Why Jews Reject Christ?

[SkepticOfBible]

Whenever I ask christians this question, they always come with the standard answer?

 

"Oh they were waiting for a military king not a spiritual one?"

 

Boy, what a farce that was. The OT testament clearly contradicts them. The jewish people were waiting for a military leader messiah because that is exactly what the OT told them about. There isn't anything in the OT which says that the messiah would be a spiritual one only and not a military one. The messiah king .would definately lead them to a full compliance of the law. Christianity has failed to do and has infact adopted heathen rituals which is forbidden by the OT.

 

Messiah Wanted

 

And more than half of the prohecy which christians try to put forward to prove that Jesus was the messiah aren't even prophecies at all. These christians also include the NT writers

 

Another major thing which is big reason is because NT teaches a lot of things which are not part of the OT. This is shouldn't be surprising to christians at all, since most christians would reject the book of mormon becuase they teach something that is contrary to NT.

 

Some of the things are

 

God as Trinity

Try as much as chritians can, nowhere in the OT is god mentioned as a trinity, nor as person comprising of three beings. Nor does it say anywhere that he will come down on the earth as human incarnation.

 

Even then no one has yet been to explain how the borg like Trinity God actually operate. Nor can one explain as to how a created being be eternal, since they were created at some point.(Heb 1:5). And yet at other point it gives a impression that the son part of the trinity was eternal.

 

Also what many Christians fail to realize is that in the Jewish view of the Messiah, when he comes, the Jews are NOT going to pray to him.

 

Baptism

This ritual is non existant in OT. However concept of baptism in water is a common thing amongst Pagan and other world religion. It is surprising since Jesus is supposed to be he god of the OT, he would actually participate in a ritual that belongs to heathens. This is the very central spot where God is supposed to have said "This is my son, aka myself", and yet god tells in the OT specifically tell the jews not to pickup rituals from other heathen nation.

 

Paul and other christians condemn circumcision so much and say how it is so ritualistic, on the other hand christians would put so much emphasis on Baptism (whether symbolic or under the water), that it seems it is just as important as circumcision was to the Jews.

 

Devil

The great bogeyman of the NT. Unfortunelately this character is nowhere mentioned in the OT. At the most Satan is mentioned, but he seems to be a tool of god rather than a rebel angel. And time and time christians will quote isiah(forgot the verse number) as some proof of Lucifer, but again they forgot to see the context of the verse, which clearly states lucifer as the king of Babylon.

 

Human Sacrifices as Atonement

Apprantly chrisitians (and other NT authors) forget that humans aren't even on the list of valid sin sacrifices. Plus they were various other requirement that would be acceptable as valid sin sacrifice. Jesus did not qualify for anythese.

 

Blood Sacrifice

 

Offcourse christians would claim that "without shedding of blood is no remission" This is such a false statement since in OT atonement can be achieved by various other methods too.

 

Methods of Atonement in the OT

 

Incarnation

It is surprising that christians try to to debunk to buddhist and hindus is that there is no reincarnation. But if that is so, then why do christians say that John the Baptist was Elijah incarnated? Incarnation is never a part of Judaism.

 

Word of God

Christians always say that bible is the word of god. But since christian can't even agree what goes in the OT and in the NT, it is very difficult for skeptics(jews included) to figure out what set of books Jesus wanted his followers to follow. Throughout history the canon has been either decided arbitarly or either in a council of vote.

 

NT Canon

 

That just shows how the third person of the trinity, namely the holy spirit, fails to inspire even its most ardent followers as to which book one should follow. Throughout history the various groups have claimed authorityship over the interpretation of the bible, even to the extent of going at war with each other. This sorts of power struggle is pretty evident in the protestant world since each denominations thinks that hold the ultimate key to salvation, and any other interpretation apart from theirs is heresy.

 

 

It wouldn't be surprising at all for the Jews to reject chritiainity, however there was one group of people that would have readily accepted christianity, and that were Romans and Greek society. These people had all these elements in their religion which would have made the process of conversion easier.

