As we have already discussed, Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was a Jewish preacher who lived from ca. 7–2 BCE to ca. 30–33 CE in what was then Roman Israel. He preached the imminent establishment of God’s kingdom and promised inclusion for the poor, the weak, and the sinners. He also emphasized devotion to God, observance of the law, and purity of intention1. According to the Biblical account[Bible: Matthew 26:57–67], Jesus’ claim of being the Messiah and the son of God angered the Jewish priests of Israel and they asked the Roman governor Pontius Pilate to execute Jesus for blasphemy and treason. Pilate complied, and Jesus was crucified. After his death, many of Jesus’ followers believed that he was resurrected by God and then lived on Earth for several days before ascending to Heaven1. After his death, Jesus became known as Jesus Christ, from the Greek word Χριστός (Christos, literally: anointed), and this title became the name of the new faith — Christianity. Jesus' ideas were then picked up by Paul the Apostle (later known as Saint Paul), who consolidated them in numerous writings.
Christianity gradually split from Judaism in the 1st century CE. In 135 CE, Jews revolted against the occupying force of Rome. When that revolt failed, Christian leaders were anxious to convince Rome that Christians were patriotic citizens who obeyed the Roman law, and Christianity thus affirmed itself as a distinct faith2. In the centuries that followed, Christianity spread to all provinces of the Roman Empire and all social classes, and by the 2nd century CE, Christians could be found from Britain (and mainland Europe) to Africa and areas of Asia 2.
But during the first centuries after Jesus' death, Christians were persecuted as atheists by the Romans because they refused to venerate the Roman Emperors as gods2. However, in 312 CE, the Roman emperor Constantin the Great had a dream that he would win the battle for Rome if he fought in the name of Christianity3. He won the battle and converted to Christianity. In this way, Christianity became an accepted religion in the Empire, and even became its official religion in 380 CE. Christianity further continued to spread both inside and outside the Empire — mainly by missionary activity and by conversions of local rulers. By the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE, Southern Europe and the Middle East were essentially Christian.
By that time, Christianity had become institutionalized, with elected clergy and bishops. When the Western Roman Empire disintegrated, Bishop Leo I of Rome (400-461 CE) took on secular responsibilities and created the institution of the Papacy to serve as the head of the Western Christian Church2.
During the Middle Ages, the Church rose to power to become the dominant influence on Western European civilization. It consolidated its power gradually, and, s tarting from the 11th century CE, persecuted those in its way as heretics. Papally appointed “inquisitors” incriminated and punished heretics, with support from the secular authorities4. And when European powers started colonizing large parts of the world from the 15th century on, they brought both Christianity and the Inquisition with them5. This made Christianity the most widespread religion in the world, a title that it holds to this day.
What did the Romans do when Jesus came back to life?
The tenets of Christianity
The holy scripture of Christianity is the Bible. It consists of the Torah (called the Old Testament), which Christianity inherited from Judaism) and a new scripture called the New Testament. The New Testament contains, among other books, the Gospels (books that talk about the life of Jesus) and the letters by Saint Paul. (All non-numeric references in this chapter refer to chapters of the Bible, in the New International Version.)
As a religion, Christianity is technically a collection of belief statements, some of which are supernatural statements (i.e., unfalsifiable statements). These beliefs include:
There is exactly one god, called God.
Jesus is the son of God and a human mother, Mary.
Jesus was crucified, but he was resurrected from the dead.
The Bible was written by men but was inspired by God.
Many Christian denominations also include belief in what is known as the trinity: the idea that God is a godhead of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit.
Beyond these tenets, Christianity contains a number of other beliefs that were not present in early Judaism, and that make Christianity particularly suited to keeping people in the faith (and even to spreading to other people). First, as we have already discussed, Christianity introduced a very clear concept of Heaven and Hell that was not present in early Judaism. The appropriation of the time after a death was a novel idea that acted as a powerful incentive for people to follow the faith. Second, Christianity introduced the concept of the Original Sin, of which all humans are guilty and from which only Jesus can save them. This was an innovative way to create an emotional bond between adherents and Jesus. Third, Christianity proposed the idea of a benevolent God (as opposed to the capricious god of Judaism). This idea of an ever-present, loving father-figure manifestly struck a chord with the adherents. To explain the evil in this world (which could now no longer be explained by a benevolent god), Christianity added a universal scapegoat called the devil. Finally, and maybe most importantly, Christianity became (in contrast to Judaism) a proselytizing religion: It aims to actively spread to all humankind. This aspiration is formulated first by Jesus himself, with his saying, “go and make disciples of all nations”[Bible: Matthew 28:16-20]. However, it also manifested itself in a number of other adjustments that Christianity made with respect to Judaism. Before the birth of Christianity, people believed that religious ideas were “in the blood”, i.e., inherited through the ancestors who had received them from the gods. Judaism, for example, is explicitly bound to the Jewish people. Paul challenged that belief and taught that faith in the teachings of Jesus was all that was necessary for salvation. This innovative teaching was perhaps the major incentive for the spread of the movement2. This universalist perspective also changed the nature of God: while Yahweh was originally conceived as a god for the Jewish people, Christianity declared him the god for all humankind. In the same spirit, the Apostolic Council of 49 CE decided that circumcision would henceforth be optional[1 Corinthians 7:19, Philippians 3:2] — a clear, strategic advantage for the spread of the new religion.
Christian Denominations
Over time, different interpretations of Christianity developed, due in part to the religion’s large geographical extent. Aided by political struggles, these different interpretations gave rise to different denominations of the faith. Today, Christianity has about 2.5 billion adherents6 and roughly 1200 denominations7. The main branches are (with numbers from 8):
Catholicism (1.3 billion)
This denomination continuously evolved from early Christianity on, and is centrally governed by the Pope in Rome. It is based on a series of declarations of faith, which take the form of creeds, papal bulls, and catechisms9.
Oriental Orthodoxy (62 million)
This denomination split from Catholicism in 451 CE in disagreement with the Council of Chalcedon, which determined that the divine and the human natures of Jesus are distinct1011. Today, Oriental Orthodoxy is practiced mainly in Ethiopia. (The Coptic Orthodox Church is an Oriental Orthodox Church in Egypt.)
Eastern Orthodoxy (220 million)
This denomination split gradually from Catholicism during the first millennium CE mainly because of political differences between the Western Roman Empire, seated in Rome (where the Catholic pope resided), and the Eastern Roman Empire (with its capital Constantinople, today’s Istanbul). The Eastern churches also objected to the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father and God the Son (as opposed to only God the Father)12, an idea developed by the Western church in the 6th century CE. The establishment of Eastern Orthodoxy as a separate denomination, known as the “Great Schism”, is traditionally dated to 1054 CE. In Eastern Orthodoxy, every country has their own church, with the largest one being the Russian Orthodox Church (150 million). In this book, we use the (English-speaking) Orthodox Church of America as representative for Orthodoxy.
Protestantism (800 million)
Martin Luther translated the Bible to German at the Wartburg in Eisenach, Germany
Eisenach, Germany
This denomination split away from Catholicism starting with the Reformation in 1517 CE, when the German priest Martin Luther criticized the Catholic Church’s concentration of power. Protestantism emphasizes the relationship between God and the individual Christian (without mediation by priests), salvation by faith alone (rather than by good works), and the Bible itself as the highest authority13. Today, Protestant sub-denominations include the following:
Lutheranism (70 million) is based on the teachings of Martin Luther: it repudiates papal and ecclesiastical authority in favor of the Bible itself, insists that human reconciliation with God is affected solely by divine grace, and holds that this grace is appropriated solely by faith14. The largest denomination is the Evangelical Church in Germany (24.5 million), which we use here as a representative.
Reformed Christianity (also called Calvinism; 70 million) was developed in the early 16th century by the Swiss theologian Ulrich Zwingli and the French theologian John Calvin, inspired by Luther. Reformed Christianity formally distinguished itself from Lutheranism in 1529 CE over a dispute about the presence of Christ in the bread of the Lord’s Supper. Today, most Reformed churches are called Congregational, Presbyterian, Reformed, or United.15
Evangelical Christianity is a Christian movement that developed from Anglicanism (see below) from the early 17th century on but that is categorized as Protestant. It emphasizes evangelism and the authority of the Bible16, and often goes hand in hand with conservative moral outlooks17 and a literal reading of the Bible18. It contains the following sub-sub-denominations:
The Baptist Churches (100 million) originated (from an Anglican background) in the 17th century in England. They hold that only (adult) believers should be baptized, and that this should be done by immersion in water19. The largest denomination is the Southern Baptist Convention (15.7 million), which we use here as a representative.
Methodism (60 million) began in 18th-century England, driven by the Anglican clergyman John Wesley. It emphasizes the seriousness of human sin and the experience of divine pardon in a spiritual new birth20.
Pentecostalism (280 million) began in the United States in 1901, when Charles Fox Parham, an independent evangelist (with a Methodist background) in eastern Kansas, preached that speaking in tongues was the biblical evidence of baptism with the Holy Spirit. The denomination believes that speaking in tongues and the ability to perform divine healing are spiritual gifts from God21. The largest denomination is the “Assemblies of God” (65 million), which we use here as a representative for Pentecostalism.
Anglicanism (110 million)
This denomination split from Catholicism in 1534 CE with the English Act of Supremacy, which accepted the King of England as head of the Church instead of the pope in Rome. One of the motivations for this split was to allow the king at the time, Henry VII, to get a divorce from his wife, which the pope refused to grant22. Later, Anglicanism developed its own theology in the English Reformation. Today, the Church of England is the main Anglican church (25 million).
Non-trinitarian Restorationism (60 million)
This group of denominations rejects the trinity of God. Prevalent denominations are:
Mormonism (also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; 17m), which began in 1830 when the American Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon. The book tells of God’s plan of salvation with North America at its center, and adherents believe that God himself revealed it to Smith23.
Jehovah’s Witnesses (9m), which began in 1879 with the American minister Charles Taze Russell. Russell taught that Jesus Christ will soon rule as king over the earth from heaven, in fulfillment of prophecies. Jehovah’s Witnesses engage in proselytism, attend regular congregational meetings, and maintain separation from secular culture.24
Timeline of Christian denominations
Fundamentalist Christianity vs. Liberal Christianity
In addition to the different denominations of Christianity, there are also different ways to interpret the faith, which are to some degree transversal across denominations. One dimension in this space of interpretations is the distinction between fundamentalist and liberal Christianity. In this context, “liberal” does not refer to “liberal moral values”. Rather, it refers to the belief that the Bible has to be read metaphorically25. Fundamentalist Christianity, in contrast, holds that the Bible has to be read literally2627. These two extremes span a wide spectrum of beliefs not strictly linked to the denominations.
Liberal Christianity
Liberal Christianity emerged in the 19th century in response to a historical development that can be sketched as follows: Technically, the entire Christendom, from the early church on, was largely fundamentalist (i.e., the stories of the Bible were considered, in large part, to be true). In the 18th century, however, Enlightenment thinkers challenged Christian tenets, including the doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, and the atonement28. This criticism influenced how people understood the Bible and in the late 18th century, German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher and German academic circles proposed to study biblical documents just like any other document of antiquity, without religious convictions or dogma — an approach that would later be called “higher criticism”29. Then, in the 19th century, the discovery of evolution by Charles Darwin further called into question a literal reading of the Bible. Meanwhile, the expansion of international trade, recreational travel, and Christian missionary efforts brought Western Christians into closer contact with other world religions, and knowledge of these traditions encouraged scholars to re-examine the relationship between culture and religion, to compare the similarities and differences between the various religious traditions, and to analyze critically the sacred texts of each28. All of these developments, combined with the ascendancy of deism and rationalism, led to a questioning of literal readings of the Bible and even of Christianity in general. Christian leaders feared that people might turn away from the faith. In 1871, for example, the American minister Henry Ward Beecher warned divinity students at Yale Theological Seminary that the Protestant ministry was “in danger, and in great danger , of going under, and of working effectively only among the relatively less informed and intelligent of the community”25.
Liberal Christianity emerged in response to this questioning of the Christian faith, as a movement within the churches intended to make Christianity compatible with these new intellectual currents 28. The central tenet of Liberal Christianity is that the Bible and the historic Christian creeds were cast in the language and worldview of their times and as such had to be interpreted critically in that light25. In other words, rather than focusing on the literal meaning of the individual stories, one should look at the overarching message of Christianity. The German Protestant theologian Albrecht Ritschl and the Baltic German Lutheran theologian Carl Gustav Adolf von Harnack, for example, reasoned that being a Christian means essentially striving to organize humankind in accordance with Jesus’ command to love one another2830, and that the biblical stories are just vehicles for that central message.
In this spirit, Liberal Christians believe that the stories of the Bible did not necessarily happen exactly as written down, but rather that these narratives express the historical and social contexts of their writers. In this light, Liberal Christians derive from these stories how we should understand the connection between God and the world. For example, Liberal Christians do not believe that the world was created in six days as the Bible tells us. Rather, they tend to follow the scientific mainstream view of the Big Bang, Evolution, and Darwinism. For them, the biblical account is a metaphor meant to convey that God created the world, and gave humans a special role, status, and purpose within it31. Liberal Christians also tend to believe that the miracles of the Bible did not necessarily take place. Instead, they see Jesus' miracles as metaphorical narratives for understanding the power of God32.
Liberal Christianity was first met with opposition. In 1869, the First Vatican Council condemned the belief that “all miracles are impossible, and that therefore all reports of them, even those contained in sacred scripture, are to be set aside as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of the Christian religion be proved from them”33. However, in the 20th century, Liberal Christianity became more popular, and in 1965, the Pope declared that in order to understand the Bible, one “must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture”34. Evolution was finally accepted as fact by the Catholic Church in 1996, thereby abandoning a literal reading of the Bible once and for all. As for Anglicanism: One quarter of Anglican priests does not believe that the story of the virgin birth of Jesus is literally true35. Rather, the story is seen as a myth that was created to emphasize the importance of Jesus.
