and her Theosophical Society, and before that, Shamanism – which pre-dates Christianity by at least a few thousand years. For example, in Leviticus it states: “I will set my face against the person who turns to Mediums and spiritists to prostitute himself by following them, and I will cut him off from his people.” (Leviticus 20:6) – which only serves to suggest that Mediumship and Spiritualism pre-date the book (otherwise they couldn’t have referenced it) and were already well established before the days of Jesus and the Bible. Therefore, they didn’t originate from Chistianity. Spritualism is also very much alive today, and is closer to a Hindu or Buddhist philosphy than a full blown Christian religion.

    Finally, Satanism did indeed come from the Hebrew Bible, and is also still very much alive today. It has never been out-moded or up-dated so it certainly isn’t out-dated; just as the Bible itself cannot be outdated. Some of the practices exemplified in the list may still be happening in secret corners of the world, but indisputable proof is thin on the ground and tends to get mixed up with all kinds of ‘conspiracy theories’ – as of course nobody will confirm or deny anything – and if they did it wouldn’t be a ‘secret’ society anymore.

    Well.. that’s just what I’ve heard…

    • Joshua_the_Samurai

      I’m referring specifically to the Occult/spiritualism movement of the 19th century. when it began Christians not only tolerated it but often participated wholeheartedly. Some of the first Ouija boards were decorated with pictures of angels and bible verses. There was a breif, wholeheartedly bizarre time when Christianity was into it. However, this was only in America and England, and the Catholics always condemned it.
      I wasn’t meaning to say Satanism was out-dated itself. I admit as a religion there are still plenty of Satanists around. I’m only speaking of the belief that Satanist churches were out to “steal” children with hidden messages. Satanists can pretty messed up sometimes (IN all fairness, so can Christians) but they’re not running all the world’s media, like many christian circles used to think.

      • Lifeschool

        Thanks for your views on this. I can see the angle you were taking now as regards to Christian fads which went out of date. Although, there is evidence to suggest the satanism is indeed a notable factor in the modern political world. However, although we know for sure that the ‘elite’ meet in all kinds of secret places to do secret things (Buliderburg Group, CFR) and let off steam in a place called Bohemian Grove, this strong evidence always seems to get mixed up with crackpots talking about aliens – resulting in any sensible observer getting rather confused. Take a look at this example:

        http://www.henrymakow.com/bohemian_grove_illumina

        This article is based on real evidence and real (Cathy O’Brien) eye witness accounts. Some of those accounts are based on actuality, some of it is based on supposition. Can you sort the wheat from the chaff?, or do you throw the whole baby out with the bathwater claiming that the ‘nonsense’ aspects invalidate the whole thing? All we know is that several people claim that satanism is alive an well, and the people being accused say nothing…

  • mordechaimordechai

    Nice list. Have little time at the moment, maybe i’ll come back on this later on.

    In my opinion the most important and shift making change that the Roman church went through was at the half of the XIX century.

    The Immaculate Conception, Infallibility for the Pope and most important the erasing of the Spirit in the view of the components of men in Christian Antropology.

    Until then the man was made of Body, Soul and Spirit; and thus he was part of God.

    I don’t like the fact that they erased it.

  • oouchan

    A well written list and interesting too.
    Of course I think all religions are out-dated..but hey….whatever floats your boat.

    Nice list.

  • woah lilith

  • Cool list. Self Flagellation seems like a cool method to torture somebody. Or even kidnap 3 people and make a human centipede. By the way, the movie would have been way cooler if the two policemen had been added at the front of the three piece centipede to make it a five piece.

  • Religion is retarded but it’s irrelevant to my life so i just live not trying to live up to some gods expectations of me.

    • Hayley

      If religion is so “retarded” and irrelevant to your life, why must you waste your time insulting it on public websites? Get over yourself.

      • archworf

        Not picking on religion alone, I guess. EVERY PIECE OF UTTER STUPIDITY FROM SOMEONE’S LIPS, PENS, KEYBOARDS MUST BE ATTACKED! The only thing keeping the human race from PARADISE is IDIOTS! As yet, there is no Constitutional protection for BOOGER EATING MORONS! My mission in life is to, at least, SHUT UP or SHOW UP every stupid ignorant brain-dead steaming pile of dogs**t with the hope they take themselves out of the gene pool! Go to your window and yell I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!

  • Dilvish

    What a mother-load for FSTDT this whole thread is…

  • FlameHorse

    Nice to read a Christian list I didn’t write. Welcome to Hell, Josh Knode. This one was good, and the comments section is working better. I don’t care about rating comments.

  • Rob

    #4. The Satanic Ritual Abuse Scare didn’t really hit its stride until the 80s, although some of the foundations of the scare began in the late seventies (such as the release of the movie Sybil in 76). The scare itself however lasted into the nineties with some criminal cases still ongoing into the 90s. The scare died down around the mid-90s, but some major parts were still in operation through out the decade (such as the believe the children foundation which didn’t fold until 98), and some smaller groups and authors still exist today.

    The scare didn’t just target media creators though. Members of many different minority faiths, role-playing game enthusiasts, heavy metal fans, and the entire goth subculture were labeled and profiled as being both Satanic and criminal, and in some cases a person could be labeled even though they had no associations.

    This wasn’t a Christian issue either, this was a national issue, as the Satanic Ritual Abuse Scare was believed and promoted by many prominent figures in the media, law enforcement, and the legal system. A lot of people were arrested, many had charges brought against them in high profile cases, some were convicted, and some are even still in jail today because of the Satanic Ritual Abuse Scare.

    #8 – Your idea of the relationship between Christianity and the occult is rather simplified and limited. With few exceptions of small parts of the Christian faith that have somewhat different beliefs (such as the Quakers), no church ever endorsed seeing a psychic or conducting a seance as pure fun. In fact most were against it, and when they could they tried to put laws into place to prevent it. In other words pretty much exactly what’s going on today. The churches don’t like psychics, there are church movements to get laws into place to stop them, and yet a lot of Christians still see psychics.

    Spiritualism and Spiritism also have very strong Christian influence, and most Spiritualists were traditionally and still are also Christians. Meanwhile most of the secret societies and Ceremonial Magic groups in Europe around the 19th century were Christian based, and if they practiced any sort of ritual magic it was usually a form of Christian mysticism, which meant that most of the members were usually Christian (which is not so much the case today). The fact that these groups were populated largely by Christians, and by their own theological theories felt what they were doing wasn’t sinful, doesn’t mean that the Church felt the same way. This behavior was never endorsed by the church, but at the time it had little recourse to stop it from happening (much the same as today).

    The Church coming out against the occult has nothing to do with “bad” occultists like Allister Crowley and everything to do with the church doing what it’s always done. For the most part Christian denominations have dealt with the occult as they always have. The only difference now being that some are a bit more proactive mainly do to the Satanic Ritual Abuse Scare that wasn’t all that long ago.

  • mom424

    Good list this morning. Seems the church is capable of change – just don’t get around to it quick enough imo. Although there is improvement – The Pope is finally going to allow condoms for Africa; the saving of lives trumps the sinful no procreation se_x.. About time!

    The inclusion of self-flagellation surprises me a little bit too. You don’t have to go to The Philippines to find it; Opus Dei are a pretty wide-spread group, have folks in government and industry, and they practice it and other forms of mortification.

    Still interesting offering this morning. Good job.

  • ricky

    all of the gospels were written at least 100 years after the supposed life of christ-so, bad argument to make against the credibility of any non-canonical gospel,

  • Auburn Tiger

    Interesting list. I didn’t really learn much, but I’ve watched me a whooooole lot of history channel. It’s amazing how little some know not only about religion, but about history in general. In related news: my mom doesn’t believe that Catholicism is a part of Christianity. She says “But they don’t believe that Jesus is the son of god”. My brother and I sigh as we try to explain how crazy that makes her sound… I don’t know what they teach her in Sunday school. I go to class with my dad and am always surprised by the level of tolerance and progressivism. This is at a predominantly white baptist church in Georgia. I say predominantly white because there’s a “black church” down the street. That being said, there are many ethnicities at my church, they are just few in numbers… Point is: you can’t make broad generalizations about a group of people when the people showing the traits in question are in the minority.

    How the hell did I end up rambling that much? Oh well.