[pandora]

That was a really good article (minus the minor English mistakes... sorry, that annoys me). Thanks for posting it. Very informative!

[SkepticOfBible]

That was a really good article (minus the minor English mistakes... sorry, that annoys me).  Thanks for posting it.    Very informative!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry about the bad english. I kind of wrote it in a hurry.

[MQTA]

It's funny how they put down the Law, but if you follow any Church, they have a whole list of Things to Do, daily, weekly, annually, in order to remain a member in good standing.

 

Oh, we don't have to follow the Law any more.. we just have to DO all these things

[Checkmate]

...................

And time and time christians will quote isiah(forgot the verse number) as some proof of Lucifer, but again they forgot to see the context of the verse, which clearly states lucifer as the king of Babylon.

....................

Not to worry, I've got you covered. Isaiah 14 --

9 "Hell from beneath is excited about you, To meet you at your coming; It stirs up the dead for you, All the chief ones of the earth; It has raised up from their thrones All the kings of the nations.

10 They all shall speak and say to you: 'Have you also become as weak as we? Have you become like us?

11 Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, And the sound of your stringed instruments; The maggot is spread under you, And worms cover you.'

12 "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!

13 For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.'

15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit.

16 "Those who see you will gaze at you, And consider you, saying: 'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, Who shook kingdoms,

BTW, great post!

[Mythra]

Funny how the jesusites harp on about "taking the verses in context" - until it fits their needs not to.

 

Take Isaiah 53. The famed "prophecy" of Jesus. When taken in context, it's easy to see that the "he" that is being referred to is not the Messiah. Looking at Isaiah 52 - and all the way back to Isaiah 42 - , the "he" is ISRAEL. God's chosen frozen.

 

So, not only do christians take the verses out of context, they mistranslate certain words in order to make it a better fit.

 

Such as "he was bruised for our iniquities" not a correct translation. Should be "he was bruised FROM our iniquities".

 

And again, the HE in these verses is Israel itself, not Jesus the Messiah.

[SkepticOfBible]

I also had an afterthought about what other things the NT introduced

 

The Virgin Birth As A Failure of Gods Law

 

From the website

 

The Genealogies Of Jesus: A Study Of Bad Christian Apologia

 

But the adoption ploy fails almost as badly as the Mary ploy. Although it is assumed that Joseph adopted Jesus, there is no actual scripture that says anything about a formal adoption and if Joseph had announced that Jesus wasn't his actual son, it seems reasonable that people would have asked him whose son Jesus really was. Since Jesus was the product of an out of wedlock impregnation, God's laws were violated.

 

According to scripture, Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph and was impregnated by a source other than her husband or betrothed.

 

Matt 1:18-19

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

 

If Joseph did not want to expose Mary to public disgrace, would he have ever announced that he adopted Jesus? There is nothing to support the claim that Joseph ever "adopted" Jesus in any legal sense. There also isn't any wiggle room in God's law on this issue of a woman being impregnated by a source other than her husband or husband-to-be:

 

Deut 22:22-24

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

 

Now, Christians will claim that since Mary was impregnated by God and not an ordinary man this impregnation is not a violation of the law but is excused under the divine right of God to do as he pleases.

Unfortunately this claim is hollow. Are we to believe that a holy, righteous God would give out laws that he will ignore and transgress himself? Would a holy and righteous God involve a human woman in the transgression of the very law he commanded his people to follow at all times?

Does this holy, righteous God practice situational ethics where rules are bent and violated at his whim?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then this deity does not occupy the moral high ground his followers constantly claim that he occupies.

 

In a very real sense, Jesus was a bastard. Jesus was the product of an illegitimate relationship. According to God, bastards and their offspring are not allowed into the congregation of the Lord.