Today, a non-literal reading of the Bible (and the acceptance of evolution) dominates all major Christian denominations to varying degrees with the exception of Evangelical Christianity, Mormonism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses36. As for the actual beliefs of Christians: While evolution is accepted by only half of Christians in the US and Brazil, it is accepted by the vast majority of Christians in Europe37.
For Liberal Christians, the word “fundamentalist” is pejorative. Liberal Christians tend to see Fundamentalist Christianity as backward, un-educated, and disconnected from reality.
Christianity Light
Liberal Christianity laid the groundwork for an extension of Liberal Christianity that we will call “Christianity Light”. It is a reduced form of Christianity that contains in essence just three belief statements: (1) The Christian God exists, (2) Jesus was a good man, and (3) people should be nice to each other. All other tenets of Christianity or its denominations (such as the trinity, divinity of Jesus, the creation of the Earth in 6 days, or the virgin birth) are not followed. In this way, Christianity Light resembles Deism infused with Christian ideas. For example, when adherents of Christianity Light talk of a god, they refer exclusively to the Christian God (the loving, omnipotent deity who kick-started the universe), and not to, say, Vishnu or the horned god of the Wicca religion. At the same time, adherents tend to hold that they are “not religious” — meaning that they do not follow the dogmata of a particular Christian denomination. A distance from religious dogmata and churches is particularly popular in Germany38.
Fundamentalist Christianity
Fundamentalist Christianity is a movement that rose in opposition to Liberal Christianity in the early 20th century27, mainly among Protestants in the United States39. Fundamentalist Christianity holds that the Bible is literally true.
Fundamentalists believe, among other things, that the Bible literally tells us how the world was created. In this view, the Earth came into existence less than 10,000 years ago, dinosaurs shared the Earth with humans, and God literally flooded the Earth with the deluge. 40% of Americans believe that the creation account of the Bible is literally true40. Fundamentalists also tend to believe that Jesus will come back: 55% of Americans believe that Jesus will have a second coming, and 10% believe that this will happen during their lifetime. Fundamentalism is particularly prevalent among Evangelical Christians.
For Fundamentalists, the words “liberal” and “modern” are pejorative in the context of religion. To them, these words suggest that the true message of God has been abandoned, or watered down with secular, modernist, or atheist ideas.
Dear Christians: Mark 16:17-18 says that true believers can drink poison and be perfectly fine. Please demonstrate your faith before you impose your religion on the rest of us.
Conservatism vs Progressivism
Christians cover a wide spectrum of moral convictions, from more conservative outlooks to more progressive ones. Some of these convictions correlate with denomination (Evangelism tends to be more conservative), but in general the spectrum ca be found across denominations.
Conservative
By definition, conservative Christians favor traditional views and values41. Today’s conservatives tend to oppose gay marriage, to disapprove of premarital sex, to shun abortion, to see the family (under the guidance of the husband) as a central building block of society, and to approve of the death penalty. (At the same time, conservatives usually do not defend slavery or capital punishment for heresy, as these values are from too long ago). Conservatives defend these views based on the laws of the Old Testament, which do indeed punish homosexuality and premarital sex, and institute the death penalty (though the position on abortion is less straightforward to interpret).
Conservatism is found primarily among Christian Fundamentalists, simply because a literal reading of the Bible imparts conservative values. Baptists, in particular, are morally conservative, such as when it comes to women’s rights, the death penalty, and abortion. But Conservatism can also be found in denominations of Liberal Christianity. The Catholic Church, for example, is conservative when it comes to gay marriage or abortion.
As for the actual beliefs of Christians, these vary mainly by geography: People in the traditionally Protestant countries of Europe tend to be more progressive than Christians from other parts of the world (see graph).
Traditionalist values emphasize the importance of religion, family, and authority. Secular-rational values give these factors less importance. Survival values place emphasis on economic and physical security. Self-expression values favor environmental protection, liberal moral attitudes, and participation in decision-making. This means that conservative attitudes are found in the bottom left and progressive values in the top right of the diagram.
For progressive people, the present is the beginning of the future. For conservative people, the present is the end of the past.
Progressive
in Toronto in 2010
Progressive Christians tend to encourage change in society42 and are less bound by traditional values. This attitude usually goes hand in hand with more liberal moral values, where a moral rule is not justified by tradition but by the harm it prevents. For example, progressives tend to support gay marriage and often have more permissive attitudes towards premarital sex and abortion.
Progressive Christians, in particular, are more likely to do away with the laws of the Old Testament, arguing that these have been abrogated by Jesus’ arrival — a theory known as “Supercessionism”43. This interpretation is based on a passage in the Old Testament in which God promises a “New Covenant” that will “not be like the conenant I made with the ancestors when I [...] led them out of Egypt”[Jeremiah 31:31-40], i.e., not like the Ten Commandments and other laws of the Old Testament. This passage is picked up in the New Testament, which declares that this New Covenant has come into effect with the arrival of Jesus[Hebrews 8].
Among the main Christian denominations, Lutheranism tends to be most progressive, giving equal rights to women, shunning the death penalty, being ambivalent about abortion, and approving of birth control. And indeed, progressive moral attitudes are generally popular in Protestant Europe44.
If your religion tells you that you must have a baby due to its views on abortion, and then labels that baby as illegitimate because of its views on marriage, then maybe it’s time to reconsider your religion.
Activism vs Passivism
For some Christians, religion plays an important role in life. They go to church on Sunday, pray regularly, and maybe go to Bible reading groups and entice others to follow the faith. Other Christians attach less importance to their faith. Different intensities of religious practice can be found across different denominations.
Activism
Generally, Christians in the US, South America, and Africa attach more importance to their religion than Christians in Europe: The percentage of Christians who say that religion is important to them is between 10% and 30% in European countries, whereas it is more than 60% in the other countries45. Weekly church attendance, likewise, stands higher in the US (36%), Brazil (45%), and Africa (50%+), and lower in Europe (< ;15%).
The importance of weekly church attendance correlates weakly with denomination: In the US, weekly church attendance is highest among Jehovah’s Witnesses (85%), Mormons (77%) and Evangelicals (58%), and lower among Orthodox (31%) and Catholics (39%)46.
Passivism
On the other hand of the spectrum are Christians whose everyday life is not very different from an atheist’s. Christian rites are reduced to the “hatch, match, and dispatch” ceremonies (baptisms, weddings, and funerals). Such “passive Christians” may, for example, enjoy the ceremony of a White Wedding in a church, but otherwise limit church attendance to Christmas. This is a prevalent way of life in Europe, and often goes hand in hand with liberal and progressive views.
Charismatism vs Cessationism
Charismatic Christians believe that God continues to work miracles today (a belief that is also called continuationism47). Conversely, cessationists believe that God performed miracles only in biblical times.
Charismatism
Generally speaking, Charismatic Christians believe that God can work miracles if we ask him to through prayer. This belief is based on Bible verses, such as the following48:
“Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours”[Mark 11:24]
“If you ask anything in my name, I will do it”[John 14:14]
“And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover”[Mark 16:17-18]
“And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up”[James 5:15]
In this spirit, Charismatic Christians believe in faith healing49, i.e., the healing of people from illness by miraculous intervention from God. Another practice associated with Charismatic Christians is “Speaking in tongues”49, i.e., the uttering of speech-like syllables that are considered an unknown language. Charismatism is often associated with an emotional approach to faith. Charismatic masses can involve speaking in tongues, dancing, crying, and uncoordinated praying aloud.
Among the Christian denominations, Pentecostalism is clearly the most charismatic. However, Catholicism also acknowledges the possibility of miracles in our times. Charismatic Christians can be found mainly in the US, but also in Europe, Latin America, and Africa49.
Cessationism
Cessationists believe that God performed miracles in biblical times but that no more miracles have occurred after the apostles47. This reasoning is justified47 by a verse in the New Testament that reads: “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me”[1 Corinthians 13:8-12]. Cessationists hold that miracles reported today are either fabrications, natural self-healings, or exaggerations (which is also the atheist point of view). This is the dominant stance in Europe, across denominations.
It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me. It is the parts that I do understand.
Televangelism
Televangelism is the use of television to communicate Christianity to adherents. It is particularly popular in North America and is often fundamentalist, evangelical, and conservative50. Some televangelists preach “seed faith”, in which people are encouraged to send an amount of money large enough to be a “sacrifice”. This “seed” would serve as proof of one’s faith in God, who would then bless the sender with financial success (see 51 for an account of a personal experience). Of course, these sacrifices are pocketed by the televangelist. Some of them attract huge audiences, and thus make millions of dollars in the process52. Several even stand accused of accumulating these tax-free donations to finance their own lavish lifestyles53. While televangelism is most prevalent in North America, some “super-pastors” in Africa have accumulated a wealth in the order of 150 million US dollars.
Some televangelists have also been known to fake faith healings, or to record dozens of healings and show only those that work. Many of these tactics were exposed by Marjoe Gortner, a career televangelist who had been pushed into the profession by his parents from early childhood in the 1940’s. He became a famous televangelist, but then grew resentful of the life his parents had forced upon him, and suffered a crisis of conscience in the 1960’s. He invited a documentation team to follow him on one of his tours with a hidden camera and explained his tricks: how to induce motherly women to part with their savings, how to put invisible ink on the forehead so that a cross will appear when you start perspiring, and how to make the audience weep and yell and collapse in spasms54. Despite such discoveries, televangelism continues to attract adherents (and enrich the preachers)52.
The glittering palaces of Las Vegas have been built with the money of those who lost, and not of those who won.
Historical variations
The trinity
We will now discuss several Christian beliefs and how they have evolved over time. We start with a belief that is fundamental to most Christian denominations: the trinity, i.e., the belief that God is a godhead consisting of “God the Father”, “God the Son” (Jesus), and the “Holy Spirit”.
The concept of the trinity evolved gradually in the centuries after Jesus' death. At first, Saint Paul taught that Jesus descended from heaven as a manifestation of God himself in a human body and, accordingly, that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, [...] and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord”[Philippians 2:5-11]. In this way, Jesus was worthy of worship in the same way as God. For the non-Jewish polytheists of the Roman empire, this idea fitted well with the stories of their own gods traveling to earth in disguise. However, Saint Paul’s proposition also posed a problem: If Jesus can be worshipped as a god, then Christians have violated the first of their Ten Commandments (inherited from Judaism2): “You shall have no other gods before Me”[Exodus 20:3]).
In the 4th century CE, this problem was further exacerbated by a presbyter in Alexandria by the name of Arius. He reasoned that if God created everything, then he must have created Jesus as well. This reasoning demoted Jesus to a subordinate, and riots arose across Alexandria and other cities. To settle the issue, the Roman emperor Constantine the Great called for a major conference in 325 CE and invited 217 bishops to the city of Nicaea. The council was convened to tackle a difficult question: Was Jesus divine or not? On the one hand, Jesus had said “the Father is greater than I”[John 14:28, Mark 10:17-18, Mark 13:32], that the Father gave him life[John 5:26], and that he only seeks to please the one who sent him[John 5:30]. On the other hand, he had said “I and the Father are one”[John 10:30].
The council considered two choices: was Christ “homo-iousios” (an essence like the Father’s) or was he “homo-ousios” (of one substance identical to the Father’s)? (The difference between these two words is just the proverbial iota). The Council voted in favor of the second choice: God and Jesus were identical in essence, and Jesus was a manifestation of God himself on Earth55. In this way, Christians could continue worshipping Jesus without violating the rules of monotheism. Arius was exiled as a punishment for his (now certifiably) heretical views. As for Constantine, he was surely satisfied with the Council’s decision, as he himself had proposed the homo-ousios formula tion56. This formula also had a very convenient side-effect: the common perception was that Constantine stood in for Jesus on Earth, and as Jesus was now divine, Constantine obtained the power of God on Earth55 — by a simple vote of the council he sponsored.
However, Jesus talked not just of God the Father and God the Son, but also of the Holy Spirit: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”[Matthew 28:19]. The role of the Holy Spirit was clarified by the First Council of Constantinople of 381 CE, which declared that the Holy Spirit was to be worshipped “with the Father and the Son”57. This then evolved into the idea that there is one God who exists in three persons : God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit. Technically, God is thus a godhead.
Today, almost all Christian denominations are trinitarian. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that only God the Father is God, and that Jesus was a mediator. Mormonism similarly holds that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct beings.
Heresy
Heresy is the adherence to a religious opinion contrary to Church dogma 58. As we have discussed before, in antiquity, heresy was punished by death in most world religions. Christianity was no exception. However, modern interpretations of the faith have since desisted from this punishment.
Old Testament: Heretics have to be killed
The Old Testament calls for heretics to be killed: “The punishment of such a prophet or dreamer shall be death”[Deuteronomy 13:5]. More precisely, “It may be that […] men and women of thy race will […] enslave themselves to the worship of other gods. […] if it proves […] true, away with such recreant men or women to the city gate; there let them be killed by stoning”[Deuteronomy 17].
New Testament: Ambivalence
In the New Testament, Jesus says: “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned”[John 15:6]. This is usually understood as a metaphor. Saint Paul also stops short of calling for the punishment of heresy. He rather recommends avoiding heretics: “Give a heretic one warning, then a second, and after that avoid his company; his is a perverse nature, thou mayest be sure.”[Titus 3:10-11].