    • LostMusicalMeanings

      Well technically Catholism isn’t really a branch of christianity.They have different traditions that are sinful in the christian religion.They do believe in God and Jesus,but the another issue is that catholics worship marry too and view her differently.

  • psychosurfer

    Are you kidding? Flagellation outdated? Guilt and fear are still the basic reasons for which judeo-christianism persists.
    Repent of your sins.

  • Auburn Tiger

    Wow. I had typed a small novel and it didn’t post. Some parts of the comment system are great, others… not so much.

  • Randall

    ERROR: It’s been a while since I read it, but unless I’m mistaken, the list writer is incorrect in citing the Gospel of Thomas as claiming Jesus gave life to birds made out of clay and so on. Those stories, I believe, are from the *Infancy Gospel of Jesus,” NOT the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas is merely a grouping of things said by Jesus — many of which parallel passages in the extant gospels, but also some that don’t—and the Gospel of Thomas is deemed authentic and actually OLDER than the extant gospels by many scholars. It’s viewed as a link to the lost “Q” gospel, believed to be the basis for at least half of the story of Jesus as we now know it.

    Check your facts folks, before you write lists.

    • mom424

      :)

    • Joshua_the_samurai

      Oops, your right. Der . . .the “Gospel of Timothy” (AKA Infancy Gospel of Jesus) was the one about his infancy, the Gospel of Thomas was totally different. My brain was thinking one thing and typed another, LOL

  • allyb10

    Good list, well-written with room for controversy and discussion. Although, even as a Christian, I can say that I agree with each point on the list. Personally, I don’t feel this is controversial.

  • I recall hearing that the apocrypha also tells of Jesus setting a playmate on fire when Jesus lost at jacks or cards or something (Candyland?). I think this is the Jesus followed by many folks whose cars have the Christian fish eating the Darwin fish.

  • Johnny

    #4 made me think of the West Memphis Three :(

  • Flonkbob

    While I consider the whole of Christianity (and any other religion, really) to be childish mythology, I will say that Lilith might get my vote anyhow. She’s a real hotty, eh!?

    And before you crucify me, yes I have read the Bible (babble?). Cover to cover. At least 7 times. I think that reading the entire bible, and honestly thinking about what it says, is the best way to eliminate Christianity.

  • Bassman

    Good list! Being a former Christian/Catholic I still have respect for certain aspects of the religion even though I don’t agree with most beliefs. Agnostics and atheists like myself might not like religion, but we have to admit that there have been times where the beliefs have been worse/more destructive. I think it is unreasonable to convince others of my beliefs so I will just say that I hope the religious institutions in the world can continue to move towards a more humanistic, open doctrine.

  • AlanG

    Haven’t you people heard of La Virgencita de Guadalupe? She’s Mexican, therefore El Niño Jesús is Mexican too.

  • The default gizmo, whatever it is, is confusing…I was reading along, thinking one person was making comment after comment, even arguing with themselves, before I saw the tiny, almost unnoticeable name beside the large graphic.

    Jamie, it just doesn’t work.

    • mom424

      Nice to see you Segue. Hope all is well in your corner of the world.

      Related comments are still nested together – they’re broken up by a solid line. Jamie may be able to increase the font size beside the avatar/wordpress logo; I’ll mention it to him just in case he misses your comment (not likely, he’s pretty thorough).

      I would like to see the pagination feature extended – maybe load 100 or 150 comments before the page break (people are lazy eh? many won’t bother to click for pg 2). I would also like some easing of the silly swear filter – Su – i – cide is banned, co – c -kpit on the airline list…

  • zek j evets

    Number 10 regarding The Apocrypha is a little misleading, because while those gospels are not considered canon, they are still written by people followers of the early church who probably had far better sources of knowledge about the people surrounding Jesus than we do.

    For instance, the gospel of Judas does follow what many critical Christian thinkers suspect about Judas’ role in Jesus’ crucifixion. The gospel of Mary Magdalene also highlights many of the characters in the bible, notably elaborating on the inter-relationships between them which are barely touched on in the other gospels.

    The reason some gospels are canonical and others are not has nothing to do with their veracity, and everything to do with how they validate the dogma of the church.

    To call these gospels “frauds” is actually quite fraudulent in and of itself since they are contemporaries of many others Christian texts that are currently accepted, and contain much of the same imagery, narrative techniques, characters, and other details that the canonical gospels use.

    Honestly, this list makes me think it was written by someone who is of the faith, but not able to think critically about it.

    • Suds

      From what I gather, this site is owned and maintained by a fervent Catholic. Forgive me if I am wrong about that, but that would certainly explain the pro-Catholic sentiment found throughout the site. Having said that, these list are very entertaining to stumble upon.

  • deeeziner

    Not what I expected..nuf said.

  • Jake

    I had not heard anything about the Book of Judas being proven a forgery. I’ll have to go look for something on that.

  • Angelo

    Fantastic job not being as bull-headed or afraid of change as I thought. Judging by the blistering rate at which some of this nonsense was dismissed, it should only be another millenium or two before Christianity shows some signs of a logical thought process.

    • Joshua_the_samurai

      Saddly, I don’t think christianity as a whole will ever reach a true “Locigal Thought process” like any large group of people, it’s full of idiots. Stupid people are everywhere, with Christians and Atheists alike.

  • guest

    I’m what most people consider “one of those Christians” and I stick to my beliefs quite adamantly, but I can honestly say, I’ve never believed one of these. lol. It’s a good list.

  • Hello

    Love isn’t outdated. Isn’t that the
    main thing? The details are just details. Who knows. I don’t care.

  • Don’t know

    Dont know bout you but br0ck is the only sensible person here. the man always is

    • br0ck

      thnx i appreciate that

      • Julius

        stop talking to yourself

  • Bansey

    The most outdated Christian belief is the belief of a God. Idiots.

  • Interesting post, but I would add:

    1. The obsession over relics

    2. The creedal dissension (see 17-1800’s in America)

  • Interesting post, but I would add:

    1. The obsession over relics

    2. The creedal dissension (see 17-1800’s in America)

  • NameTRUSSMAN

    Enter your comment here.
    Jesus was not a product of Immaculate Conception, Mary was. Jesus was a product of Virgin Birth. Quoting Wikipedia below, this agrees with many other sources.
    “The doctrine (Immaculate Conception) states that, from the first moment of her existence, Mary was preserved by God from the Original Sin and filled with sanctifying grace that would normally come with baptism after birth”.

  • olfool

    The only thing that really suprises me about this list is the lack of comments by hardline Christians and Athiests biting each other’s heads off. Thie was a good list though, most of it I knew already but some I found new like the belief in Dog heads. Someone must have had an ugly girlfriend or something

  • Rebecca

    Indulgences were sold for a long time throughout christian history but it was actually Pope Leo X (not only greedy bishops) who relied on them and lowered the price so that just about anyone could buy them (for themselves or for dead relatives). He expended a lot of money on lavish banquets, the construction of St Peter’s basilica, and an immense amount of art. He became in dept and indulgences was the solution.

  • AmILeo

    Neat list! I particularly liked #1. Only it’s MinotAUr and CentAUr.

  • Nicole

    “Later cults and racist groups believe that all non-Caucasian are decedents of Lilith or ‘Lillam'”

    So my ancestor includes an archangel? That’s fucking awesome!

    • Joshua_the_samurai

      LOL! Accentuate the positive! :D seriously though, groups like the KKK originaly used this to try and prove that while non-Caucasians were human, they were not God’s children. Almost laughable how desperate people are to hate, when Jesus’t sacrifice was meant to unite all!

      • Philip Hades

        The Mormons considered all non-caucasians to bear the Mark of Cain, and therefore be inferior.

  • #2: An indulgence didn’t necessarily deal with money. An indulgence could be exchanged for a service or good, too. It was kind of like a barter.

    Good list. I never knew about Lilith.

  • bigski

    im in love with lilith….

  • shelby

    The list is well written, but there are a few mistakes and statements which are (possibly unintentionally) misleading.

  • cats fornando

    Ha! Top ten?
    Howabout number 10 being the religion itself..

  • Jan

    Wow first comment!