 

Deut 23:2

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

 

Of course, Christians will claim that Jesus wasn't a bastard because Joseph and Mary were eventually married but what real difference does that make? Jesus was the product of an impregnation that was not in keeping with God's laws to humanity. Perhaps God can exempt himself from his own standards and laws but Mary was human and was supposed to be subject to the same statutes as any other human.

God repeatedly claimed he would severely punish anyone who violated his rules.

 

Lev 26:14-18

But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments;

And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:

I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.

And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you.

And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.

 

Are we to believe that God would violate his own laws and involve a human named Mary into this transgression? The NT writer of the Gospel of Matthew would have us believe that God had no problem looking the other way at violations of the law after he made it clear how important following the law was.

 

It should be noted again that the virgin birth is only found in Matthew and Luke. Paul makes no such claims nor does he seem to be aware of this at all. In fact, Paul claims Jesus was the product of a perfectly legal conception and birth.

 

Gal 4:4

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

 

There is no evidence that Paul was aware of a God/human mating or a virgin birth that the later author of Matthew claimed was the origin of Jesus. As previously shown, Paul thought that Jesus was descended from David "according to the flesh."

Gods who impregnate women are found throughout pagan belief systems and Christians would do well to consider this when they assert that Jesus was the product of such a relationship.

 

Demonology

One of the so called "Miracles" that Jesus did was casting out demons. Yet again the concept of body being possed by "demons" and the process of "exorcism" is non existance in the OT. However these things were again quite common and popular amongst the Roman and Greek societies.

[Mythra]

Devil

The great bogeyman of the NT. Unfortunelately this character is nowhere mentioned in the OT. At the most Satan is mentioned, but he seems to be a tool of god rather than a rebel angel. And time and time christians will quote isiah(forgot the verse number) as some proof of Lucifer, but again they forgot to see the context of the verse, which clearly states lucifer as the king of Babylon.

92919[/snapback]

 

You're probably talking about Isaiah 14. And, you're right. If you read the whole thing, you would never come away from it knowing that Isaiah was talking about Satan. Another christian doctrine that has to be taught in sunday school. Take a look:

 

Starting at Isaiah 14:11: (this is listed as Israel's taunt to the King of Babylon - like you said)

 

All your pomp has been brought down to the grave, along with the noise of your harps; maggots are spread out beneath you, and worms cover you. Satan sounds like a dead dude in the ground.

 

How you have fallen from heaven, o morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! When did Satan lay low the nations?

 

You said in your heart 'I will ascend to heaven; ascend to heaven? I thought he descended from heaven? I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthoned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High. But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: "Is this the man Satan - a man? who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities, what cities did Satan overthrow? and would not let its captives go home?"

All the kings of the nations lie in state, each in his own tomb. But you are cast out of your tomb, like a rejected branch

 

How do they get Satan out of all that? (and there are very few other passages in the old testament that christians point to regarding the old wiley devil)

[Mike D]

Good post.

 

Aside from all that, I am always suprised that Christians don't just see the blatant, obvious inconsistency in the fact that the god of the OT and the god of the NT (Jesus) are so different that there should be no mistake that these two beings (gods) have almost nothing in common with each other. One is a jealous wrathful warlord, the other is your kindly forgiving best friend. It just makes no sense

[Vixentrox]

You forget one important thing...most Christians don't have a fucking clue what is in thier holy book.

[Mythra]

Good post.

 

Aside from all that, I am always suprised that Christians don't just see the blatant, obvious inconsistency in the fact that the god of the OT and the god of the NT (Jesus) are so different that there should be no mistake that these two beings (gods) have almost nothing in common with each other.  One is a jealous wrathful warlord, the other is your kindly forgiving best friend.  It just makes no sense 

99169[/snapback]

 

Many of the early christians didn't believe they were the same God. I think they were probably more level headed than the Roman Church, which obliterated their teachings and brought us the "true doctrine".

 

And here we are, 2,000 years later, saying.. DAMN. These don't even seem like the same Gods.