Early Catholicism: Heretics have to be punished
Hypatia of Alexandria is maybe one of the most famous pagans murdered for their faith Jules Maurice Gaspard, 1908
Early Christianity punished heretics , but several influential voices argued against the death penalty. In the 5th century, the Berber theologian Augustine of Hippo (later canonized as Saint Augustine) opined that heretics deserve to be punished but urged the Church not to execute them, declaring: “we do not wish either to see the exercise of discipline towards them neglected, or, on the other hand, to see them subjected to the severer punishments which they deserve”59.
In the 11th century, the Council of Toulouse required that “bishops [must] search out heretics in their parishes, individual suspicious houses, subterranean rooms and additions to houses, and other hiding places” 60, so that the “heretic [be] duly punished”. However, Pope Alexander II prohibited the death penalty in a letter to the Archbishop of Narbonne61.
In 1184, Pope Lucius III declared in a papal bull that heresy itself was to be eradicated entirely62, and that those accused of heresy were to be handed down their “due penalty”. All those who supported heretics were deprived of the right to hold public office and Bishops were to periodically ask people in their parish whether they knew of any heretical activity.
Pope Innocence III followed this up in 1199, declaring that goods of heretics should be confiscated63. In 1215, the Twelfth Ecumenical Council agreed, stating that heretics shall have their property confiscated, shall be deprived of the right of inheritance, shall not be admitted to public offices or deliberations, may not take part in elections, may not give testimony in a court, and may not write a will64.
In the mid 13th century, Pope Gregory IX established the tribunal of the Papal Inquisition4. And in 1232, he declared that those who did not repent their heresy were to be imprisoned for life (“in perpetuo carcere detrudantur”)65.
In 1252, Pope Innocent IV declared in his papal bull “Ad extirpanda” that no heretic shall have the right to “maintain a bare subsistence in the country”66. On the contrary, “those convicted of heresy […] shall be taken in shackles” (Law 24). Such penalties could not be pardoned. Furthermore, “whoever shall find the heretical man or woman shall boldly seize, with impunity, all his or their goods”. This pressure was extended to every citizen, because the papal aide may, “if it seem good to them, [compel] the whole neighborhood to testify to the aforesaid inquisitors if they have detected any heretics” (Law 30). Finally, “the head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody […] to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know — provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs”. The bull was interpreted so as to authorize the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics .
Later that same century, the Italian theologian Thomas Aquinas argued that, “With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. […] Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. On the part of the Church, however, […] she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition” […] After that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.” 67.
In 1478, Pope Sixtus IV handed over the Inquisition to the secular authorities. In his papal bull “Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus”, he gave the monarchs exclusive authority to name the inquisitors in their kingdoms. From then on, Portugal and Spain launched extensive raids on heretics and suspected heretics in their kingdoms. Officials could apply torture to make victims confess to heresy, and if convicted, heretics were then taken outside the city walls to the burning place for a public ritual known as auto-da-fé. There, their sentences would be read. Some would be acquitted; others would be punished. Artistic representations of the auto-da-fé usually depict physical punishment such as whipping, torture, and burning at the stake.
Post-Reform ation Catholicism: First persecution of heretics, then Freedom of religion.
Since 1965, torture is a dishonor to God.
in San Francisco/USA
After the reformation initiated by Martin Luther, Catholicism and Protestantism parted ways. We chronicle here the development of the Catholic branch, which continued to be governed by the popes. Indeed, Pope Leo X approved of the execution of heretics by fire in 1520. In his papal bull “Exsurge Domine”, he refuted Martin Luther’s thesis that heretics shall not be burnt alive 68. All in all, tens of thousands of people were drawn into the system of the Inquisition and thousands of people were executed.
The Inquisition ended in the 19th century with the wars of independence of the Spanish colonies against the Spanish crown, the Liberal Revolution in Portugal, and the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte in France. However, in 1864, Pope Pius IX continued to denounce the idea that “every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he shall consider true”69. As late as 1907, the Catholic Encyclopedia explained that “to restrain and bring back her rebellious sons the Church uses both her own spiritual power and the secular power at her command”70. It also justified the Inquisition, saying that “all repressive measures cause suffering or inconvenience of some sort: it is their nature. But they are not therefore cruel”. In 1917, the Canon Law still saw heresy as a crime against the Church and as an infamy71. However, it freed suspects from the need to incriminate themselves (“nisi agatur de delicto ab ipsis commisso”)71.
Finally, in 1965, the second Vatican Council decided that, from then on, “the human person has a right to religious freedom”72. More precisely, “the Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion”73. Equally since 1965, “torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself […] are [a] supreme dishonor to the Creator”74.
Heresy is only another word for freedom of thought.
Anglican Church, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy: No large-scale persecution of heretics
The Orthodox Church split from the Catholic Church in the 11th century CE, and the Protestant movements split in the 16th century. These denominations did persecute heretics757677.
Religion comes begging to us
when it can no longer burn us.
Witch hunts
One of the less ugly depictions of witches Hans Baldung Grien, 1514
A witch is a person (usually a woman) who can do magical deeds. In an atheist worldview, such people do not exist because no one can do magic. In the Christian world, witchcraft was first denied and then later considered evil, at which point witches were persecuted and killed. Today, witches are no longer killed, and the denominations have different opinions as to whether witchcraft exists.
Bible: witchcraft exists, witches have to be killed
The Old Testament acknowledges the existence of witches and calls for their execution: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”[Exodus 22:18] The penalty is stoning: “A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them.”[Leviticus 20:27].
Early Christianity held that witchcraft did not exist — quite possibly because witchcraft became associated with paganism , and thus as something to be rejected along with pagan demons, magic, and gods78. The Edictum Rothari, a secular law code in Lombardy, Italy, stated in 643 that it was impossible for Christians to believe in witchcraft: “Let nobody presume to kill a foreign serving maid or female slave as a witch, for it is not possible, nor ought to be believed by Christian minds.”79. In 782 CE, Charlemagne, likewise, outlawed belief in witchcraft, punishable by death 80. This was echoed in the 785 Council of Paderborn81. Thus, it was not any suspected witches who were condemned to death, but people who believed they exist.
Another important document denying the existence of witches was the Canon Episcopi, a 10th century legal text recorded by Regino of Prüm and supported by Burchard of Worms. This document spoke of “unconstrained women” who say they “they ride upon certain beasts with the pagan goddess Diana” — i.e., witches. The text goes on to call on priests to “preach with all insistence to the people that they may know this to be in every way false”, because “all that whoever believes in such things, or similar things, loses the Faith”8283. This text was later included in Gratian’s authoritative Corpus juris canonici (the Decretum Gratiani), and as such became part of canon law during the High Middle Ages.
The prohibition to believe in witchcraft was not entirely watertight: In 1080, suspected witches were killed in Denmark because they presumably caused storms, failure of crops or pestilence. Pope Gregory VII duly protested, and forbid King Harald III of Denmark to put the women to death81.
Post-Reformation Catholicism: first persecution of witches, then abolition of torture, with witchcraft remaining an offense
in Bergen/Norway
By the 15th century, the Inquisition was in full swing and witchcraft began to be seen as a form of heresy78. On December 5, 1484, Pope Innocent VIII issued the bull “Summis desiderantes affectibus”, which discusses men and women who “give themselves over to devils” and, by this, “cause to perish the grapes of vines, and the fruits of trees, [… and] hinder men from begetting and women from conceiving”. Thus, the bull diverges from the Decretum Gratiani and acknowledges the existence of witchcraft. The text goes on to grant the inquisitors the right to proceed “correcting, imprisoning, punishing and chastising, according to their deserts, those persons whom they shall find guilty as aforesaid”8485. It also authorized two monks, Jacob Sprenger (c. 1436–1495) and Heinrich Kramer (c. 1430–1505) to serve as inquisitors to root out witches. In 1486, Kramer published his perspective on witchcraft in a book called “Malleus Maleficarum”, rendered in English as “Hammer of the Witches” and in German as “Der Hexenhammer”. It argued that witchcraft existed, and that suspected witches should be prosecuted, tortured, and punished. Though it was never approved by the Catholic Church, the book enjoyed widespread popularity in Europe, in part thanks to the invention of the printing press78.
The 17th century saw the establishment of milder procedures against witches but upheld the existence of witchcraft and the punishment of witches. In 1623, Pope Gregory XV issued the “Declaration against Magicians and Witches”86, which was the last papal ordinance against witchcraft. Former punishments were lessened and the death penalty was limited to those who were “proved to have entered into a compact with the devil, and to have committed homicide with his assistance”87, a clear indication that the Church approved of the death penalty for witches in the first place. In 1657, the Congregation of the Holy Office published the “Instruction for Conducting Trial Procedures against Witches, Sorcerers, and Evildoers”. The instruction deplores that inquisitors pass directly to inquisition, incarceration, and torture against witches 88. The document clarifies that torture shall be applied only once the case of witchcraft has duly been established. Apart from that, the title of the document leaves no doubt that witchcraft was assumed to exist, and that witches were to be punished.
In this way, the Catholic Church provided the theological justifications for the witch trials, which were carried out mostly by civil courts, most severely between 1580 and 1630. The trials became an industry that employed judges, jailers, torturers, exorcists, and woodchoppers. Torture was considered a safe method to extract confessions, with one inquisitor boasting: “Give me a bishop, and I would soon have him confessing to being a wizard!” Furthermore, convicted witches were forced to denounce “fellow witches” so that many more could be tried, and persecution became a profitable business89. Another inquisitor even declared that the Holy Inquisition was the only alchemy that really worked, for the inquisitors had found the secret of transmuting human blood into gold. All in all, around 110,000 persons (mainly, but not only women) were tried for witchcraft in Europe, and around half of them were executed90 — often by burning them alive.
Various secular authorities abolished witch trials between 1600 CE and the late 18th century under rising theological and secular skepticism during the Enlightenment78. However, by 1917, the Catholic Encyclopedia still had not ruled out the existence of witchcraft: “The question of the reality of witchcraft is one upon which it is not easy to pass a confident judgment. […] The abstract possibility of a pact with the Devil can hardly be denied”81. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, likewise, continued to condemn “All practices of magic or sorcery”91.
The Catholic Church has so far not exonerated the victims of the witch trials. However, since 1965, witchcraft is no longer punishable by torture. This is because, since that year, “torments inflicted on body or mind […] are supreme dishonor to the Creator”74.
Protestantism: first witches were to be burnt at the stake, then no longer, though witchcraft still exists
Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, wrote that “indeed such witchcraft and sorcery there is”. Luther claimed to have witnessed witchcraft himself, writing that “when [he] was a child there were many witches and sorcerers around who bewitched cattle, and people, particularly children, and did much harm”92. As for the punishment, he explains that “there is no compassion to be had for these women; I would burn them myself” (“de veneficis et incantatricibus […] cum illis nulla habenda misericordia. Ich wolte sie selber verbrennen”)93. In Luther’s sermons, he demands that witches be tortured and burnt at the stake94. John Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, likewise acknowledged the existence of witchcraft, and included it in the “infinite number of enemies” he wanted to fight95. Indeed, Protest ants were as fervent in the persecution of witches as Catholics, and the theology of the Protestant Reformers on the Devil and witchcraft was virtually indistinguishable from that of the Catholics90. Modern scholars hypothesize that the most intense witch hunts coincided with the Protestant Reformation precisely because the denominations competed for who could eradicate more evil from this earth96.
As of 2012, the Protestant Church of Germany has not yet exonerated the supposed witches94. The Church has also not distanced itself from Martin Luther’s instructions to torture and kill witches. On the contrary, as of 2015, Martin Luther’s prohibition on sorcery is still part of the foundations of the faith of the Protestant Churches of Germany97.
In America, witch hunts were less prevalent. They were conducted within Puritan society at the time, which had evolved from Anglicanism and later gave rise to the Baptist and Pentecostal movements. The most prominent witch trial was the Salem Witch Trial, which took place in 1692 in Massachusetts and resulted in 20 executions. The community regretted the executions, and 10 years later, the church voted to reverse the excommunication of one of the suspected witches. In 2001, the Massachusetts legislature passed an act exonerating all who had been convicted98. Today, the concept of witches plays no major role in Evangelical denominations. However, Pentecostalism still holds that witchcraft exists, and that children should be kept away from the “darker aspects” of Halloween for that reason99. Baptists, likewise, hold that witchcraft exists, and that the Bible warns against it100101(sources linked from the Southern Baptist Convention).
Anglicanism: first witches are condemned to death, then witchcraft does not exist.
In 1542 The British Parliament passed the Witchcraft Act, which defined witchcraft as a crime punishable by death. It was repealed five years later but restored by a new Act in 1562102. As all acts, these acts required assent by the king (the Supreme Governor of the Church of England) to become law. All in all, around 400 people were executed as witches in England89.
In 1735, parliament passed The Witchcraft Act of 1735, which stated that “no Prosecution, Suit, or Proceeding, shall be commenced or carried on against any Person or Persons for Witchcraft”103. Thus, the persecution of witches ceased, and is still today no longer part of the Anglican faith. The Church of England has so far not exonerated the victims.
Orthodoxy: no persecution of witches
There were no large-scale witch hunts in Orthodox Christianity78.
I have as much authority as the pope. I just don’t have as many people who believe it.
Book Censorship
Book censorship is the prohibition of the printing, possession, or reading of certain books under penalties in this world or the next. Keeping books out of the hands of adherents was a popular strategy in several religions, and while Christianity first censored books systematically, this is no longer the case today.
Early Catholicism: burning of unapproved books
The Bible mentions that pagans who converted to Christianity burnt their own heathen books[Acts 19:19]. Apart from that, however, the Bible is remarkably liberal about the distribution of books — quite possibly because the printing press was invented over one thousand years later in 1440.