  • Good list and mostly unbiased except in the mention of other Gods. You just tossed in parentheses (mostly demons) and then mentioned Baal. Ball was a Phoenician storm God, not a demon, and never was. It is popular for many Christians to claim that all the Pagan Gods are really demons in disguise even today but it is not a historical fact.

    • Joshua_the_Samurai

      Well, there were many other “Dieties” in the bible that some secular scolers point out as “other Gods” that are actually mentions of fallen angels. I never was trying to say Baal was a demon, only that most of the mentions spirits are demon, and then there’s Baal.
      Some people theorize that the Baal mentioned in the old testament was actually a Babylonian Lord, since that word was used for human lords in the ancient times. I however beleive from the context it was God you mentioned.

  • General Tits Von Chodehoffen

    What about that whole hating gay dudes thing?

    • Denzell

      There are still hardcore conservatives until now who are very, very homophobic, so it isn’t completely outdated yet. This list is pretty good, but it does have some errors.

      • archworf

        I’m pretty sure every homophobe is deathly afraid of their own homosexuality. And the more they protest, the more they want it rammed up their a**

  • Lilly

    If you read about the myth associated with Lilith, you’ll notice she’s definitely a figure on feminism.

    “(d) Adam and Lilith never found peace together; for when he wished to lie with her, she took offence at the recumbent posture he demanded. ‘Why must I lie beneath you?’ she asked. ‘I also was made from dust, and am therefore your equal.’ Because Adam tried to compel her obedience by force, Lilith, in a rage, uttered the magic name of God, rose into the air and left him. ”

    She wanted to be equal and he tried to rape her. She was punished because she disobeyed.

    Well, that’s one version.

    I think in mythology she is a role-model.

    • Joshua_the_samurai

      Yeah, in old Jewish and Christian folklore Lilith was used as a bad example of a woman, who refused to be “Submissive” to a man and therefore was evil. This shows the sexism of the old church, thankfully Christianity changes, a lot slower than I’d prefer, but it does.

  • LostMusicalMeanings

    Lilith
    I’ve heard of her before,what worries me is that my name is Lili lol.Two letters away.

  • BaptistBruiser

    The descendants of Cain did not live in Canaan prior to the Israelis, the descendants of Cain were all killed by the flood… The Canaanites were descendants of Noah’s son Ham or Abraham’s nephew Lot… You might want to acually read your Bible once in a while.

    • Joshua_the_samurai

      Uh . . . your exactly right! Did you miss the part where I said these were “Outdated” that’s another word for “Untrue”?

      • DRMPRod

        Besides, there is no Lilith, or Cain or Abel, never was. Peope ought to understand that these tales are myths, just like Greek mythology; Judeo-Christian mythology. Nice things, but myths nonetheless.

  • Very interesting list. I am especially pleased to see Lilith included, as most people have never heard of her. Shows good research, well done.

  • Alencon

    I assume you’re actually talking about the Infant Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas is a saying gospel which some scholars believe predates the canonical gospels because many of the same sayings are in it but in a simpler linguistic form and, normally, quotes get more elaborate with time and not simpler.

    As for the Gospel of Judas, it was never claimed to my knowledge to have been written by Judas but rather by gnostic Christian sometime in the 2nd century. It gets its name because it claims to document conversations between Jesus and Judas.

    Lilith is still an entity in Jewish lore and stems from the seeming contradiction between the two creation narratives in Genesis. In the first God creates man and woman at the same time. In the second God creates first and woman later from Adams rib. Conservative scholars claim there is no contradiction but the second account simply focuses more on the creation of man.

    Now how could you have left out Limbo in this list?

    • Joshua_the_samurai

      Limbo AKA Purgatory is still a very widely held Christian Belief, Catholics and Orthodox Christians still firmly believe in it.

      • Alencon

        I believe you are incorrect. Purgatory and Limbo are not the same.

        Purgatory is a place or process of temporary punishment and purification. Limbo, on the other hand, was at one time considered a place for infants who died prior to baptism and thus still with original sin.This is sometimes known as Infant Limbo because there were, in theory, actually two limbos. One for the infants mentioned above and one for good men who died prior to the resurrection of Jesus and had to wait for Jesus to bring redemption.

        I believe the Infant Limbo was not that long ago officially disowned by the Catholic Church or at least the Church failed to raise the doctrine to official teaching so Catholics can accept it or reject it as they will.

        And they wonder why some of us find Christianity absurd.

        • archworf

          You’re both wrong. Limbo is a dance.

  • Sedge

    Hey, how about some sources on #10?

    Because “written centuries after […] and has no corroborating documents” probably describes… what? Every book of the Bible? Because none of them can be proven to be eye witness testimonies? And the ones that describe the same events almost _never_ compare notes? Why are only the non-canonical works considered “fraudulent” when they’re just as messed up as the rest? How are you even defining “fraudulent”? As in “written in the 20th century by the guys who discovered it”, or “not accepted as canon by some people”? You do recall that this is THE BIBLE, right? Accurate time lines? Historical or internal corroboration? OH-HO-HO.

  • ravindran

    Interesting. It’s the same everywhere. Man’s imagination, fear of unknown, mouth to mouth communications of generation, how communication per se got twisted/painted with different colors.

  • Anonymous

    Listverse commentators WILL NEVER KNOW SHIT about the Roman Catholic Church unless they personally inquire an EXPERT and WELL-KNOWN Catholic figure (like Fr. John Corapi, Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Frank Pavone, or Jason Evert) about issues they have with it.

    If any of you outright say that any Catholic is “stupid”, a “bigot” or something else offensive because of what they “think” is Catholic doctrine, then they are liars because they DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE.

    My message to Listverse commentators:
    READ A F******G BOOK from any of the guys above. heck, EMAIL THEM or even INTERVIEW THEM FACE-TO FACE. these are the only ways of knowing TRULY how the Roman Catholic Church works. What it does it has reason for. Whoever says otherwise has either: 1) Been too stupid not to do RESEARCH W/ VALID INFO or 2) BEEN TOO PROUD / IGNORANT TO SAY THAT THE RC CHURCH IS GOOD.

    People may be entitled to their own opinion.
    But THE STRONGER OPINION is the one with VALID EVIDENCE.

    • Joshua_the_samurai

      “People may be entitled to their own opinion.

      But THE STRONGER OPINION is the one with VALID EVIDENCE.”

      Actually, I find the people with the strongest opinions, ie the ones who make snarky sarcastic or confrontational comments when responding to lists like mine are often basing their opinions on nothing but a desire to discredit all of Christianity for one reason or another.

      Often the only read the works of people that agree with them, and therefor are impossible to reason with. When you don’t need facts to back up your argument, being confronted with facts will just make you make something else. If their pretending their right, you can’t convince them they’re wrong. This is why I never respond to them, if they seem like one of these “Armchair Atheists”. I just let them talk to themselves, and continue to pat themselves on the back.

      I’ve debated Atheists, but the actual intellectuals, not mediocre comedians (Bill Mahar) or pop star journalists (Michael Moore) I’m only interested in speaking with people who really do their homework, and have an open mind.

    • Flonkbob

      Uh, but I was raised in the Catholic Church. First communion, confirmation, the whole nine yards. AND I’ve read the bible repeatedly, along with books by ‘experts’ as you suggest. And my conclusion is:

      The Catholic church is wrong, foolish, and useless. But that’s okay because so is the rest of Christianity. And I don’t need any more experts to tell me about it because I LIVED it, and somehow can still think for myself.

      I hope the same for you some day.

  • AlyssaNZ

    Awesome list. Kinda set out a bit weird though, like number 3 and 5 referring to themselves? Ha :)

  • lostsok

    Ah…the Lilith stuff on Supernatural makes sense now. I guess the Bible does have SOME value after all…

  • Andrea

    This is the most poorly executed list I have seen on this site. It would’ve helped to have this list written by someone who’s actually read the Bible, or a least a history book. Failure do a simple grammar check further reduces the list’s credibility (#5 “There was even myths”). Because it would take ages to cite all the errors in this list, I will only touch one item, #7: Other gods, is a complete mess with several concepts jostling to be considered the same thing.

    To say that “the scriptures at the time did not explicitly exclude the existence of other gods” is an outrage! Holding other gods before God was the first of the 10 Commandments! This was a real issue in the past, but to call it outdated is ridiculous: worshipping other gods continues to be at the forefront of Catholicism, with pagan gods that became saints, most of all Mary (Isis/Ishtar etc), who is arguably held before God.