[MQTA]

Your kind loving forgiving best friend who threatens to put you in eternal torture, if you don't believe in him?  I'd rather the OT god be real, at least then I'm for sure that I'd be completely annihilated.  Might be painful but it'd only be temporary.

 

I'm sorry Mike, I don't mean to be disrespectful...but exchristians and unbelievers speaking about Jesus like he was such a nice guy (whether he existed or not) is a major pet peeve.  Afterall, the gospels and Revelation have him as the one teaching eternal torture for unbelievers and sinners.

99234[/snapback]

 

So the authors of Matthew, Luke, John, Revelation and many others who wrote "Jesus said" were acting like ventriloquists on paper, meaning Jesus was the Dummy?

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

Your kind loving forgiving best friend who threatens to put you in eternal torture, if you don't believe in him?  I'd rather the OT god be real, at least then I'm for sure that I'd be completely annihilated.  Might be painful but it'd only be temporary.

 

I'm sorry Mike, I don't mean to be disrespectful...but exchristians and unbelievers speaking about Jesus like he was such a nice guy (whether he existed or not) is a major pet peeve.  Afterall, the gospels and Revelation have him as the one teaching eternal torture for unbelievers and sinners.

99234[/snapback]

 

 

Perhaps this is another reason why the Jews never accepted christianity?

The concept of a god roasting anyone's soul for all eternity might have

sounded a bit too sadistic, even for believers in the vengeful Old Testament

god.

[Guest Abram]

Remember, we Christians interpret the OT prophecies differently from Rabbinic Judaism. Christianity began to develop ca. 30 A.D. (if you believe our gospels), whereas the sacrificial religious system of the old Israelites was not destroyed until ca. 70 A.D. Modern, or Rabbinic Judaism took several more centuries to develop. So in a sense, Christianity is older than modern Judaism, and arguably that means our OT interpretations are every bit as valid as modern Jewish ones.

[Guest Guest]

That is your opinion, not a fact.  Besides, one does not need to be a Christian or a Jew to see that the Christian interpertation is wrong.

99391[/snapback]

 

I said "arguably" Serenity, which means I'm not trying to identify my thoughts as fact. This is all very much subjective, so we all have our interpretations and opinions. I don't see any reason we can't share them all together do you?

[crazy-tiger]

Remember, we Christians interpret the OT prophecies differently from Rabbinic Judaism.  Christianity began to develop ca. 30 A.D. (if you believe our gospels), whereas the sacrificial religious system of the old Israelites was not destroyed until ca. 70 A.D.  Modern, or Rabbinic Judaism took several more centuries to develop.  So in a sense, Christianity is older than modern Judaism, and arguably that means our OT interpretations are every bit as valid as modern Jewish ones.

99385[/snapback]

Unfortunately, modern Christianity is one hell of a lot younger and a hell of a lot different than the original form of Christianity.

 

So, in a sense, Modern Christianity is nowhere near as old as Modern Judaism, and cast grave doubt on the validity of your OT interpretations...

 

 

 

If you want to show that you're two-faced, just keep on applying standards to the opposition that you do not apply to your own... or in other words, keep doing what you're doing.

[Guest Abram]

Unfortunately, modern Christianity is one hell of a lot younger and a hell of a lot different than the original form of Christianity.

 

Absolutely, and our manuscript traditions are different as well. I guess the real problem is, how do we reconstruct the original form of Christianity, especially since it does not seem to be recorded anywhere. Frankly, I don't find the Pauline epistles very inspiring.

 

So, in a sense, Modern Christianity is nowhere near as old as Modern Judaism, and cast grave doubt on the validity of your OT interpretations...

 

Interesting thought, but not one that I subscribe to. All religions undergo change over time, even Rabbinic Judaism.

 

If you want to show that you're two-faced, just keep on applying standards to the opposition that you do not apply to your own... or in other words, keep doing what you're doing.

 

Have I offended you somehow crazytiger? If you would like me to leave, please just say the word and it will be done. I do not wish to stir up trouble, or make anyone upset. Again, I came to discuss with a fresh set of hearts and minds.