The First Council of Nicaea (325 CE) was concerned with the question of how God created Jesus. The Council determined that Jesus had been “begotten” by the Father, and not been created out of nothing. Consequently, they banned the book “Thalia” by the priest Arius , which held the latter position. The writings of Arius and his friends were everywhere to be delivered up to be burned, with concealment of the texts forbidden under pain of death104. The popes continued this tradition: heretic books were to be destroyed by fire, and illegal preservation of them was treated as a heinous criminal offense.
In 1440, with the invention of the printing press, books could be distributed and read much more widely. In 1487, Pope Innocent VIII issued the first bull that explicitly prohibits the printing of certain books. It prohibits any printing without prior consent from the Curia under penalty of excommunication105. In 1515, Pope Leo X followed suit and ordained that “henceforth, for all future time, no one may dare to print or have printed any book or other writing of whatever kind in Rome or in any other cities and dioceses, without the book or writings having first been closely examined […] by the bishop”106. Books that were printed in defiance of this regulation were to be publicly burnt and the printers punished.
Post-Reformation Catholicism: Systematic prohibition of books
via Wikimedia Commons, 1557
In 1559, Pope Paul IV published the first “Index of Prohibited Books” (“Index librorum prohibitorum”). However, he later considered it too rigorous and mitigated it in the same year107. The index was replaced by what became known as the “Pauline Index”, which prescribes punishment for all those who dare writing, printing, distributing, or reading any of the books listed in the appendix of the document108. This list contained hundreds of prohibited works, most notably the works of the Protestant reformer Martin Luther.
In 1564, Pope Pius IV approved the “10 Tridentine Rules”, which were decided at the 1546 Council of Trent. This council ruled that “those who possess [books that professedly deal with things lascivious or obscene] are to be severely punished by the bishops”, and that “If anyone should read or possess books by heretics […], he incurs immediately the sentence of excommunication. He […] who reads or possesses books prohibited under another name shall, besides incurring the guilt of mortal sin, be severely punished according to the judgment of the bishops”109.
Since then, the index of prohibited books has been continuously updated. Over the time, it came to include works of virtually all important writers of the Enlightenment, including Blaise Pascal, René Descartes, Nicolas de Male-branche, Baruch Spinoza, Immanuel Kant, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume, George Berkeley, Pierre Bayle, Denis Diderot, Jean d'Alembert, Voltaire, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The index also banned the works of Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei, which advocated heliocentrism (the theory that the Earth rotates around the Sun). In 1822, when heliocentrism had become near-universally accepted, the ban on these works was lifted for unspecified reasons110.
In 1832, Pope Gregory XVI still lamented “immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, desire for novelty [...] freedom to publish” 111. However, a few decades later, in 1897, Pope Leo XIV abrogated the Tridentine rules with his Bull “Officiormum ac Munerum”, in which he explains that “the Church […], fearful of so great an evil, has ever striven […] to restrain men from the reading of bad books, as from a deadly poison”. However, he decided “to make [the rules] somewhat milder, so that it cannot be difficult or irksome for any person of good-will to obey them”112. He prohibited “the books of apostates, heretics, schismatics, and all writers whatsoever, defending heresy or schism, or in any way attacking the foundations of Religion”, “all versions of the Holy Bible, in any vernacular language, made by non-Catholics”, “Books which professedly treat of, narrate, or teach lewd or obscene subjects”, “the books of classical authors, whether ancient or modern, if disfigured with the same stain of indecency”, “Books [that] narrate new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, miracles, or which introduce new devotions”, “books [that] defend as lawful duelling, suicide, or divorce; which treat of Freemasonry”, and unlicensed “books of Prayers, Devotions, or of Religious, Moral, Ascetic, or Mystic Doctrine and Instruction”. He concludes that “No one shall venture to republish books condemned by the Apostolic See”, and that “booksellers, especially Catholics, should neither sell, lend, nor keep books professedly treating of obscene subjects”. Interestingly, these constraints applied also to non-Catholics. If anyone were to knowingly read a book of an apostate, or print it, he would suffer excommunication ipso facto.
The Bull remained in force well into the 20th century. In 1917, the Catholic Encyclopedia detailed that “Unrestraint of intellect and will is the real cause of [danger]. The so-called freedom of the press, or the abolition of public censorship, is largely responsible for this unrestraint.”104 Accordingly, the 1918 Code of Canon Law prohibited books that “purposely fight against religion”, “books of any writers defending heresy or schism”, and “books which attack or ridicule any of the Catholic dogmas”113. It also ruled that “forbidden books may not without permission be published, read, retained, sold, nor translated into another language, nor made known to others in any way”. At the beginning of the 20th century, the index of prohibited books contained more than 5000 books110.
In 1965, Pope Paul VI restructured the Holy Office in a papal decree, but provided no mention of the index of prohibited books, which led to questions as to whether the index still existed. This question was answered half a year later, when it was explained that the index still carried its moral force, but “no longer had the force of ecclesiastical positive law with the associated penalties”114. In other words, while Catholics are still not allowed to read the works of Immanuel Kant, they no longer get punished if they do.
Anglicanism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy: No large-scale prohibition
Anglicanism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy did not prohibit books as vigorously as did Catholicism. On the contrary, Protestantism flourished, in part, because of the invention of the printing press. Hence, this denomination has historically been a major proponent of literacy. Historically, Protestantism explains almost all of the difference in literacy between northwestern Europe (where Protestantism dominated) and the rest of the subcontinent115. In England, some books were prohibited (most notably those advocating Presbyterianism), but books were not systematically burned at a large scale116.
Pentecostalism : Controversies
Among Pentecostalists, the traditional Protestant advocacy of reading finds some limitations when it comes to non-Christian mythology. The Harry Potter books, for example, are resented because they advertise witchcraft. Hence, members of one of the churches of the Assemblies of God have burnt the books117. The book about “The Da Vinci Code”, likewise, has attracted criticism for presenting early Christianity in a false light, and has been declared “atrocious” by the Assemblies of God.
Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen.
(Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings.)
Reading the Bible
We will later argue that the Bible contains an enormous amount of absurdity. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that the Catholic Church once forbid the laity from reading the Bible altogether. This prohibition has since been turned into an encouragement to read the scripture.
Early Catholicism: It’s complicated
In the Bible itself, Saint Peter observes that “Paul writes the same way in all his letters […]. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction”[2 Peter 3:16]. In 1199, Pope Innocent III agreed, and said that “such is the profundity of divine Scripture, that not only simple and illiterate men, but even prudent and learned men do not fully suffice to investigate its wisdom”118.
In 1056, the Council of Toulouse ruled that “Lay people are not permitted to possess the books of the Old and New Testament”60, though this rule applied only to the local area of Toulouse.
Post-Reformation Catholicism: first prohibition, then encouragement
In 1564, Pope Pius IV approved the “10 Tridentine Rules” set forth at the 1546 Council of Trent, which stated that “Those who presume to read or possess [translations of the Bible] without [written] permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary”119. This approval happened mainly in reaction to the Protestant movement initiated by Martin Luther and John Calvin. And indeed, Protestantism vigorously encouraged people to read the Bible, even enticing them to become literate for this purpose. The Catholic Church took the opposite stance: It feared that ubiquitous access to the scripture would give rise to vulgarization and readings that differed from the official Catholic one. Hence, it insisted that the scripture should pass to the common people only through the interpretation of Church personnel. The prohibition remained in effect for centuries, with various minor updates120.
The first signs of change came in the 19th century, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which stated that Pope Gregory XVI “seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be […] approved by the Holy See”120. However, no such wording is found in Gregory XVI’s 1844 letter. On the contrary, the letter complains about Biblical Societies that “conspire to publish in great numbers copies of the books of divine Scripture. These are translated into all kinds of vernacular languages for dissemination without discrimination among both Christians and infidels”, which is “absurd”121. The letter reminds us that, following the Council of Trent, “vernacular Bibles are forbidden except to those for whom it is judged that the reading will contribute to the increase of faith and piety”, and confirms “the prescriptions listed and published long ago concerning the publication, dissemination, reading, and possession of vernacular translations of sacred Scriptures”121.
In 1897, Pope Leo XIII declared that “all versions in the vernacular, even by Catholics, are altogether prohibited, unless approved by the Holy See”122. While this decree sounds like yet another prohibition, it actually meant that the laity was, for the first time, allowed to read the Bible — at least the versions approved by the Holy See. The 1918 Canon Code complies, stating that “Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See […] has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority”121. Since 1992, the Church “forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures”123.
The reason why you can’t read the Bible yourself, and the reason why only trained theologians can interpret a book written by God, and the reason why the Bible is actually concretely incorrect in so many places (despite any interpretation) is because God is imaginary. If God were real, and if God had actually written a book, the book would be brilliant and inspiring for everybody.
Salvation
The question of salvation treats whether people who do not believe in Christian dogma are allowed to go to Heaven or not. This concerns, in particular, Christians of other denominations, adherents of non-Christian Abrahamic religions (such as Jews and Muslims), people who have not come in touch with Christianity, and those who reject it (such as atheists). Different times, and different denominations, have held different answers to this question.
The Bible and early Catholicism: Belief is necessary for salvation
Jesus tells us that “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”[Mark 16:16]. This is because “he that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth”[Luke 11:23]. Saint Paul agrees, saying, “God will punish those who do not know him, and do not follow the gospel of Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction [...]”[2 Thessalonians 1:8-9]. In the 5th century, Saint Augustine concurs, writing that “Salvation [man] cannot find except in the Catholic Church”124125. This formula was reiterated over the centuries by popes, councils, and papal bulls126127128, most notably by the 4th Lateran Council, which stipulated that “there is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation”129. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII explained that “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” 130.
Post-Reformation Catholicism: First no salvation outside the church, then salvation possible
The birth of Protestantism in the 16th century raised the question of whether or not Protestants go to Heaven. Fortunately, Pope Eugene IV had already answered that question presciently in 1441, when he explained that “not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics” are condemned to hellfire131. In 1832, Pope Gregory XVI cited Saint Ignatius, saying that “if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God” 132. And yet, in 1854, Pope Pius IX opened at least a door to the ignorant: “Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control”133. He reaffirmed this position later, saying that “those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion […] are able to attain eternal life”134.
In 1863, however, Pope Pius IX reversed course and said that it was a mistake to assume that “men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life”134. This included the Protestants69. In 1864, the First Vatican Council re-affirmed that nobody can attain eternal life without faith33. Furthermore, the faithful were to be obedient to the Roman Pope, and “no one can depart from [this belief] without endangering his faith and salvation”33. In 1922, Pope Benedict XV recalled the Athanas Creed: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved”. In 1939, Pope Pius XI reiterated that there is no salvation outside the Church, and explained that “in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors”135.
For unknown reasons, the Catholic Church changed its mind in 1964 during the Second Vatican Council. The following people can now attain salvation:
Ignorants: “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ” 136.
Jews and Muslims: “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims”136. And hence “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems”73. The Jews, likewise, “should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ”73.
Other religions: Nothing is known about the ability of non-Abrahamic religions to grant salvation, but they do contain some truths, with the Church stating that it “rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men”73.
Schismatics (Protestants): “The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. […] These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation”137.
It is not known whether the decree has the power to transfer those Protestants, Jews, and Muslims who died before 1964 from Hell to Heaven, or whether they remain out of luck. In any case, atheists who knowingly reject Catholicism are still excluded from salvation, because “Whosoever […] knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved”136. However, in 2013, Pope Francis explained that atheists are “redeemed” by Jesus Christ 138. A Vatican spokesman later clarified that this does not mean that atheists go to Heaven, but rather that humanity as a whole (which includes the atheists) was transformed when God took human form and freely underwent death139.
Early Protestantism: No salvation outside the church
Protestantism rose from the workings of Martin Luther. Luther explained that “he who would find Christ must first find the Church. […] he must go to the Church, attend and ask her. […] Now the Church is not wood and stone, but the company of believing people [and] outside of the Christian church there is no truth, no Christ, no salvation.”140 The Jews, in particular, were “no people of God”, according to Luther. In 1543, he argued that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated141.
Lutheranism today: No hell anyway
In 1967, 78% of protestants in Germany believed that there is no hell142, which arguably makes the concept of salvation more difficult to sell. Accordingly, the Protestant Church of Germany now holds tha t “Hell plays no role any more”143, and thus, the question of salvation became less important in Protestant theology.
Evangelicalism: No salvation outside the church
The Evangelical flavors of Protestantism hold that salvation is not possible without belief in Jesus. For Pentecostals, “you must believe […] that only Christ can save you” in order to achieve salvation144. Baptists, likewise, say, “What must I do [to achieve salvation]? Personal faith in Christ is the answer”145.
Anglicanism: No salvation without faith in Jesus
The Anglican Church holds that it is “only the Name of Jesus Christ whereby men must be saved”146.
Orthodoxy: Salvation by good deeds
The Orthodox Church of America explains that, on the day of the Last Judgement, “Christ will judge all men exclusively on the basis of how they have served Him by serving all men — the least of the brethren”147. Belief in Jesus or God is not mentioned as a criterion.
I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.
Hell
In Christianity, hell is the place or state where evil people go after death. This is a popular theme in all major religions. In Christianity, hell was first a place of eternal physical torment, but these conditions have since been relaxed.
Old Testament: Hell is only vaguely alluded to
As we have seen before , the Old Testament outlines only a very vague idea of life after death[Daniel 12:2], in which a term in Hell was thought to be limited to twelve months.
New Testament and Early Catholicism: Hell is a physical place
The Athanasian Creed, a 6th century text, insists that people who “have done evil [will go] into everlasting fire”148. And indeed, throughout the centuries, people continued to believe that hell was a real place of physical torments in eternity, as shown in numerous artworks of the Medieval Ages.