    That Baal was a demon is a ridiculous statement. Baal (or Bel or Ba’al) is the collective name for many regional pagan gods in the regions the Israelites inhabited. He was not one god. This belief was never “dispelled.” It is a rampant belief in the Old Testament. There are many, many instances of this, including these few:

    Numbers 25:3
    So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them.
    Judges 2:11
    Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD and served the Baals.
    Judges 6:25
    That same night the Lord said to him, “Take the second bull from your father’s herd, the one seven years old. Tear down your father’s altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole beside it.
    Judges 8:33
    No sooner had Gideon died than the Israelites again prostituted themselves to the Baals. They set up Baal-Berith as their god
    Judges 10:10
    Then the Israelites cried out to the LORD, “We have sinned against you, forsaking our God and serving the Baals.”
    1 Samuel 12:10
    They cried out to the LORD and said, ‘We have sinned; we have forsaken the LORD and served the Baals and the Ashtoreths. But now deliver us from the hands of our enemies, and we will serve you.’
    1 Kings 16:32
    He set up an altar for Baal in the temple of Baal that he built in Samaria
    2 Kings 1:3
    ‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going off to consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron?’

    The apostles never stopped believing in these stories. Paul’s plea to stop worshipping Diana in Ephesus is a prime example. The write has completely misunderstood his own statement, “the Apostle Saint Paul scolding early churches for acknowledging other gods.” Paul was telling people NOT to worship other gods.

    Modern Christians never stopped believing that these gods were worshipped in the past. The festival Beltane shows the worship is not dead, and Hinduism has many, many gods and idols that are honored in this modern age.

    • Joshua_the_Samurai

      Thank you for a frank and well written criticism. Seems like some people do some research before making a well founded complaint.

    • ToneRowes

      Most of the time these gods were man-made either physically or conceptually. They were either objects or concepts and were treated as such as opposed to the Person of God. It is the same as today, when people put concepts or objects (or themselves, for that matter) above God. Just adding another perspective to the issue.

  • Guest

    Actually, I’ve read, and heard that none of the gospels – even the main four – were written before at least a century after the character Jesus would have died.

  • NAme

    #10 please. All of them are fraudulent. All of them were written by the people who “discovered” them. All of them were written after the fact and have no corroborating evidence because it’s all bullsh-t. Christianity is nothing more than an amalgamation of older religions, used to benefit the people in charge. It’s all made up. If you weren’t a brainwashed idiot and were still capable of using your brain functions of logic and reasoning and rational thought, you would be able to see this clear as day.

    What exactly makes any of you retarded religious people think your religion is any different from the ancient Greek, Roman, or Egyptian religions? The answer is absolutely nothing. In a few thousand years when your specific fairy tale falls by the wayside, people will be studying your mythology too, and wondering how in the world people could ever be so stupid.

    • Joshua_the_samurai

      Just a bit earlier I was speaking of the “Armchair Atheist” allow me to point this guy out as a prime example. Nothing here he says in constructive, and has no real purpose but to incite someone to get into a debate with him, which he will doubtless win, thanks to verbal kung-fu folks like him have perfected that has nothing to due with fact.
      There are literally hundreds of years worth of Atheistic writers and principals he could state, but he makes a vague (and poorly stated) reference to the solar deity theory and then calls anyone who disagrees with him stupid.
      Now, observe . . .even though I’m not challenging any of his points or making any attempt to debate him, he will post a reply here still trying to draw me into a debate. Trust me, he will not be able to resist.

      • archworf

        “He thinks I’m stupid because I disagree with him. WAAAAHH!” Would you like some cheese with that whine? You’re not challenging any of his points because you can’t, so you go all ad hominem on him. What he says has a purpose, to get you to see the error of your ways, to get you to embrace intelligence. I think people are stupid when they believe anything that CAN’T BE PROVEN! I don’t believe that Harry Potter can fly a broom because I read it in a book. Unfortunately, stupid people can’t see how stupid they are because…wait for it… THEY ARE STUPID! Their proof is “some one said it, that’s good enough for me!” Prove it! Since biblical times, science has proven many things. Come to the front, people. Use your brains for something other than keeping your head from imploding. NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE EXISTS. Faith is for sheep, or people with the intelligence of sheep. Prove something, anything, just one little thing from the bible, and I will consider it. Proof doesn’t mean “some one said” or “it is written”. I wouldn’t believe in gravity if things didn’t fall, no matter what Newton or Einstein said. I wouldn’t believe water, a liquid, was made of two invisible gasses unless you could extract the two gasses from it AND combine the two gasses to create it, because that would be stupid. I wouldn’t believe a bee sting could kill a human if medical science hadn’t proven it. This is a little thing known as reality. It’s not about a simple disagreement, it’s about proven fact against unprovable fantasy. It’s about reality versus delusion. It’s about seeing a dead body rot versus magical wings. You confuse cause and effect. You are not stupid because you disagree with me, you disagree with me because you are stupid. Please, give me one piece of real, verifiable EVIDENCE of your fantasies and I might not believe you are deluded, disingenuous, stupid, or insane. To date, no one has even attempted this with me. Constructive enough for you? This has EVERYTHING to due with fact. Things are not true just because you want them to be. Also, more than six months later, NAme has not replied to draw you in, so you are PROVEN to be UNTRUSTWORTHY! Why should anyone (smart) believe anything you say? So what’s your choice, deluded, disingenuous, stupid or batshit insane? And this is far from verbal kung-fu, which I reserve for those with a triple digit IQ. This is just a verbal bitch-slap. Let us see if you have to cajones to respond to this. I could debate a pup like you all day long on my worst day. Organized religion is a poison, and we should not allow our children to be mind (and body) raped by it. You are so smug and sanctimonious, like a bully until his pants are hauled down on the train (google it if you haven’t seen the video). People like you p*ss me off. I don’t believe in magical wish fulfillment because I see no evidence that your head has exploded. Have a nice day.

    • Sedge

      Mention of religion prompts out of context rant from atheist: News at 11.

      • archworf

        Religious idiot tries to he funny. Fails complety.

    • ricej1969

      Aren’t the atheists the ones who preach intolerance? Isn’t if funny then that the hatred and name calling on these comments are coming solely from the atheists (nonreligious). Yes, I did say “preach” because everyone has a religion. For the atheists and the not religious, it is “self”. I guess the religious nuts are not the only hypocrites.

      • Flonkbob

        I have no religion. Atheism is not a religion. We don’t even need a theological discussion on this, just a dictionary.

        I don’t have a set of beliefs, I just reject one that you consider central. And as long as it remains in the realm of ‘belief’ instead of ‘fact’ (i.e., as long as there is no proof) I will continue to reject it.

        • ricej1969

          Okay, lets use the dictionary then.

          atheism 2 a:a disbelief in the existence of diety b: the doctrine that there is no deity.

          doctrine 2 a: something that is taught b: a principle or position or the body of principles in a bruanch of knowledge or system of belief: DOGMA

          religion 4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to whigh ardor and faith.

          faith (2) complete trust.

          So, atheism is the doctrine that there is no deity. Since a doctrine is a position in a branch of knowledge or system of belief (atheism) then you have religion You believe in a religion because you have a system of beliefs held to with ardor(loyalty) and faith. You have faith (trust) in your system of belief (religion).

          • Philip Hades

            Atheism based in a rigorous logical/scientific base is not religious.

            Faith is “belief that is not based on proof”. Most atheists require proof to have belief in something. There for atheists lack faith.

            Religion on the other had requires faith; that is “belief without proof”. Belief also means to support without evidence.

            Its interesting that much of the language traditionally used to describe religious points of views fundamentally means “there is no evidence but I’m going along with it anyway.”

          • ToneRowes

            So if Atheists require proof to believe something, then doesn’t that mean that if something is not disproved but not proved either, they “believe without proof” that it’s not true? Paradox!

        • Philip Hades

          Debating the unprovable is philosophy not science. While it may be an interesting intellectual exercise, it has no bearing on the real world.