[crazy-tiger]

Absolutely, and our manuscript traditions are different as well.  I guess the real problem is, how do we reconstruct the original form of Christianity, especially since it does not seem to be recorded anywhere.  Frankly, I don't find the Pauline epistles very inspiring.

You know... you're a riot.

 

From what you've said, you've got a Masters, you're a Christian, and you seem to have a real problem with your beliefs... Oh, and you're a hypocrite.

Interesting thought, but not one that I subscribe to.  All religions undergo change over time, even Rabbinic Judaism.

Claiming that old Christianity is as old, if not older, than Modern Judaism and claiming that this means the old Christian interpretations are as valid now means nothing...

Have I offended you somehow crazytiger?  If you would like me to leave, please just say the word and it will be done.  I do not wish to stir up trouble, or make anyone upset.  Again, I came to discuss with a fresh set of hearts and minds.

99438[/snapback]

Pal... you're being hypocritical, two-faced and insincere... when confronted with your hypocrasy, you suddenly do an about-face and claim you have a position that is the opposite on the position you claimed just hours before.

 

Yes, you offend me... you offend me by doing what you are doing and expecting us not to notice.

[Guest Abram]

Per your repeated requests, I am leaving. My apologies for offending you crazytiger, it was not my intention to do so.

[Mythra]

Damn. If only we would have kissed his feet.

[crazy-tiger]

Damn.  If only we would have kissed his feet.  

99460[/snapback]

I wonder if he'll ever be able to reconcile his beliefs in Christianity with the belief that Jesus isn't the Messiah?

 

He'd have got a better reception from me if he hadn't turned up with opinions, then hand-waved away any replies with added red herrings and insinuations that we're stupid to fall for things he doesn't agree with.

 

 

 

Normal practice for the visiting Christian... (certain well respected ones excluded, of course)

[Guest Abram]

I wonder if he'll ever be able to reconcile his beliefs in Christianity with the belief that Jesus isn't the Messiah?

 

He'd have got a better reception from me if he hadn't turned up with opinions, then hand-waved away any replies with added red herrings and insinuations that we're stupid to fall for things he doesn't agree with.

Normal practice for the visiting Christian... (certain well respected ones excluded, of course)

99462[/snapback]

 

You're not stupid, you're just a tad gullible for believing any old goop you dig up on the Internet. If you do ever end up looking into that Mithra thing, as in digging into the scholarly journals and publications, you will find that I am correct. However, I have a feeling that's not going to happen.

[SkepticOfBible]

Interesting thought, but not one that I subscribe to.  All religions undergo change over time, even Rabbinic Judaism. 

99438[/snapback]

 

So pretty God's eternal and perfect moral absolutes don't really remain eternal do they?

 

Christians will arbitarly pick and choose what laws they like, and then say "God agrees with them". Then they would impose their theological speculation on others.

[MQTA]

Remember, we Christians interpret the OT prophecies differently from Rabbinic Judaism.  Christianity began to develop ca. 30 A.D. (if you believe our gospels), whereas the sacrificial religious system of the old Israelites was not destroyed until ca. 70 A.D.  Modern, or Rabbinic Judaism took several more centuries to develop.  So in a sense, Christianity is older than modern Judaism, and arguably that means our OT interpretations are every bit as valid as modern Jewish ones.

99385[/snapback]

 

The NT Gospels was created by using the Greek OT version of the Hebrew OT, "If Jesus was the Messiah, how would he be?"

 

The Jesus you know and love was Constructed from the OT verses quote-mined out of context and reformed to say what they want.

 

The anon author of Mark makes Jesus to be a man, the authors of Matthew & Luke made him to be God, and John, well, did they have LSD back then?

[MQTA]

You're not stupid, you're just a tad gullible for believing any old goop you dig up on the Internet.  If you do ever end up looking into that Mithra thing, as in digging into the scholarly journals and publications, you will find that I am correct.  However, I have a feeling that's not going to happen.