If you plan to enjoy Heaven, while multitudes are being tortured forever,
you are as much a sociopath as the god you worship.
Anglicanism: Hell is eternal torments
The Anglican Church adheres to the Athanasian Creed and thus to the idea of hell as everlasting fire148. However, it has, in the words of a priest, changed its message from the promise of a ghastly hell to a message of love149.
Post-Reformation Catholicism: first, hell is physical torments, then hell is a state of separation from God
In the Catholic Church, the interpretation of hell as a physical place of torment stood all the way until 1917. As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains: “According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct”150.
The fire of hell is in fact the fire of the love of God. Also, of late, it burns only the bad character traits of the sinner.
in the Cathedral of Saint Sulpice, Paris/France
The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church references the Bible’s description of unquenchable fire. However, the text uses the word in quotes: “Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire'”151. And in 1999, the Catholic Church decided to turn off the fires in hell, with Pope John Paul II ruling that “rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”152. The Jesuit Magazine La Civiltà Cattolica says that God does not inflict pain in hell “as illustrated in many paintings or read in the Divine Comedy” 153.
Thus, as of 1999, Hell and Heaven are no longer physical places. It is not reported what happened to the Virgin Mary on this occasion, whose body was physically moved to Heaven just 40 years earlier.
Lutheranism: Hell not important
In Lutheranism, the role of hell is less clear than in other Christian denominations. Martin Luther, the founder of the movement, believed that souls sleep after death and do not feel pain. As discussed before, the Protestant Church of Germany holds today that “Hell plays no role any more” 143.
Evangelicalism: Physical hell
In Evangelicalism, hell continues to be a place of physical torment. For the Pentecostals, “the language of Scripture should always be taken literally”, and the Bible talks of hell as a “lake of fire”154. However, they also state that “human language is inadequate to describe either heaven or hell”, and therefore rather abstractly describe hell as a place of “eternal torture”154. Excluded from this punishment are babies and those who have never heard the gospels.
For Baptists, the “biblical teaching on eternal, conscious punishment of the unregenerate in Hell” remains valid155, and hence they believe in a “literal heaven and hell”156.
Orthodoxy: No physical fire
In popular Orthodoxy, Heaven and Hell were physical places just like they were in early Christianity157. Today, however, the Orthodox Church of America holds that “God does not punish man by some material fire or physical torment”158.
For everything I long to do
No matter when or where or who
Has one thing in common, too
It’s a sin
Abortion
Abortion is the termination of pregnancy. Over the centuries, Christianity has held different stances towards the question of whether abortion is murder.
Early Catholicism: Abortion is not murder
Abortion was known and practiced in the ancient Greek and Roman world. During that time, people believed Aristotle’s theory of “delayed ensoulment”, which held that the fetus receives a human soul only 40 days after conception for male fetuses, or 90 days after conception for female fetuses159. Hence, abortion was not regarded as murder.
The Bible concurs. While the penalty for killing a human is death[Exodus 21:12], the penalty for inducing a miscarriage is just financial compensation, because the miscarriage does not count as serious injury: “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely or suffers a miscarriage but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life”[Exodus 21:22-23]. To this date, Jewish Law allows (and even requires) abortion if it is necessary to protect the mother’s health 160.
However, between the 1st and 4th century, some Christian thinkers, such as Barnabas, St. Hippolytus, St. Basil the Great, and St. Ambrose began condemning abortion as murder. Several synods and documents agreed: the Synod of Elvira in 306 CE, the Synod of Ancyra in 314 CE, the Apostolic Constitutions from around 380 CE, and the Apocalypse of Peter.
Between the 5th and 16th century, people debated whether abortion was murder or not, because it was not clear when the fetus first acquires a soul. This was one of the questions that had troubled Saint Augustine: while he condemned abortion in general, he also conceded that “the law does not provide that the act abortion pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation when it is not formed in the flesh, and so not yet endowed with sense”161. Another theologian, Thomas Aquinas, considered abortion murder only if the fetus was “animated”, i.e., had received a soul in the sense of Aristotle162.
Post-Reformation Catholicism: Abortion briefly allowed, but generally condemned
In 1588, Pope Sixtus V issued the bull “Effraenatum” that excommunicated anyone who performed abortion. Pope Gregory XIV reversed that decision in 1591 and stated that excommunication was only applicable for abortions performed after the “quickening” of the fetus, i.e., when the mother can feel the fetus moving 163. This quickening was determined to occur at 16 weeks of pregnancy164. This ruling stayed in effect until 1869, meaning that for two and a half centuries, abortion was legal during the first months of pregnancy.
In 1869, Pope Pius IX reinstated excommunication for abortion at any stage of the pregnancy165. The Second Vatican Council affirmed in 1965 that “Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes”166, and this decision was also pinned down in the Catechism of the Catholic Church167.
Usually, abortions can be forgiven only by bishops in the Catholic Church. However, in September 2015, Pope Francis decided that abortions can also be forgiven by priests168. This offer was valid for one year only (December 2015 to November 2016). After that time period, a bishop is required to pardon abortions.
Catholic Church: No meat on Fridays.169
Adherent: OK, so no chicken.
Catholic Church: Correct.
Adherent: And no eggs, right?
Catholic Church: No, eggs are OK.169
Adherent: So it’s not a chicken because it has not hatched?
Catholic Church: Yes. Erm, no. Erm...
Anglicanism: Abortion condemned, but tolerable
The Church of England condemns abortion but recognizes that “there can be strictly limited conditions under which it may be morally preferable to any available alternative” 170, though it does not detail these conditions.
Protestantism: Different opinions
The Lutheran Churches condemn abortion but recognize that there can be several reasons that make women abort171. The churches state that they “have not been able to find a definite position” on the issue of abortion172.
For Pentecostals, the question of whether to abort or not “is settled by theological statement of Scripture, not by a medical determination of viability outside the mother’s womb”173. Hence, in their view, abortion is “horrendous murder”. If the mother’s life is in danger, people should pray for her, then consult a pro-life physician, and then arrive “at the proper conclusion”.
Baptists speak of the “sanctity of life” but want to “work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother”174.
Orthodoxy: Abortion is evil
The Orthodox Churches denounce abortion as a “evil practice”, but “seek to alleviate the conditions of those tempted into such a decision because of their harsh environments or marginalized social status”175.
Erosion of traditional values is not what these pastors and preachers are concerned about. Rather, they are the only people who could possibly be helped by the rules they are promoting or the vehement public disputes over those rules. They gain through public exposure for their “brand”; through the promotion of themselves as something pretty important.
Birth Control
Though different eras, and different Christian denominations, have held differing attitudes towards the question of whether or not contraception is allowed, most major religions warn of contraception.
The Bible and Early Catholicism: Probably prohibition
Not sure whether the writer is qualified to talk about either. anonymous
Different forms of contraception (with varying levels of efficacy) were known in the ancient Greek, Roman, and Egyptian cultures176177. For example, the Bible tells the story of Onan, who was commanded to sleep with his brother’s wife in order to raise offspring for him. But whenever Onan “slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother”[Genesis 38:8-10]. The story goes on to condemn this behavior: “What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death”. Unfortunately, the Lord did not make very clear what exactly he did not like about Onan’s actions. The mainstream interpretation in early Christianity was that God did not like ejaculation without the purpose of reproduction. With this interpretation, Christianity is comparable with many other dominant religions that also aim to ensure that all sexual energy is channeled into procreation, so that the religion may continue into the next generation.
The New Testament makes no comment on contraception178, and for millennia, the Christian position remained that contraception was prohibited. In the 5th century, Saint Augustine held that the only justification for sexual intercourse was to perpetuate the human race: “that which is done for lust must be done in such a way that it is not for lust’s sake”179. Centuries later, in 1484, Pope Innocent VIII lamented against witches who “hinder men from begetting and women from conceiving”8485. This was also interpreted as a condemnation of contraception.
Post-Reformation Catholicism: Prohibition
In 1930, “the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her” clarified that “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin”180. In the 1960s, Pope Paul VI set up a commission (which eventually included five women) to review the topic. The majority of the commission voted to revise the church teaching of birth control178, but Paul VI rejected these recommendations in 1968 and condemned any “action, which is either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, that is specifically intended to prevent procreation–whether as an end or a means”181. Consequently, the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that “every action which [..] proposes […] to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil”182.
Anglicanism: First prohibition, then permission
In 1908, the Church of England regarded “with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family, and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare”183. However, in the coming years, society came to see sexual love as good in and of itself184. Therefore, in 1930, the Church decided that “in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles”185. By the time of the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was a way of life among most Anglicans184. The Church decided to let God’s will follow suit, declaring in 1958 that “the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere; that this planning, in such ways as are mutually acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and important factor in Christian family life”186. Finally, the Church had distanced itself from the Catholic prohibition of contraception: “The Conference finds itself unable to agree with the Pope’s conclusion that all methods of conception control other than abstinence from sexual intercourse or its confinement to periods of infecundity are contrary to the order established by God.”187
Protestantism: Permission
In 1938, Baptists disapproved of the idea “to make possible and provide for the dissemination of information concerning contraceptives and birth control; whatever the intent and motive of such proposal we cannot but believe that such legislation would be vicious in character and would prove seriously detrimental to the morals of our nation”188. However, in 1977, the Baptists dropped their opposition to birth control, thereafter objecting only to “distributing [it] to minors [without] parental or guardian consent”189.
Pentecostals believe that “there are valid reasons for delaying, limiting, or not having children”. Therefore, they “recognize the legitimacy of good family planning and the use of birth control”190.
Lutherans, likewise “explicitly approve of artificial birth control”171.
Orthodoxy: Reluctant permission
Orthodoxy allows contraception as long as it does “not cause an abortion”191. Still, it makes it pretty clear that “true love in marriage supposes the bearing of children”192. Hence, “the voluntary control of birth in marriage is only permissible, according to the essence of a spiritual life, when the birth of a child will bring danger and hardship”, and “the Christian marriage is the one that abounds with as many new children as possible”.
Evolution
The Bible tells us[Genesis 2] that God created two humans, Adam and Eve, from whom all mankind descends. This view is known as creationism. Science, in contrast, tells us that all organisms (including humankind) evolved from a common ancestor in a process called evolution. Over time, different Christian denominations have taken different stances along this spectrum.
Pre-Darwinian Christianity: Creationism
The Bible tells us that “the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it”[Genesis 2:15]. Then the Lord said: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him”[Genesis 2:18]. And “so the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”[Genesis 2:21-22] In the following centuries, Christianity stuck to the literal interpretation of this narrative.
This view continued to dominate unopposed in all Christian denominations until the Enlightenment. In the 17th century, philosophers began proposing the idea that the universe might have developed on its own, without divine guidance, and by the 19th century, this idea was supported by a better understanding of the fossil record. In 1858, Charles Darwin published his book “On the Origin of Species”, which formalized the theory of evolution by natural selection. It took Christian denominations around 50 years to react to this theory.
Post-Darwinian Catholicism: first opposition, then acceptance of evolution
In 1950, Pope Pius XII explained that the Bible “gives a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people”. Hence, “the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own”193. Thus, the pope correctly understood that the theory of evolution contradicts the idea that Adam committed a sin that was handed down to humankind. And without such a sin, there would be no need for Jesus’ sacrifice. Thus, evolution makes the entire Christian mythology tumble.
Pius’ insight has to be seen in the light of the First Vatican Council, which stated in 1869 that “all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the church”33. Transgressing this prohibition, in 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that “new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis”194. Since 1997, the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks approvingly of the scientific consensus, noting that “the question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man”195. In 2004, the International Theological Commission of the Roman Catholic Church observed that “it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from [a] first organism”196. Adam, then, is nothing more than the “symbol” of the original unity of the human race.
Post-Darwinian Anglicanism: first opposition, then acceptance of evolution
The initial response from the Church of England to Darwin’s theories was hostile: the idea that humankind ascended from the animal kingdom was unacceptable to the Anglican establishment197. However, in the coming century, Darwin’s theories became more and more accepted. In 2008, the Church’s head of public affairs conceded: “People, and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and churches are no exception […] Charles Darwin, 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still”198. Today, the Anglican Church observes that “the discovery of DNA and recent work on genome sequencing is compelling evidence for the interrelatedness of all living things[…]. The mechanisms of genetic mutation and evolution are now well understood”199.
Orthodoxy regards the “story of Adam and Eve as a kind of etiological parable: a story that explains, via mythological imagery, the activity of God from the creation of the world”200. Therefore, the Bible “has nothing to say, for or against, the theory of evolution”201.
Post-Darwinian Lutheranism: acceptance of evolution
Lutheranism acknowledges that the theory of evolution “has the highest probability for explaining the genesis of life”202.
Evangelicalism: rejection of evolution
The situation is different for the Evangelical Protestantisms. Pentecostalism holds that the Bible “accurately communicates God’s creation of the heavens and the earth”203. Consequently, the majority of Pentecostals (66%) believe that the Biblical creation account is a historical narrative204 (linked from Assemblies of God). Half of these believe that the Earth was created in six consecutive 24-hour periods less than 10,000 years ago.
Baptists, likewise, believe “in a literal biblical creation”156, and “in the direct creation and historicity of Adam and Eve”205. In the 1920s, these groups succeeded in banning the teaching of evolution in American public schools in favor of the Biblical creation account, taught as “scientific creationism” or “intelligent design”. This was brought to an end in 2005 when the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science206.
Boss: I have to disagree with you, Alice!
Alice: Have you noticed that every time we disagree, I'm eventually proven correct? Every single time?
Boss: Yes indeed, but I'm always right initially!