          • ToneRowes

            See the computer/phone you wrote that comment in? How do you know it exists? You can see it, feel it, hear it, and in rare and strange circumstances taste and smell it. Your senses could be tricking you, couldn’t they? You haven’t had a history of psychological disorders, but it’s possible that you could be hallucinating or dreaming. You ask somebody else if it exists. They say yes. You ask them why. They say because they can see it, feel it, hear it, and in rare strange circumstances taste and smell it. So can you, therefore you are no more sure of their sanity than you are of your own. You ask several people. The general consensus is that it exists. They could be lying. They could be hallucinating or just confirming what exists in your dream. It is probable but not provable. It is not beyond doubt. Nothing, for that matter, is completely provable by logic and science (so the unprovable has no bearing on the unprovable world?). In fact, the two entities describe more what is probable than what is provable. So in fact how could the planets move without a mover? How could the Earth be in the exact place with the exact specifications it needs to be to sustain life? How could the sun be so tame compared to other stars of the same size? And that being the star of the only planet we know that can sustain life? How can humans think abstractly, as we are now? How can one number equal itself? How can we see, feel, hear, taste, and smell? How can the things that are be? How can the universe be? How can there be something as opposed to nothing? And last, how can all of these questions be answered by one “philosophy” that was “born” before any of them could be asked? Yes, it seems the existence of God is highly probable in logical standards. It may be unprovable, but, hey, what isn’t?

      • archworf

        No, but in my experience they are the vast majority of hypocrites. I am an atheist and preach nothing. Am I intolerant? Should stupidity be tolerated? Are you going to tolerate the idiot who wants to step out of the plane at 40,000 feet? You are bringing EVERYONE down with your lunacy. No, I will not sit idly by and watch the dumbing down of humanity. Name calling? If the shoe fits, wear it. If tolerance f*cks it up for everyone, I’m gonna be intolerant. For lack of a better metaphor, I practice what I preach. I don’t tout the 10 commandments in public and break them after church. To tolerate your house being pulled down around you is madness. Let me tell you about self. I will not park in the fire lane because THERE MIGHT BE A FIRE AND OTHER PEOPLE COULD DIE. I see godfreaks do it everyday so their selves don’t have to walk 20 goddamn feet more. WWJD? Lie, cheat, steal if he thought he wouldn’t get caught? Doubt it. Church services have so many hypocrites (YOUR name calling) you can’t swing a cat without hitting 20. To be an atheist starts with honesty-to oneself. Am I going to pretend I believe these absurdities just to get along? Am I going to sin and sin and sin because all will be forgiven, or will I live the most honest life I can because this life is all there is? Am I ONLY moral because I might go to hell, or because it is the right way to live one’s life?

  • Jesus will never be outdated, though.

  • FYI.Guy

    Jude 1:14-15 validate the Book of Enoch, as does the Ethiopic Bible.

  • Alicia

    Re: Item 10… So those “gnostic” gospels are considered erroneous by the church, but the 4 in the bible are verified? To my recollection, they’re just as genuine (or ungenuine) as the ones you purport to be falsified. All the gospels were written after the death of Jesus and were translated from oral traditions. Several hundred years after Jesus died a bishop collected all the gospels and selected the four gospels that would be easily understood by the people and those are the ones that we see in today’s bible. The rest were denounced as heresy. There are two sides to every story…and I think the writer of this list heard the Christian side, not the historical side.

    • Jack Collins

      “To my recollection, they’re just as genuine (or ungenuine) as the ones you purport to be falsified.”

      Weeeeell, none of the extant non-canonical gospels were written anywhere nearly as early as the Synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke). While the canonical gospels unquestionably contain lots of biased content, they are in fact probably more reliable than the material that didn’t make it into the canon. The only real exception would be the (Sayings) Gospel of Thomas (not the one mentioned in the article), which may contain some authentic sayings of Jesus underneath the “gnostic” additions.

  • Anonymous

    Actually, Mary was Italian, on top of that, Jesus was born of a virgin, so he’s more than likely white considering all representation of him is white.

  • Atehist

    ——————————————
    I guarantee that no Christian can answer this question.

    How did Noah manage to find and transport seven pairs of the birds and the clean animals, and one pair of the unclean animals onto one arc where they managed to survive for months?

    PLEASE answer this question
    —————————————————–

    • ricej1969

      Easy question. God did it. Noah didn’t run around and gathered up every animal. God brought the animals to him. God also provided a way for them to survive without the carnivours eatting all of the other animals. Maybe he slowed down everybody’s metabalism or made it so that they didn’t have to eat.

      • Atehist

        You didn’t mention how millions of animal species can fit in one arc. And before you say it was a big arc… just think about how much space you would need for seven pairs of every bird and “clean” animals, and one pair of every “unclean” animal.

        • ricej1969

          I don’t know. My guess would be that their were less species then their are now. Since then more have been adapted, evolved or created by God. So maybe there were two “dogs” and from them became all of the other dogs, wolfs, coyotees came from them. I would assume that the arc also had no fish. The purpose was to destroy mankind, not the animals so most of those survived. That is why scientist have found fish fossils in higher elevations.

          • Atehist

            How dare you say god is responsible for evolution. It seems Christians now days instead of accepting evolution as a explanation for the origin of man, would rather take pieces of it and mix it in with their ridiculous beliefs.

          • ToneRowes

            How the heck is evolution the origin of man? So you say man evolved from a simple lifeform. How did that life form get there? Spontaneous Generation? That was disproved by Louis Pasteur in 1859!

      • Flonkbob

        The reply ‘godidit’ is just a marker for the place where you quit thinking.

        • ricej1969

          Just because someone says God did it doesn’t mean that the person quit thinking. I am still thinking about it and I gave my possible explanation. God brought the animals to Noah and he slowed down everybody’s metabalism or made it so that they didn’t have to eat. Some animals can go for weeks without eating normally. Can you explain every detail about evolution? No, you can’t but you still believe in it. There are many holes in the theory. It is theory but taught as fact.

          • Flonkbob

            Okay, let’s change it to say they stopped thinking logically. Hell, I can make up fairy stories about how impossible things could happen, but as with all religion you’re coming up with silly ideas that fly in the face of rational thought and scientific fact…no one need believe any of it because there is no proof. No proof for your wishful thinking, and none for the existence of gods.

            And for crying out loud, stop misrepresenting what a scientific theory is! If you’re really so stupid as to think it’s just a ‘guess’ as lame as your metabolism magic, well you really need to go back to school.

          • misomalu

            Actually they have proved evolution on several occasions, religious people just won’t stop denying the evidence, because technically evolution is just lots of adaption or a massive adaption over an extended period of time, but the adaptions which happen during evolution can just be considered singular events, which means even though we have witnessed evolution religious people look at the steps taken and not the end result, but in its entirety evolution has been proven and is accepted by the scientific community because it makes sense and proves a viable possibility, also humans are still going through evolutionary stages, many people are starting to be born without molars, because the human mouth has become to small these teeth are useless and by an evolutionary standard we no longer need them therefore the gene for these teeth is being removed from the gene pool, it is also thought that people with some forms of mental handicaps are the most advanced version of humans because some of them have IQ’s exceding 200-300 the average being 100 and anything 140 and above being genius, also why doesn’t the bible mention dinosaurs anywhere?

          • ToneRowes

            Micro-evolution without a doubt has happened. But not Macro-evolution. So, Misomalu, you think that humans have witnessed Macro-evolution? You are wrong. There has been no known first hand account of one organism turning into another. Also, organisms have a certain number of chromosomes. If an organism changes to another the number of chromosomes will change also. We have seen that happen. It’s called a Chromosomal Abnormality. From just one chromosome changing, diseases like Huntington’s Disorder and Down Syndrome are contracted. We haven’t seen it in any other organism and not with any more than one chromosome. Creatures with the same amount of chromosomes can usually interbreed (canines, felines). Anyway, because most animals have a different number of chromosomes, it can be concluded that they did not evolve from the same thing. Also, if the steps taken are faulty so is the whole process.

    • The great flood mentioned in the Bible (the one where Noah built his arc to save humanity) is actually base on the flooding of the Black Sea in 5600 BC, in which thousands of people died. The Black Sea deluge theory is a generally accepted scientific theory that helps to explain this phenomenon.

      • Philip Hades

        The story of Noah is pretty much lifted from Babylonian and Sumerian stories. But you are correct they probably are based on the real flooding of the area.