99486[/snapback]

 

Gullible? hahahaha

 

Ignorance is not just something you have NOT learned. Often ignorance is something you have spent many hours, days, weeks, months and years learning. Ignorance is often something you have spent many hundreds and even thousands of dollars learning. There are even Doctor degrees (PhD’s) issued for years of learning how to be ignorant. What am I talking about? Ignorance is the ability to discard the KNOWN and PROVEN facts of life and science in order to study, learn and perpetuate the untrue, the unknown and the unbelievable. Now that IS ignorance!

 

This type of ignorance is the REJECTION of proven facts and truth. Ignorance is believing the unbelievable. Ignorance is allowing superstition to guide our lives and goals. Ignorance is sustained by misguided belief, protected by lies, reinforced by infallible authorities and propagated by self appointed know-it-all authorities.

 

The mind (intelligence) is the most marvelous development in the universe. The mind exceeds in value the stars from which comes the material of which mankind and his mind are made. An infant is born with a deep and curious quest to learn everything. What? Why? How? When? The infant mind is a sponge to absorb knowledge. It is a most powerful indexer of knowledge and the eyes of the infant see everything as new. The infant mind is a most precious addition to the truth seeking of mankind.

 

Then something happens! That infant mind, which knows nothing about falsehood, about lies and about man's insanity, is told falsehoods by those in whom the infant has trust. Knowing nothing about lies, the infant accepts the falsehood as being true. From that moment on, the infant is at a loss to separate fact from fiction. He is told about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Boogy Bear, the Gods and so on. That infant mind is bombarded by religious tales, and prayer, false hopes and false superiority. These things become as real to the infant mind as is the car he is driven around in by mama and daddy.

 

That questing infant mind is now bombarded by facts AND fictions. The infant has no way to separate the two. The adults, in whom the infant puts his trust, fail to equip the infant mind with the greatest aid needed to separate fact from fiction. The adults have failed to tell the infant questing mind that some things he is told are true, and some things are untrue. They have failed to tell the infant mind that he must honestly doubt the claims and statements made by anyone until he has studied the proposition and found them to be true or false. They have failed to equip the infant mind with the greatest aid available in determining the TRUTH. That is, the adults have failed to teach the infant mind about Honest Doubt, Research and Honest Clear Thinking in order to evaluate all claims or statements.

 

They have failed to instruct the infant mind to ALWAYS examine BOTH sides of any claim or statement. They failed to teach the infant mind the value of asking, "WHY?"

 

In sixty or less years that same questing infant mind has become hard as granite and as impervious to facts, logic and new useful knowledge as is a piece of steel. In other words, that questing infant mind has been nailed shut and crippled and in some, it is destroyed. It is now capable of doing only routine work. It is no longer capable of honest, questing thought. It is no longer capable of honestly evaluating a statement or claim and determining the truth of the matter. It is no longer capable of seeing the NEW in everything. It is no longer capable of examining both sides of any political, religious or economic issue or matter. It is no longer capable of identifying a lie or a falsehood.

 

Instead of adding to his knowledge daily, that granite mind now seeks to build barriers to protect the BELIEFS, (ignorance) which he has substituted for knowledge and truth. In place of a wise and open mind, that granite mind now filters all incoming information through the BELIEF FILTER - FIRST. No matter how true that new information and knowledge is, and no matter how well proven that knowledge is, the granite mind rejects it because it does not conform to the beliefs and the authorities that he now accepts as true. Belief (ignorance) now becomes the yardstick and barrier, which binds and stagnates the mind.

 

Belief destroys the ability to recognize facts, TO SEPARATE FACT FROM FICTION and worst of all, steals the happiness and joy, which comes with a questing mind.

 

 

The internet is now a valuable resource, many have done their homework and their blowing apart the stupidstitions of the last 1680 or so years.

 

http://www.jovialatheist.com/think.html