Women’s rights
Different Christian denominations have different opinions as to whether men and women should have equal rights. Some denominations hold that men and women have “equal worth” but different “roles” in society: As it so happens, men can take all roles they wish (and are biologically capable of), while women are barred from certain roles (most notably those with a leadership function). This is a popular theme in nearly all major religions.
Bible and Early Catholicism: No equal rights
Christianity is traditionally dominated by men. (In fact, a woman was first created by God only as an afterthought, and only to make a man happy.) All main Christian prophets are male, the Christian god is male (“Father in heaven”), and the main addressee of worship is male (Jesus). Hence, most major Christian denominations traditionally gave leadership roles exclusively to males (priests, popes, bishops, etc.). This is mirrored in the following Bible verses:
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor”[Exodus 20:17]. This passage from the Ten Commandments is so well-known and often-cited that it is even more surprising how sexist it is: It refers to the wife as the neighbors’ property, alongside oxen and donkeys. Furthermore, the instruction is apparently addressed to men only.
“Teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God”[Titus 2:3-5].
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”[Ephesians 5:22-24].
“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered”[1 Peter 3:1-6].
“I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head — it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice — nor do the churches of God”[1 Corinthians 11:1-16].
“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church”[1 Corinthians 14:33-35].
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet”[1 Timotheans 2:11-12].
“Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged. Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism”[Colossians 3:18-25].
“To the woman, God said: [...] your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you”[Genesis 3:16].
“If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity”, then the girl’s father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl’s father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, “I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.” But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity [i.e., presumably the bed linen with the blood of the rupture of the hymen after sexual intercourse]. Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you”[Deuteronomy 22:13-21]. (The virginity of the man is not required.)
Post-Reformation Catholicism : No equal rights
Contrary to the above Bible verses, since 1965, Catholicism has held that “every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent”74. Unfortunately, this quest has not yet been achieved within the institution of Catholicism itself. To this day, the denomination does not ordain women to leadership roles, such as priests, bishops, or popes207.
Orthodoxy: No equal rights
Like Catholicism, Orthodoxy does not ordain women to leadership positions. Furthermore, the Church asserts that “Within the life of the family, the father must be the leader and head”, and that “The wife must be totally devoted to her husband”. Also, beating the child is a role reserved for the father: “The true father loves and disciplines his child [since the Bible says that] He who spares the rod hates his son”192.
Baptism: No equal rights
Baptism encourages the service of women “in all aspects of church life and work other than pastoral functions and leadership roles entailing ordination”208. However, equal rights are opposed209, men are considered “the head of woman”, and “women are made for men”210.
Anglicanism: Generally equal rights
The 39 Articles of Faith contain no discriminatory wording against women211. The ordination of women remains controversial but is accepted by the majority of dioceses (for interested readers, Wikipedia maintains an updated list of dioceses that accept the ordination of women212).
Pentecostalism: Equal rights
Pentecostalism asserts that “God has planned that neither [men nor women] need express control and domination over the other”213. Furthermore, the denomination has found three women prophets in the Old Testament: Miriam in Exodus 15:20; Deborah in Judges 4-5; and Huldah in 2 Kings 22:14-20 and 2 Chronicles 34:22-28. It has also found 12 women mentioned as ministers in the New Testament: Tabitha in Acts 9:36; four unmarried daughters in Acts 21:8,9; Euodia and Syntyche in Philippians 4:2,3; Priscilla in Romans 16:3,4; Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis in Romans 16:6,12. From this, Pentecostalism concludes that “Paul clearly was a strong advocate of women in ministry” 214. The other parts of the Bible that deny women leadership roles (see above) are explained as mistranslations or misinterpretations. Therefore, Pentecostalism allows the ministry of women.
Lutheranism: Equal rights
Lutheranism explicitly promotes equal rights for men and women171, holding that individual Bible verses saying otherwise should not be seen as proof of a particular thesis but should rather be understood within their context. Since this context is the Bible, which is riddled with inaccuracies, this presumably means that the verses should be ignored.
Ever wondered why God never had people throw stones at rapists? The Bible was written by men.
Slavery
A slave is a person who is owned by someone. This usually implies that the slave (1) is physically prevented from leaving, (2) has to work under penalty of corporal punishment, (3) can be sold and bought, and (4) has their children also be slaves215. Early Christianity permitted slavery — a popular theme in different religions. Nowadays, both forms of slavery are prohibited in Christianity.
Old Testament: Slavery allowed
The Old Testament permits and regulates slavery explicitly , stating:
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property”[Exodus 21:20-21]
“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her”[Exodus 21:7]
“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free”[Exodus 21:2-4].
“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness”[Leviticus 25:44-46].
“If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull is to be stoned to death”[Exodus 21:32]. (Note that the compensation goes to the master, and not to the family of the slave.)
Apologists have argued that the type of slavery presented in the Old Testament was mainly servitude to pay off debts216. However, the above rules also stipulate that the children of slaves are also to be slaves, despite having nothing to do with the debt of their parents (as the Old Testament itself confirms[Ezekiel 18, Deuteronomy 24:16, Psalm 47:16]). Thus, the Old Testament does not talk of servitude, but indeed of slavery.
Jesus: Nothing against slavery
Jesus uses slaves in his parables, and never argued against slavery, saying, among other things:
“Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives”[Matthew 24:45-46]
“For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his bondservants and entrusted to them his property. […One servant goes on to make more money from the entrusted property, the other does not. As for the latter:] He cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness”[Matthew 25:14-30]. (Jesus does not criticize that the master has control over his slaves. It is accepted as a natural state of affairs.)
If Jesus had opposed slavery he would surely have said so. Yet, he did not. When he heals a slave[Luke 7:2], he does so without any thought of freeing the slave or admonishing the slave’s owner217. This shows that he was comfortable with the concept of slavery.
New Testament: Slavery allowed
In the New Testament, Paul tells us:
“Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord”[Colossians 3:22].
“Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh”[1 Peter 2:18].
“Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters […] knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free”[Ephesians 6:5-8].
“Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior”[Titus 2:9].
“Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed. 2 And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things”[1 Timothy 6:1-2].
“Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you — although if you can gain your freedom, do so”[1 Corinthians 7:20-21].
Paul also said “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”[Galatians 3:28]. Yet, this was never understood as an instruction to abolish slavery, much like it was never understood as an instruction to abolish the categorization of gender. Instead, Paul probably meant that all have the opportunity to become Christians. In that context, slaves were accepted as a natural part of society, just like men and women. It has been argued that Paul worked indirectly against slavery but did not have the power to overthrow the system as a whole218. However, there is no evidence that Paul worked, or even intended to work, against slavery. Claiming that he intended to abolish the practice without proof of that fact is as absurd as claiming that Paul worked indirectly against religion but did not have the power to overthrow it as a whole. Both are unfalsifiable claims. In summary, in the words of Kevin Giles, “not one word of criticism did the Lord utter against slavery”219.
Early Catholicism: Slavery allowed
Thomas Aquinas gets inspired by the Holy Spirit for his writings that justify slavery.
in Aquina’s cell in the monastery of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples, Italy
In the 4th century, the Synod of Gangra declared that anyone who “teaches a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service” should be an anathema220. A century later, Saint Augustine argued that “the prime cause of slavery is sin”221, thereby justifying slavery as a punishment for sins.
In the 6th century, Pope Gregory I declared that slaves should not despise their masters and should recognize they are only slaves222. Several hundred years later in the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas agreed, saying that “a slave belongs to his master, because he is his instrument”223. Furthermore, slavery was considered to be inherited from the mother: “slavery is a condition of the body, since a slave is to the master a kind of instrument in working; wherefore children follow the mother in freedom and bondage”224.
This position was mirrored in official edicts. In 1230, Pope Gregory IX decreed in his “Decretales Gregorii IX” that the child born from a free woman is free — implying that a child born from slaves is a slave 225. The Decretum Gratiani, promulgated by Pope Gregory IX in 1234, explained, likewise, that children inherit their parents’ status: a child born from an enslaved woman is a slave226. These documents became part of the Catholic Canon Law from the 13th century on. The law provided for four just titles for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery (including a father selling his child); and children of a mother who is a slave. In compliance with this ruling, in 1452, Pope Nicholas V authorized Afonso V of Portugal to conquer Saracens and pagans and to consign them to “perpetual servitude”227228.
Post-Reformation Catholicism: Slavery first opposed but allowed, now condemned
In the 15th century, several popes started issuing commandments against slavery. Most notably, in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be “a great crime” (magnum scelus); in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians; Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; in 1815, Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna the suppression of the slave trade (Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839); and in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver in 1888, Pius IX branded the “supreme villainy” of the slave traders 229.
However, the popes did not outlaw slavery. In 1548, Pope Paul III declared in his “motu proprio” that “each and every person of either sex […] may freely and lawfully buy and sell publicly any slaves whatsoever […], irrespective of whether they were made Christians after enslavement, or whether they were born in slavery even from Christian slave parents according to the provisions of the common law”230. And in 1866, the Holy Office issued an Instruction (signed by Pope Pius IX) that declared that “slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. For the sort of ownership which a slave-owner has over a slave is understood as nothing other than the perpetual right of disposing of the work of a slave for one’s own benefit — services which it is right for one human being to provide for another. From this it follows that it is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or donated, provided that in this sale, purchase, exchange or gift, the due conditions are strictly observed which the approved authors likewise describe and explain”231.
Even as the abolitionist movement gained strength in the 19th century, Catholic monasteries continued to have slaves. They were reluctant to give up slavery because their entire economy depended on slave labor. The Canon Law of 1917 still recognized the existence of slavery, ruling that a marriage is invalid if it is contracted with a slave without knowing so71.
For unknown reasons, the Second Vatican Council decided in 1965 that slavery insults human dignity and that it is an “infamy”74. Even the selling of slaves, previously allowed, is now no longer possible, because “The seventh commandment forbids acts […] that for any reason […] lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise”232. The seventh commandment prohibits theft.
Evangelicalism: first pro-slavery, now against
Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister, fought for racial equality in the US 100 years after slavery was abolished there.
Washington DC, USA
Some Protestant denominations were explicitly pro-slavery, in particular in the United States. Many prominent Protestant leaders defended slavery on the basis of biblical verses. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, argued in 1861 to “recognize the negro as God and God’s Book and God’s Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him: [as] our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude”. Richard Furman, President of the Sou th Carolina Baptist Convention explained in 1822 that “the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example”233. The Southern Baptist Convention, today the second largest Christian body in the United States, separated from the Northern Baptist Convention in 1845 in order to uphold slavery.
In 1865, after the American Civil War, the United States outlawed slavery, though it would take over a hundred years for the Southern Baptist Convention to apologize for its role in slavery234.
The ultimate measure of a [person] is not where they stand in moments of comfort and convenience, but where they stand at times of challenge and controversy.
Anglicanism: First active in slave trade, then against slavery
In 1539, the Anglican Church split from the Catholic Church. Its supreme governor is the king or queen of England and the monarchs consider themselves ordained by God 235. In this role, they oversaw the capture, transport, and sale of 12 million slaves by British merchants across the Atlantic Ocean.
In 1833, when the United Kingdom abolished slavery, the Anglican bishops voted against its abolition236. When the Church was forced to let go of its slaves, it was reimbursed more than a million pounds in compensation for lost labor. For this reimbursement (and that of other slave owners), the Government had to take out a loan that totaled 40% of the Treasury’s annual income237. The slaves were not reimbursed.
170 years later, in 2006, the Anglican Church suddenly realized that it had made a mistake and apologized for the role it played the slave trade236. It did not, however, reimburse the one million pounds.
Orthodoxy: First pro-slavery, now against
The Greek and Romanian Orthodox monasteries were slave owners on a grand scale238. The forced labor of Roma slaves served as critical source of wealth for the Orthodox Church (as well as for the Romanian state and the aristocracy)239. Slavery was abolished in Romania in 1856240. The Orthodox Church did not oppose the liberation of slaves. However, to this day, the Orthodox Church has never officially condemned slavery, let alone issued an apology for the thousands of slaves it held239.
Death Penalty
Christianity originally endorsed the death penalty, but some denominations are now moving away from it.
Old Testament: Death penalty is mandatory
As we have seen, the Old Testament prescribes the death penalty for an extensive list of crimes including
Sex between a woman pledged to be married and a man other than her betrothed [Deuteronomy 22:23-24]
And while The Ten Commandments say “You shall not kill” [Exodus 20:13], this is usually understood to mean “You shall not murder”.
New Testament: Death penalty is possible
Jesus approved of the Old Testament laws in principle, saying, “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”[Matthew 5:18]. He also explicitly upheld the death penalty in his dialog with the Pharisees: “For Moses said [...] whoever reviles father or mother must surely die”[Mark 7:1].
At the same time, Jesus repeatedly stated that love is the principle that must guide all our actions[Matthew 5:43-48, Mark 12:28-34, Luke 10:25-28]. He also rejected the Old Testament principle of taking equal revenge for a wrong done[Matthew 5:38-41, Luke 9:52-56], saying that we are all sinners and, as such, do not have the right to pass judgment on one another[Matthew 7:1-5].
In this spirit, Jesus saves an adulterous woman from being stoned to death, saying, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her”[John 8:10-11]. It is not clear whether Jesus meant to abolish the death penalty with his sayings or whether he mainly intended to expose the hypocrisy of the accusers.
Saint Paul seems to take a distance from the harsh punishments of the Old Testament, saying, “the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: Love your neighbor as yourself.”[John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21, Romans 13:9-10]. The New Testament warns also against taking revenge for a wrong done[Romans 12:17-21, 1 Thessalonians 5:15, 1 Peter 3:9], Galatians 5:14). At the same time, he urges us to submit to the judgment of the authorities, saying, in particular, that the “authority does not bear the sword in vain”[Romans 13:1-5]. In this context, Paul explicitly approves of the death penalty, saying, “If I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die”[Acts 25:11].