    • archworf

      Agree with your sentiment, BUT IT’S ARK! WITH A K!! FOR CHRIST’S SAKE THE WORD IS ONLY 3 LETTERS LONG AND NOBODY CAN SPELL IT? GEEZ LOUISE NEXT SOMEONE IS GOING TO CALL ME A LOOSER WHEN THEY MEAN LOSER? THIS IS PROOF THERE IS NO GOD BECAUSE HE WOULDN’T CREATE UTTER MORONS WHO FLUNK 3 LETTER WORDS! ARC! KAT! BURD! CREATED IN HIS IMAGE HE MUST HAVE BEEN A RETARD! IF THERE IS A HELL THE WORLD IS HEADED THERE AT AN ALARMING RATE! AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO ACTUALLY EARNED MY DIPLOMA?

  • CaptainD

    Great list. Very interesting. I don’t see how anyone can take an offense to this.

    • ricej1969

      People get offended over everything these days. I don’t get offended. If you believe differently then I do then so what.

  • Denzell

    Self-flagellation is still being practiced in some areas of the Philippines during Lenten season as a form of penitence. Some people do it as a ‘panata’, or in English, a devotion to God after some sort of miracle happens to the person who whips himself.

    • Philip Hades

      Opus Dei Catholics also perform mortification of the flesh. Though the extent of which varies.

  • V123

    The indulgences led to the creation of Protestant church actually.

  • jackdaniels63

    You just pissed off boat loads of lesbians with #10 I’m sure they will be growing dogs heads and barking at the moon very soon.

  • Jack Collins

    With regards to #10: “Fraudulent” is not a useful category when you are talking about ancient literature. Few of the books in the biblical canon were written by the people traditionally credited with them, and some of them claim make outright false claims of authorship.

    As an example, the Book of Enoch is no more a “fraud” than the Book of Daniel. Both claim to have been written by a revered figure who lived long before their actual authorship. That’s one of the conventions of the genre. It may seem dishonest by modern standards, but that’s how they did things back then (in the same way Plato put his own ideas in the mouth of Socrates).

    Also, the work you describe as the “Gospel of Thomas” is in fact the “INFANCY Gospel of Thomas,” which dates from the mid-second century. The GOSPEL of Thomas may be a good bit earlier, and probably contains some authentic sayings of Jesus (along with a bunch of other stuff).

    Finally, you need to read up on the difference between “Old Testament Apocrypha” (which are accepted by Catholics and Orthodox Christians, and often appear in the back of Protestant Bibles), the “New Testament Apocrypha” like Thomas (which aren’t accepted by any major Christian groups today), and the “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha” like Enoch (some of which are accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church).

    • Sedge

      Thank you for saying what I attempted to, only in a far more eloquent and organized manner.

  • Philip Hades

    You’re a little off in #2. The pope didn’t stop selling indulgences because of a few bad apples. In fact Pope Leo X sold indulgences to pay for St. Peters.

    The sale of indulgences was one of Martin Luther’s big gripes and eventually lead to the churches schism and protestantism. It was another 50 years before before Pius the V ended the sale of salvation.

  • Flonkbob

    @bassbait — I hope I misunderstood you. It looked like you said that I have to use the Bible to convince a believer that there is no god, or I’m doing it wrong? First of all, the one who puts forward an idea is responsible for proof, not the person who doesn’t accept it. You can say there is a god, I say I haven’t seen any evidence. So next YOU show me your evidence. If you have none, I have no reason to listen to you in future.

    Further, to demand that someone use a Bible to prove what they say, when the Bible is utterly useless for the purpose is just stupid. I wouldn’t say “The planet Glunkulave is the original home of humanity” and then try to prove that using Alice In Wonderland as my text. It has nothing to say on the subject. And I don’t believe the bible has any value or validity, so using it as a text from which to prove anything beyond the gullibility of believers is just foolish.

    Please tell me I misunderstood you. I’ll be most happy to apologize for it, believe me!

  • The ambiguous metatron

    What a bizarre piece of spinmongering this is.

    It’s broadly true, but the devil’s in the (missing) details and what is left is painted with strokes so slanted that it can only be really accurate if you view it from the same – standing wrongly – slant, and that is only possible from one tightly fenced position.

    Approach it from outside the original author’s box and the illusion disappears.

    Life’s too short to cast pearls before swine, but meanwhile, have one little seed. Plant it where you will.

    Glibly tossing out excluded gospels as _proved_ fraudulent” ???
    Excluding writings that are made too late?

    And by what divine sleight of hand, other than capricious political whim. did the “true” gospels become recognized as true? And when were these “true” and “accurate” records made?

    Someone really should bone up on their christianity history before presenting their own apologist dogma as “fact.”

    I’m honestly surprised at not finding evolution “proved” incorrect somewhere in the list too.

    After all, ’tis all superstition, hearsay and the leading of the blind by those with closed eyes.

    • Joshua_the_Samurai

      I didn’t include Evolution because evolution is true. Most Protestant higher ups have accepted ecolution as factual, Pope John Paul said it was a viable theory and that it made sense. Charls Darwin was not an atheist, and mentioned God and (the crator) several times in the origin of species. Popular scientist Bill Nye “The science guy” is major proponent of Evolution, and a Methodist, not an atheist. Most chistianst either belive in Evolution or don’t care, but it’s the ones that don’t that shout the loudest, and Atheists love to pretend we’re all like that to win their little arguments.

      • ToneRowes

        Darwin did later renounce his faith. I don’t blame people if they do believe in evolution (that is, macro-evolution). It doesn’t really contradict the existence of God. But because of scientific proof (or disproof) I have chosen not to believe macro-evolution, though there is much proof for micro-evolution.

        • Joshua_the_Samurai

          Darwin did Renounce his faith, but not because of his theories on evolution, and that doesn’t mean he was an Atheist, just against the Catholics.

          • ToneRowes

            “I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally … an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.” —Charles Darwin

            I never said he was an atheist. Also, he was never Catholic. His family was Unitarian, and he studied to become an Anglican Clergyman. So he really never had anything to do with Catholics.

  • misomalu

    I just wish religion was an outdated belief, all stupid religion has done is cause war and pain, why do people even believe? these are just a few things proven to be fake in the bible, there are a-lot more in-fact the dark ages are called the dark ages because even though people found staggering facts against religion the church would have them killed because of their knowledge, even when evidence was show it was still considered heresy, I just don’t get how people can be selective about what they believe, the bible has just as much evidence to it as a children’s santa book, so people please question your fake god and ask yourself how smart you really are before you accept something without evidence

    • Topa

      If you really did your homework, you would know that these things weren’t in the Bible, which was the very reason people expelled these beliefs: because they weren’t in the Bible. So don’t be a jerk about something you don’t know.

      • Philip Hades

        Lets pick some things from the Bible then.
        The bible calls bats birds, approves of slavery, polygamy, beating and selling your children and stoning as punishment. I’m surprised none of those made it into the list of things that “most Christians no longer believe”.

        • Oh, come on, be fair now. The following is also in the Bible:

          “But I tell you, don’t fight back against someone who wants to do harm to you. If they hit you on the right cheek, let them hit the other cheek, too.” – Matthew, 5:39

          The golden rule, which is found in most other major religions, that you should treat others as you would want to be treated.

          Numerous sanitary measures that have no doubt contributed greatly to modern science and medicine (e.g.: circumsision)

          An accurate history of the Ancient World (the flooding of the Black Sea (Noah and the Arc), for example).

          So, yes, while the Bible may have some bad stuff in it, it also has good lessons and provides a guidebook to live your life by.

        • Additionally, it doesn’t do most of those things. Slavery is mentioned, but not approved, and one of the most famous stories in the Bible is about how stoning isn’t actually right. Just because these things went on in the time period of the Bible does not mean the Bible automatically approves them.

          • Philip Hades

            Are you kidding? The Bible was used to justify slavery and segregation at least up to the 1960s. And the bible EXPLICITLY said that stoning should be used to punish people for adultery.

            It’s not, as you say, that these things went on at the time it’s that God commanded them to be done.

            While Jesus may have repudiated bits later you’ll find plenty of people who cite Old Testament verses as their excuse for reprehensible behavior – eye for an eye, anti-homosexual, etc, etc.

          • Just because the Bible has been used in that manner does not mean that was the manner of its intended use. The guy who also responded to you (I can’t see his name from where I’m typing, but I think you know who I am talking about) said it well. For example, a close reading of Philemon (the letter in the New Testament concerned with a slave) shows that the Bible isn’t condoning slavery. It says that slaves should be subservient to their masters in the same way Jesus is subservient to God, and additionally, Paul specifically writes that all men should live in freedom if possible.

            And the biggest issue is that most of the aspects of the Bible that people use to condemn Christianity, namely those about stoning, anti-homosexuality, and unusually strict rules, are found in the Old Testament. While the Old Testament is to be respected and heeded to a point, Christianity is founded on the idea of the New Testament. In fact, the Mosaic Law (which is the law under which you will find many of the Old Testament rulings, is not the law that Christians are to be subjected to. I can find passages for you, but I bet you could look them up yourself. So, the whole argument is moot.

          • Topa

            The Bible was used to justify those things through misinterpretation. It was also used to abolish slavery and segregation. The eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth verse referred to the repaying of someone who does good to you, not the repaying those who harm you. Jesus confronts this in Matthew 5. It does say homosexuality is wrong; however, it does not excuse those who persecute homosexuals. And the stoning was to show that God hated all sin equally. You take things out of context, they seem wrong, but you have to look at the big picture.

    • ricej1969

      What an ignorant and stupid comment misomalu made that “all stupid religion has done is cause war and pain”. Religious people and organizations have done a lot of good. The majority of private universities here in the U.S. were started by christians. They have also started a lot of charities like relief organizations, food closets, homeless shelters, orphanages. etc. I know plenty of Christains who give a lot of time and money to help others. What do you do, misomaly? Should I go ahead and rant about all of the nonreligious people who caused war and pain. Yes, some wars are started for religious reasons and yes there are religious crackpots but it goes the same for the nonreligious.

    • Sedge

      I like how “religion” is has become slang to refer to the Abrahamic faiths, or really just Christianity.

      Because, you know. All those other religions share the same history and beliefs as the important one(s).

      • Philip Hades

        Because the other faiths around the world aren’t as guilty as holding back knowledge and oppressing people through fear and guilt?

        Name just about any religion you want and they’re waiting for someone else to save us instead of telling people to save themselves.

        • M&M

          Is that what you think we do? Wow.

          • Philip Hades

            Abandoning for a second the long historical precedence of religions burning books and scientists for going against holy writ take look around. There’s the push for Creationism in science books, the banning of sex education, and abstinence only eduction.

            When the Pope met Stephen Hawking he said it was OK to look back towards the beginning of the Universe, but no further because that’s the area of God.

            The loudest voices out there for the repression of knowledge and research are religious voices.

          • Topa

            The repression of knowledge and research… kind of like today’s scientists don’t you think? People treat scientists like they don’t have biases or beliefs and that what scientists believe is “knowledge.” Whenever intelligent design is even considered in scholarly circles, those who suggest it are more than just ridiculed: they’re fired from their jobs and they usually can’t get any job thereafter. It seems not many people in the scientific community have the balls to examine creationism with and open mind. They just stay in their little circles and laugh at those who really desire to find the truth and will do anything to obtain it. So it seems, but there’s actually a large amount of scientists, philosophers, professors and the like who have ventured to examine Creationism, and still a large number that believe in it. So it seems the repression of research (wherever knowledge lies) is not on the shoulders of one group of people, but many people who do not want their beliefs questioned. Sure, there are terrible people in any group, but when people start to form stereotypes about them, it becomes discrimination, and that, I can tell you, is wrong. As a Christian, I always try to hold my beliefs in question, and hopefully others do, though I cannot speak for them.

          • Philip Hades

            You said it yourself, Creationist “believe”. Belief and faith are in fundamental opposition to scientific processes and goals.

            Yes scientists do have biases and opinions, they also have testable hypothesis. Just because you remove God/Allah/Yaweh from Creationism doesn’t make Intelligent Design a hard science. Most people call it science have a deeply flawed misunderstanding of the scientific process and logical structure and argument.

          • Topa

            Yes, Intelligent Design is a philosophical concept not a scientific one; even so, it can be examined logically and scientifically. If it couldn’t, there would be no way to prove or disprove it, therefore giving one no reason to disbelieve it other than not ever being able to be sure. Some scientists, though, are too afraid of it being true and they let their beliefs cloud what evidence they show and what they don’t show, what they keep and what they change. Such was the case with Global Warming. They form all their beliefs on those testable hypotheses and theories and if they are proved wrong, they just ignore it. For centuries Spontaneous Generation was considered a “scientific law.” That is, until Louis Pasteur performed his experiment and disproved it. Even today, many scientists still subscribe to it without evidence. If belief and faith are in direct opposition to Science, how many scientists with beliefs (and they do have them) do you think have been holding back or changing evidence for the sake of their beliefs instead of putting it out for the sake of Science?

  • Topa

    Nice list. Though I might add a lot of these things were only in particular denominations not Christianity as a whole.

    • Philip Hades

      That might have something to do with many sects of Christianity proclaiming others aren’t really Christians. Makes it pretty hard for someone from within to talk about Christianity as a whole.

  • me

    Great list! Truly a pity that Lilith isn’t acknowledged by modern Christianity, offers such a better alternative to the tale- rather than the first woman being created from a rib

  • PDF

    I wonder how different the world would be if Jesus had never been depicted as a caucasian.

  • Avarice

    One day “god” will be on this list.

  • Your comments on the Gnostics are ignorant and wrong. The idea that the “heretical” texts that were purged by the Church Heirachy are somehow “frauds” while the texts approved for the current New testement are somehow more reliable is a joke. Wake up. They’re all tecnically frauds, just about every last book in both the old and new testements.

    As for your comments on “the Occult” Truly laughable. The “occult movement;’ started in the nineteenth century did it? hohohohoho

    this list is gibberish mainly

    • Joshua_the_Samurai

      There are people that Crowley would have included as Occultists going back for centuries, certainly witchcraft of Druidism aren’t new, the movement I’m speaking of are when it became in style for people to have seances and things like that. This occurred around the 19th century

      • Slappy

        You’re thinking of Spiritualism. It got its start in the 1850s with the Fox sisters.

  • Munnin

    i’m sorry but you spelled it wrong it’s ” Aleister Crowley ” not ali…. just thought i would point that out :)

  • MalikTous

    Along with the insertion of political propaganda during editting and translation of the Bible by such ilk as the Nicæan Council, Council of Trent, and King James, these are prime reasons why I’m not Christian, though I do find studying the history and scrapping the perverted propaganda inserts from valid Bible history interesting. The ‘Apocrypha’ were not all fraud; much of them just didn’t agree with the views of some translator or edittor over two millennia. Re-incarnation was part of the original Bible; homophobia was definitely NOT but was added in by perverts like King James. I’ll stick to something less hostile and more adaptable to reality – like the old Norse Asatru – Odin and his offspring.

  • Sepa

    You spelled “Aleister” (not Alistair) wrong, but other than this I really like this list. It’s interesting.

  • Cleric Isaacs

    Are they saying Lilith never existed or? Cause i am of a faith that has her as our spiritual leader, our protector, and for many of us our ancestor. To us she is the goddess of what equates to indulgence, or sin. and is the counterpart and love of the god of balance, the great dragon of fire. not to be confused Lucifer. Just saying.