This position does not seem to have been challenged in the coming centuries. Thomas Aquinas concurred and wrote in 1265 that “The life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men”241.
Post-Reformation Catholicism: Death Penalty first OK, now not OK
In 1566, the Roman Catechism held that “another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent”242.
Still centuries later, in 1911, the Catholic Encyclopedia stated that “capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church”243, and in 1952, Pope Pius XII explained that “it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live”244.
However, more and more countries soon began to turn against the death penalty: Venezuela made the start in 1863, and several Latin American countries followed (Costa Rica in 1877, Panama in 1903, Ecuador in 1906, Uruguay in 1907, and Colombia in 1910). European countries also abolished the death penalty (San Marino in 1865, Iceland in 1928, followed by Italy and Germany after the Second World War), among them the Vatican in 1969.
By 1995, 59 countries had abolished the death penalty. In that same year, Pope John Paul II posited that “execution is only appropriate in cases of absolute necessity, in other words when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society”245. The Catechism of the Catholic Church at the time mirrored this position: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means”246.
By 2015, more than half of all countries (100) had abolished capital punishment. That same year, Pope Francis started to vocally oppose the death penalty, too, saying, “capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious the condemned’s crime may have been. It is an offence to the inviolability of life and to the dignity of the human person which contradicts God’s plan for man and for society and his merciful justice, and it fails to conform to any just purpose of punishment”247. (He did not give reasons for why his interpretation of God’s plan for man and for society was more trustworthy than the interpretations offered by his predecessors.)
In 2018, the teaching of the Church was officially “changed”248 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church was updated to say that “the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide”246. Today, “the Vatican fully supports global abolition of death penalty” at the United Nations 249.
Evangelicalism: Death Penalty is upheld
The Southern Baptist Convention “support[s] the fair and equitable use of capital punishment by civil magistrates as a legitimate form of punishment for those guilty of murder or treasonous acts that result in death”250.
In the Assemblies of God, “opinion on capital punishment is mixed. However, more people associated with the Assemblies of God probably favor capital punishment for certain types of crimes [...].”251. The Assemblies of God does not make a statement on where God himself stands on the matter.
Protestantism: Against the death penalty
The Protestant Church of Germany says that “executions are a shame for mankind”252.
Anglicanism: first for death penalty, now against
In 1562, Article 37 of the Thirty-Nine Articles states that “the Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences”253.
Since 1988, however, the Church “speak[s] out against: [...] all governments who practice capital punishment”254 — without giving any particular reason for this change of mind.
Orthodoxy: Against the Death Penalty
In 1989, the Orthodox Church in America, at its 9th All American Council in St. Louis, passed resolutions condemning both abortion and capital punishment as unrighteous and evil255. The other Orthodox churches have issued similar statements256.
Proofs for Christianity
The Bible is the Word of God!
We now discuss arguments that are brought forward by adherents to prove the truth of the tenets of Christianity, as well as atheist replies to these arguments. The first of these arguments goes that the Bible is the word of God, and therefore, it must be true. Once the Bible is presumed to be true, the tenets of Christianity must also be true. Atheists see several problems with the idea that the Bible is God’s word.
Fictional story
The first objection that atheists bring against the claim that the Bible is factually true is that it tells of fantastical things. For example, the Bible tells of serpents that speak[Genesis 3]. However, serpents cannot speak. Snakes (and reptiles in general) have neither the physical anatomy nor the brain power to speak, because there simply are not enough neurons in the reptile brain to process language257. Therefore, it is clear to atheists that the Bible is a fictional story. For atheists, the Bible is thus located on the same level as a Harry Potter book, the fairy tale of Cinderella, the story of Gaia, or the myth of Persephone. They are all great stories, but we have no reason to think they are true.
Unknown authors
Even if we were willing to accept talking serpents, there is still the problem of who wrote the Bible. Take the story of God creating the world[Genesis 2]. The only eyewitnesses of this creation were the first humans that God allegedly created — Adam and Eve. However, they could not have written the book of Genesis because the text itself states that “Adam lived 930 years, and then he died”[Genesis 5:5]. A person cannot write about their own death. Thus, we must conclude that the book of Genesis was not written by Adam and instead written by later authors, at least 900 years after God created the world. There is no reason to assume that these authors, living 900 years after the death of the principal witness, got anything right about creation.
Some people believe that the first 5 books of the Bible (which include the book of Genesis) were written by the Prophet Moses. However, one of these books says that “no one knows where Moses’ grave is”[Deuteronomy 34:6]. Just as Adam could not have written about his own death, neither could have Moses. This means that the creation story is just a story, and there is no reason to believe a story when we do not even know who wrote it. Likewise, the claim that the author was inspired by God is hard to uphold if we do not even know who that person was.
Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author [...] and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of down-right lies. The story of Eve and the serpent, and of Noah and his ark, drops to a level with the Arabian tales, without the merit of being entertaining; and the account of men living to eight and nine hundred years becomes as fabulous as the immortality of the giants of the mythology.
Wrong data
There are other reasons to believe that the stories of the Old Testament are fiction. The creation story[Genesis 1], for example, tells us that the plants were made before the sun — which is just plain false because plants cannot subsist without sunlight. Furthermore, the sun was allegedly made on the 4th day, which means that these 4 days cannot have passed, because days are determined by sunlight. The stories are thus just pre-scientific attempts to explain nature. They have little in common with what we know about the universe today.
The same holds for the story of the Israelites who were held in slavery in Egypt, and who were then led back home to Israel by the Prophet Moses[Exodus 12]. This story has no historical foundation. The figure of 600,000 adult males given in the Bible[Exodus 12:37] would imply a flight of 2 to 2.5 million people at a time when the total population of Egypt was only 3 to 4.5 million. Had such a catastrophic demographic outflow taken place, it would have been recorded in Egyptian writings. Yet, it is not258. There is thus no use speculating as to whether or not Moses parted the waters when he led the Israelites out of Egypt (as the Bible tells us[Exodus 14:21]), as the Israelites were never slaves in Egypt in the first place.
Or take the story that God made the Sun stop moving around the Earth for about a full day during the battle for Canaan[Joshua 10:13]. This, likewise, does not make any sense because the Sun does not actually rotate around the Earth as early peoples imagined. Even if we admit that it was actually the Earth that stopped spinning, the rotational inertia at the latitude of Israel would have pushed everything on the surface of the Earth eastwards at the speed of about 1000km/h.
As there are clearly several parts of the Bible that cannot be factually true, there is no reason to believe the rest of it either.
Inspired by other tales
Some of the stories of the Old Testament were, in fact, borrowed from other religions. For example, the story of the first humans, Adam and Eve[Genesis 2], bears striking similarities to the story of Mashya and Mashynag in the old Persian (Indo-European) religion that preceded Zoroastrianism259. Like Adam and Eve, Mashya and Mashynag were the first human couple created by the deity. Both lived in a kind of paradise on Earth before listening to an evil spirit, which got them evicted. The Biblical story was thus most likely inspired by the Zoroastrian one260.
Or consider the story of Moses: As a baby, Moses was abandoned and placed in a basket on the river[Exodus 2]. This story was most likely taken from the legend of Sargon of Akkad261, the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire who lived in 2300 BCE. Legend has it that he was also abandoned as a baby and placed in a basket on a river. It is thus possible that the writers of the Old Testament picked up this idea and applied it to their own story.
Another story in the Bible goes that Moses received the Ten Commandments from God on a mountain[Exodus 19-20]. This story was most likely also borrowed from Zoroastrianism260: there, the god Ahuramazda pronounces his commandments to the Prophet Zarathustra on the “Mountain of the Two Holy Communing Ones”. All of this suggests that the Bible is a collection of myths rather than a factual account of history.
If I was God, at the end of the Bible, I would have leant in and gone “Oh, and tell them it’s round!”.
The Gospels as proof
Another argument for the truth of the tenets of Christianity revolves around the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection is arguably the most important event for Christianity, as the New Testament itself states: “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain”[1 Corinthians 15:14]. The argument goes that the resurrection did indeed happen because it is mentioned in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the 4 books of the New Testament that describe the life of Jesus. It is commonly assumed that these books were written by eyewitnesses and that, therefore, we have a first-hand account of the life of Jesus and his resurrection, in particular. This, however, is not true.
Written by anonymous authors
The common view holds that the gospels were written by the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, none of the 4 Gospels specifies its author. The tradition that the Gospels were written by the apostles was started only by the Church Fathers in the 2nd century CE262, about a hundred years after the stories were written. This means that the gospels are just texts written by people whom we do not know. There is no one to vouch for their correctness.
When I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence.
Not written by eyewitnesses
Even if the authors of the Gospels are anonymous, we could still believe that their authors had met Jesus in person. Yet, the books are not written in the first person (“Then I saw how Jesus broke the bread”). Rather, they are written in third person, like a story (“Then, Jesus broke the bread”). In fact, none of the gospels pretends to be a testimony at all:
The Gospel of Luke explicitly says that it is not written by an eye-witness, speaking instead of that which was “handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses”[Luke 1];
The Gospel of John says, “This is the disciple who testifies of these things and who wrote of these things; and we know that his testimony is true”[John 21:24]. This means that the Gospel of John was not written by the original eyewitness but rather by a group of people (“we”) who wrote down what an eyewitness said;
The Gospel of Matthew cannot be an eyewitness account either. It tells us about the miraculous birth of Jesus, and about his miraculous resurrection. However, according to the story, none of the apostles or later followers were present at the miraculous birth, and none of the people who saw his birth were present at the miraculous resurrection. Thus, either way, the book contains at least some part that is not an eyewitness account — and we do not even know which one.
The Gospel of Mark contains no prima facie evidence of being written by a non-eyewitness. However, the gospel does not talk about Jesus’ birth. Furthermore, historical versions of the Gospel of Mark do not talk about the resurrection either. The verses about Jesus' appearance to his disciples after his death were added only later, at an unknown date263. Thus, the only story that could be an eyewitness account leaves out the part that is quintessential to Christianity: the resurrection of Jesus.
Indeed, none of Jesus' disciples wrote anything about the resurrection264. Furthermore, modern scholarship holds that the Gospels were all written sometime after 70 CE55. Thus, all four accounts were written more than 40 years after the events they describe. This makes it even less probable that the stories were written by eyewitnesses.
Contradictory stories
The gospels contradict each other. There is not a single coherent sequence of events for the story of Jesus’ resurrection.
Who were the women who visited Jesus’ tomb?
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, says Matthew (28:1); Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome, says Mark (16:1); Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women, says Luke (24:10); and Mary Magdalene alone, says John (20:1).
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
No says Matthew (28:2), yes say Mark (16:4), Luke (24:2), and John (20:1).
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
One angel according to Matthew (28:2-7), one young man according to Mark (16:5), two men according to Luke (24:4), and two angels according to John (20:12).
And so it goes, on and on265. Thus, the authors cannot all report true information; some of them must be wrong.
Contradiction with history
The Gospel of Luke places Jesus’ birth during “the days of Herod, the king of Judaea”[Luke 1:5], and during “the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria”[Luke 2:2]. This is, by the way, the common Nativity Narrative heard in Church on Christmas. The problem is that Herod died in 4 BCE266, and Quirinius was governor of Syria from 6 CE on267. Thus, the nativity narrative cannot be true as written.
The Gospel of Matthew is not much better. It tells us that the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world[Matthew 4:8]. However, at the time of Jesus, there were thriving kingdoms in China, India, South America, and Europe. It is not possible to see them all from a mountain because the Earth is spherical. In a similar vein, Matthew tells us that, at the moment of Jesus’ death, the earth shook and many dead people came out of the tombs and went into the holy city[Matthew 27:51-53]. Had it really happened, such an event would for sure have left more traces in history and in historical writings than just two sentences in a single book. So as the Gospels contain statements that are outright false, there is no reason to believe the other statements.
Not intended as a historical account
Furthermore, the gospels of Mark, Luke, and Matthew share a section of text that is almost identical among them, meaning that all writers except the first must have had access to at least one other gospel (or all of them must have had access to the same sources262). At the same time, there are parts of the gospels that contradict each other, as we have seen above. Now, if the writers had access to each other’s work or to a common source, and if they had wanted to give a historical account, then one would expect that they would explain why they copied some of the work of their fellow writers on some issues, but deviated from them on others. But there are no such explications, which tells us that the writers did not intend to give a historical account. Therefore , most scholars assume today that the writers wished to pass a theological message rather than give a historical account.
Inspired by ancient stories
When trying to assess the historical validity of the Gospels, we have to remember that they were written down decades after Jesus died2. During these years, the stories were kept alive by word of mouth, and stories that travel by word of mouth are often enhanced and mystified as they are passed on. (We have seen several examples of this in the Chapter on the Founding of Religion.) The gospels are most likely no exception, and so it comes to be that the gospels ascribe many miraculous things to the Jesus character. So me of these were borrowed from other, popular tales of the region:
Jesus bears striking similarity to the ancient Greek god of wine, Dionysus (Bacchus in Roman mythology): both figures are born from a mortal mother and a supreme god, both can walk on water, both can transform water to wine, and both can perform miraculous healings268. Both died a violent death, were brought back to life, and then rose to Heaven. Both are symbolically eaten by their followers[John 6:56, 1 Corinthians 11:24] (an ancient practice called theophagy269). And in both cases, wine was consumed as a substitute for the blood270.