  • Froggie

    The Gospel of Judas IS NOT the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. If yo had actually read it, you would know that it tells the story of Judas Iscariots last interaction with Christ, but from a NON-PARTICIPATORY role. If it was supposed to be the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, it would detail what Christ had told him. As it is, The Gospel is pretty much the same as Many of the other Gospels, with the exception that Before telling the tale of the Crucifixion, it says that Christ Spoke to each Apostle individually, with Judas Iscariot the last of them. All the Apostles discussed what Christ had told them after word (As it was Individual counsel, not that he was telling secrets), But that Judas Iscariot was with Christ longer than any of the other Apsotles, and that when he rejoined them he was Pale like a ghost, and the others asked him what Christ had told him, and that he simply told them that Christ had “Told him 3 things, and if he shared even one of them, they would Stone him where he stood.” This story is obviously not told from the point of view of Judas Iscariot. The Judas referred to in the title “The Gospel of Judas” is Actually Judas of Nazerath, who was also called Judas the Brother of James, also sometimes called Jude. He is the Brother of James the Just, or James the Lesser. Judas Brother of James, and his Brother are frequently ignored in the so-called “Legitimate Gospels”, With James only being referred to 3 times, every time in relation to his mother “Mary, the Mother of James” and Judas being referred to less than that, only as “Judah the Brother of James or “Jude the Brother of James” (although it is translated from the same name as Judas, it is often changed to distance him from the “Traitor”). Many Christian Scholars believe both Judah and James to be the Brothers of Jesus (the Sons of Mary and Joseph) although many Catholics disregard this as they ridiculously believe that Mary remained a Virgin until death (Under Jewish law at the time, For her to not Lay with her Husband Joseph would be a criminal act.) There is also allusion to James being the Brother of Mathew, as they are both identified as being the son of a man with the name “Alphaeus” which was the Surname of a branch of descendants of David (Jesus was descended from David by both sides of his earthly parents) thus making it the possible Surname of Joseph. This would also make Mathew the tax-collector the Brother of Jesus. (Judah was absent in Mathews gospel, but replaced by a “Thaddeus” which is believed to actually have been a nickname for Judah, thus implying a certain level of familiarity between them, lending weight to the thought that Mathew may have been both Judah and James’ brother.)

    Furthermore, I am not arguing that these documents listen in article #1 are authentic, as I do not believe in Christ at all, but you offer no evidence that they are indeed faked. I have a Jewish friend that comes from a prominent family, and his great-grandfather is in possession of a copy of the Torah that has been carbon dated and proven at least 1000 years old, and these contain the book of Enoch. I have heard of several references to the Book of Enoch on the History Channel and Discovery Channel as well, and there was never any mention of the possibility that it was a forged document.

    I have never heard of the “Gospel of Thomas” however, and that one does sound fake, because I can’t believe “Doubting Thomas” would write of such Fantastic events that he didn’t see with his own eyes (which he couldn’t have as they supposedly happened during Christs Childhood.)

  • ywzkmooefy

    Name

  • Kait

    I’m sorry, but what makes Aleister Crowley a “nasty” occultist. That is another myth being perpetuated. As far as I am concerned his main message was individual freedom.

    Anyhow, good list. Interesting to see how much beliefs change over time even within the same belief system. (you forgot racism)

  • Larry Dean

    I think the Republican Party should be quite high on this list.

  • Peter Van Kanl

    Well, what is written here about the gospel of St Thomas being complete nonsense and with other issues grossly exaggerated, this is one of the worst lists I’ve seen here.
    To anyone interested: the most important aspect of the Thomas text is that it lends credibility to the existence of Q, the lost text on which the gospels of Luke and Matthew are partly based. The reason being that Q must have consisted mainly of quotes, and the Thomas gospel being mainly quotes with virtually NO STORIES about Jesus shows that these kind of texts did exist.

  • marlie

    Every religion’s got crazies. Its up to the smart progressives to get rid of the crazies or make people not care about them, so they don’t ruin people’s lives. It’s like politics, you can’t have an opinion (political stance) without the radicals , even though we know they’re batshit. (coming from a progressive Jew who is interested in learning about christianity)

  • Lilian

    His name is spelled wrong: it’s “Aleister” Crowley.

    And he wasn’t all that bad. He wasn’t particularly good either, but not bad. Just a man with a penchant for churning out bad publicity for laughs.

  • hilah

    There is a difference between the idea of Satanic subliminal messaging, which is what you described, and Satanic Ritual Abuse, which are things like the book “Michelle Remembers” in which a girl claims that her parents tortured and murdered a ton of kids and had a month long sacrifice that invoked Satan himself and the arch-angel Gabrielle. So, you know, not to split hairs, but there is a difference.

    • Flonkbob

      The difference? Neither is real. I guess the difference is the amount of FUD that they bring out of the credulous.

      • ok, I gotta ask…what is FUD?

        • Flonkbob

          Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

          • Thank you! Another handy acronym to put into my quiver…

  • littlebigface

    damn bible, YO SCARY!

  • Nick

    I love the protestant myth about the Bible being kept out of people’s hands. First, they were extremely expensive – but not just the Bible – ALL BOOKS WERE EXPENSIVE – Today at Oxford’s Bodlean Library you can still see the early books chained to the wall. Secondly, people were not educated to read even if the Bible was written in their language. There were so many northern European dialects that German wasn’t even standardized yet. Thirdly, even AFTER the Reformation, people who had access to these printed Bibles, didn’t know what was in them. It didn’t make them any more literate. And the last point is that the Catholic Church was right in keeping every nut case from finding their own translation and meaning in each verse – look at the mess we have today.

    • PhillipHades

      What a perfectly fascist response. First you claim it’s a myth that the bile was kept out of people’s hands by the Catholic’s and then you support the very same idea. And you wonder why free thinkers find the Catholic hierarchy so horribly anachronistic.

  • bs338408

    No mention of the flat Earth the Catholic Church defended and persecuted Galileo over? Not to mention the Biblical references of this notion. I’d say that’s pretty outdated.

  • Namio

    What you are describing in number 10 is NOT the Apocrypha, it is the Pseudepigrapha. The Apocrypha refers to a handful of books from the OLD Testament that were eliminated from the cannon by Martin Luther. The Pseudepigrapha is the collection of non-cannonical books written in the first few centuries after Christ which are confirmed to have been written under false names.

  • fwfwef

    everything is outdated from the bible lol

  • Ronk

    You’re using a very broad definition of “Christian beliefs”. Some of these are practices, not beliefs. And none of these beliefs has ever been held as part of their doctrines by any organised group of Christians of any size.

    Your adjective “canonical” [i.e. “required by law”] under “white Jesus” is particularly ludicrous. No Christian denomination or group has ever claimed it as a necessary belief that Jesus looked like any particular artistic representation or had any particular hair, eye or skin colour.

  • Ian Osborne

    “Later, in the 15th century, the puritans briefly practiced flagellation, as was recorded in Hawthorn’s novel “The Scarlet Letter”.”

    Difficult to believe, since there were no puritans in the 15th Century. In fact, there were no Protestants until the 16th Century.

    As to the White Christ business, a Christian friend told me “If you believe, what does it matter? Aren’t his teachings more important than whether he looked like a guy from the Middle East or Trondheim, Norway?” He added that in some countries he is depicted as ethnically native. If the White European image is wrong, what about those others?

  • Donny92

    “White Jesus” is actually one of the more interesting lies in history. This actually came around near the time of Columbus’ journey. The current pope at the time, Alexander VI, better known as Rodrigo Borgia, had a son named Cesare. If you know anything about the Borgia’s, you’ll already know that they are known as the first crime family. They were so arrogant that they had painters use Cesare as a model for Jesus.

  • matt

    Ahh… good old Gospel of Lillith, God made Vampire in his image, and made man for vampires to eat.

  • Alice Shepler

    Wonderful! Thanks for posting this.

  • phentermine

    You should definitely continue to keep plenty of determination because it is very important. The essential element to see we have found that you have to believe in oneself. So, i thought this was a number of the linked information regarding straightforward options for losing weight. It may undoubtedly supply you with some very nice suggestions and tips. http://www.qeshmcement.com/node/3387 Working out on a regular basis, going on a fast, transforming your to yummy food items etc are Herculean tasks that just a very secure willed particular person can achieve. Hunger suppressors, supplements, health capsules and so on are great only provided you can stick to a weight loss program. In addition, various quick weight loss items bought in the market can substantially injury one’s body and mental alertness. To put it briefly, everlasting pounds shaping is challenging for the majority of us.

  • Reverend Fred Phelps

    Christians deserve to be mocked for their primitive beliefs. Mary wasn’t a virgin. Jesus was either insane or a street performer. God is a destructive sadistic puppetmaster, whose imperfections reflect in his creation of humanity. He hates everything. He is Satan. Earth is Hell. People go to the ground when they die, to serve as an earthworm’s breakfast for eternity. Our lives are but brief escapes from the universal normalcy of decay and death. Christians are scared, delusional, self-righteous, primitive, stupid, gullible, mass murdering scumbags who should all be killed for the progress of civilization.

  • Dalek6450

    All religion is outdated.