The idea of Jesus' resurrection was probably borrowed from other religions, too. The idea of coming back to life after death was so popular that there is an entire category of gods who were practiced in coming back to life after death (the so-called dying-and-rising gods)271. Examples are the ancient semitic gods Adonis and Baal, the ancient Greek gods Attis and Dionysus, the Mesopotamian gods Marduk and Tammuz, and the Egyptian god Osiris.
According to the Gospels, Jesus was born from a human mother (Mary) and God. The reason for writing the story this way was most likely that many leaders at the time were considered divine as well. The Egyptian pharaohs, the Roman emperors, and the Greek kings were all considered divine272. Thus, there was probably no question that Jesus had to be divine as well. One way to achieve this was to give him God as a father — again a common motive in the mythology of the time. In Ancient Greece, the god Dionysus was born from a divine father (Zeus) and a human mother (Semele), Hercules was conceived by the god Zeus and the human Alcmena, and Pan was the offspring of the god Hermes and a (human) shepherdess. In Roman mythology, Ion was conceived by the god Apollo and Creusa, Romulus by the god Mars and Aemila, Asclepius by the god Apollo and Coronis, Perseus from the god Zeus and a woman, and Helen by Zeus and Leda. In Egyptian mythology, Hatshepsut was conceived by the god Amun and the Queen Ahmose. Thus, giving Jesus a divine father was probably the most plausible option for the writers of the Gospels. As for Mary, she seemed to be unaware of the supernatural birth. The Bible tells us that she has no idea what Jesus was talking about when he went to the temple and said, “I am in the house of my father”[Luke 2:41-52]. Had she really been impregnated by God, she would for sure have remembered that.
All of this suggests that the Bible is a collection of mythological stories rather than a factual account of history.
I think basing an entire life philosophy on the testimony of a pregnant teenager who really stuck to her story is pretty weird in itself.
Paul saw the resurrected Jesus!
Saint Paul, who lived at the time of Jesus, was at first an ardent enemy of the Christians. Later, he had a miraculous encounter with the resurrected Jesus that changed his mind, and he became one of the most fervent supporters of Christianity. Large parts of the New Testament were written by him and many adherents believe that his testimony proves Jesus’ resurrection.
The problem is that Paul never met Jesus before his crucifixion . Paul only met Jesus after the resurrection. And during this encounter, Jesus simply said that he is the Lord and left. Thus, Paul cannot testify that the person he met was, in fact, the one that was crucified. They may be different people. Besides, the encounter was not a physical encounter with a real person: Paul saw a light, and heard a sound and a voice, but did not physically meet a person. Furthermore, Paul was not alone at the time of the encounter. He was traveling with companions, yet none of them saw the light.
Now, let’s look at Paul’s story like any judge in a courtroom would. Paul claims that he met a man who was known to be dead, yet none of Paul’s companions saw this man274. Would the judge believe Paul? Of course not! The event may have been a vision, a dream, a hallucination, or just a lie, but clearly not a proof for the resurrection of Jesus. This is even more true since Paul wrote his letters between 50 and 60 CE — a full 20 years after the events depicted264. In fact, there is no reliable proof for the resurrection of Jesus at all. Not a single historical source independent of the Bible ever mentions that Jesus was resurrected275.
Besides, it is not even clear whether the story about Saint Paul’s vision is true. The story bears striking parallels to the story of Aristeas, which dates to the 5th century BCE: Aristeas was a semi-legendary Greek poet in the city of Proconnesus. One day, he entered a fuller’s shop and died. The fuller closed his shop and went to fetch Aristeas’ kinsfolk. Word spread about the city that Aristeas was dead, but the story was denied by a man of Cyzicus who had recently sailed to Proconnesus from Artace. The man claimed that he had just met Aristeas, who was on his way to Cyzicus, and that the two had conversed. When the fuller’s shop was reopened, there was no Aristeas, dead or alive. Seven years later, Aristeas reappeared in Proconnesus276. Elements of the story of Aristeas can be found in Saint Paul’s story as well, suggesting one might have inspired the other.
Why doesn’t Jesus appear to everyone and prove that he is resurrected, just like he appeared to Paul? If Paul needed a personal visit from Jesus to know that Jesus was resurrected, then why wouldn’t you?
Jesus died for us!
In the Christian belief system, Jesus died for our sins. This is, in the Christian view, more than enough of a reason to follow him.
However, we have no reason to assume that Jesus died for our sins. According to the Bible, Jesus himself never claimed to have died for our sins. The idea was developed only later by Saint Paul[Bible: 1 Corinthians 15:3]. And as we know, Paul never met Jesus.
I'll die for my own sins, thanks.
The Bible is metaphorical truth!
Adherents of liberal Christianity argue that many parts of the Bible are metaphorical. In their view, the Earth was not literally created in 6 days, and Moses did not really part the waters with divine power. This does away with many of the problems of the Bible.
Surprisingly for atheists, these very same Christians exempt specific parts of the Bible from the metaphorical interpretation. They hold that the parts where God is the ultimate cause of existence of the universe and where Jesus rose from the dead are still literally true. Atheists argue that such a choice is completely arbitrary. Why would some supernatural bits of the Bible be metaphorical, and others not? Once we abandon the supernatural claim that the Earth was created in 6 days, we have no reason to cling to the other supernatural claim, that Jesus rose from the dead. <[p> And if we agree that the entire Bible is metaphorical, then we have no reason to believe in Jesus or the Abrahamic god at all. This is because our only reason to believe in the Abrahamic god is the Bible. Remove it from the equation, and Christianity implodes.
I once had a fundamentalist evangelical Christian explain to me that when Lot’s wife looked back, it was a metaphor for how she yearned for her old, sinful life. This is probably a correct interpretation. Now all I have to do is explain that the rest of the book was written in much the same manner.
Jesus did miracles!
Christians argue that Jesus performed many miracles. This proves, in their eyes, that Christianity is true.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Jesus performed these miracles. Our only source for this claim is the Bible, and, as we have seen , the Bible is not a very reliable source.
Furthermore, very few people in the Western world actually believe in miracles. For example, 1% of pregnant teenage girls in the US say they are still virgins277. Yet , for unknown reasons, virtually nobody believes them. So then why should we believe in a virgin birth that was reported 2000 years ago? The same goes for other miracles. For example, I can show you a picture of a man hovering in the air, but you will not believe that this is a miracle. And you would believe me even less if I told you my grandfather saw a man who could hover in the air. And still even less would you believe me if I told you that my grandfather heard that there was a man who could hover in the air, or if that hovering man had actually lived thousands of years ago. Now imagine that it wasn’t my grandfather who told me about the hovering man, but just a random person. You would declare me crazy if I believed the story. And this is how it is with the miracles of Jesus: they were reported by unknown people thousands of years ago.
From an atheist point of view, these miracles never happened. T hey were simply added to the story by the people who passed it on. This viewpoint is also shared today by mainstream Christianity in Western Europe, as we have seen.
Is there any evidence that Jesus exists today? As you think about this simple question, you will realize that there is not. Everything else that you believe in has left behind some sort of evidence that proves its existence. But with Jesus there is nothing. There is no physical evidence of his existence.
The Bible contains true prophesies!
One proof for the truth of the Bible that is often brought forward is the list of prophesies it makes. For example, the Old Testament says that the Messiah will be born from the descendants of David[Jeremiah 23:5–6], that he will be born in Bethlehem[Micah 5:2], that he will be born to a virgin[Isaiah 7:14], that he will be given gifts at his birth[Psalm 72:10], and that a king will murder children in an attempt to kill him[Jeremiah 31:15] — all of which is confirmed in the New Testament about Jesus.
From an atheist perspective, both the Old Testament and the New Testament are fictional stories written by human authors. In such a setting, it is easy to fulfill a prophesy: Just make your character do whatever a previous part of the story promised. The Old Testament says that Jesus has to be born from the stem of David? Fine, write in your story that Jesus is born from the stem of David. Nobody is going to check the genealogy of a baby born out of wedlock in some remote Jewish village. In the same way, all other prophesies can be fulfilled. This, however, is no proof of divinity.
How difficult would it be to improve the Bible?
Anyone in this room could improve this supposedly inerrant text scientifically, historically, ethically, spiritually… in moments.
Jesus is love!
For Christians, Jesus is the ultimate symbol of love: a man who sacrifices himself for the good of mankind. Such a powerful symbol convinces them that Christianity is the religion to follow.
From an atheist point of view, things are a bit different. Jesus may indeed have been an exceptionally charitable and kind person, and many atheists will acknowledge the good works he did. Even if we are not really sure as to whether or not Jesus did what the Bible says he did, we can all still appreciate the metaphor of a man who helps the poor and preaches kindness. So far, atheists and Christians can actually agree.
Now, it is a long way from there to proving the existence of a god, the creation of the Earth by a supernatural power, the belief in resurrection from the dead, and the obligation to not work on Saturdays. Atheists see no connection between “There was a (possibly mythological) good man 2000 years ago” and “Gay people should not marry” based on the writings of the Bible. The fact that Jesus was a good man does not logically entail that the Bible is true (only the converse works).
Was Jesus really love?
The idea that Jesus is love is not uncontroversial. For example, Jesus’ love finds an abrupt end if you do not believe in God: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”[Mark 16:16, John 3:18]. So, Jesus can eat with sinners of all kinds but not with atheists — that is not exactly “love”.
Furthermore, Jesus could have done much more. At the very least, he could have transcribed passages into the Bible that would have ended sexism, racism, and slavery forever. He could have chosen women to be six of his apostles and made several speeches on the topic of women’s equality. (This would have been a great and courageous sign of love for his female disciples.) And he could have taught the Israelites the basics of medicine, biology, and physics. This would have been a really generous sharing of divine knowledge that could have saved many lives and inspired a scientific approach to life for the millennia to come. He didn’t278.
Jesus invented hell
Lastly, one of Jesus’ achievements (as told by the New Testament) was to introduce the concept of hell. Before Jesus, hell was only weakly alluded to[Daniel 12:2]. Time spent in hell was thought to be limited — at most 1 year. Furthermore, there was no torture on Sabbath days.
It was Jesus who introduced the concept of eternal physical tortures as presented in the New Testament[Matthew 5:22-30, 8:12, 18:8-9, 22:13, 25:41-46, Mark 9:43-49, Luke 16:19-31]. This means that Jesus doesn’t actually love his enemies. In fact, you don’t even need to be an enemy at all, even those who would rather not “believe in” Jesus are condemned to eternal torture in a lake of fire279[Mark 16:16, John 3:18]. This is the exact opposite of love.
“Hello, my name is Jesus. I love you deeply. I have loved you since you were conceived in the womb and I will love you for all eternity. I died for you on the cross because I love you so much. I long to have a loving personal relationship with you. I will answer all of your prayers through my love. But if you do not get down on your knees and worship me, and if you do not EAT MY BODY and DRINK MY BLOOD, then I WILL INCINERATE YOU WITH UNIMAGINABLY TORTUOUS PAIN IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY BWAH HA HA HA HA HA!”
Christian values
The Western culture and value system has inherited much from Christianity: The idea of humans as individuals, the concept of charity, and (maybe most importantly) the abolition of the retaliation law. This could be seen as an argument to follow that religion.
Atheists do not share this perspective . First of all, Christianity has also produced values that we no longer uphold today, including slavery, the suppression of freedom of thought, book censorship, disdain for people of other life stances, and the prohibition of birth control. Thus, even if we share some of the values of early Christianity, it is clear that we can no longer share all of them. Then there is no reason to glorify a religion that has produced at least as many controversial values as good values.
Second, appreciation for some values does not mean that we must buy the entire package of Christianity. We can, for example, renounce the law of retaliation (as Christianity advocates) without being obliged to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, it is only through the analytical dissection of Christianity that humanity came to crystallize the values of a humanist society. Atheists have taken this dissection a little further, and have dispensed not just with the ancient values but also with the Christian god.
Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell.[Proverbs 23:13-14]
Why doesn’t a book written by an omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn’t you expect to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author?
Instead, opening the Bible inevitably creates a feeling of dumbfoundment. Have you ever noticed that? Instead of brilliance, much of the Bible contains nonsense. Do these passages leave you with the impression that they were written by an all-powerful, all-knowing God? Or was this book written by primitive men? Try the experiment yourself and see what you find.
Christian Culture
Much of our Western Culture is based on Christian ideas, literature, and artwork. Thus, we may argue, Christianity is a very inspiring religion.
And yet, the abundance of Christian art is not so much a sign of the inspiring power of Christianity as it is a sign of the suppression of alternative forms of art. During much of Christianity’s history, unbelievers were persecuted as heretics. Thus, any artistic contribution to society had to happen within the framework given by the religious authorities. But that does not mean that Christianity was the best source of inspiration, it just means that all other sources of inspiration were systematically suppressed.
Oh, how delightful Christian art is!
in the Renaissance exposition “Heures Italiennes” in Chantilly, France
Even within the framework of Christianity, the choice of subjects was deplorably limited. The majority of the art produced during the Medieval period was religious in nature and made use of Catholic subjects and themes280. And indeed, to a casual observer, most of the European artwork produced between the 8th and the 14th centuries seems to either depict Jesus' birth or Jesus on the cross (see picture). There are hardly any depictions of the beauty of nature, for example, and all expressions of femininity were channeled into the virgin Mary and other puritanical women — what a loss ! And indeed, Medieval art can be found today mainly in churches and museums, not in people’s homes.
This observation does not prevent atheists from appreciating Christian contributions to Western culture. It just defies the argument that Christianity is a particularly inspiring religion.
Stop talking about this “Christian Culture”. Christianity has been a force against knowledge and culture for much of its existence. Our occidental culture is, in large parts, born from the opposition to this force.
God is there and loves us all!
In the Christian worldview, God exists and loves us all, no matter whether atheists believe in him or not.
Atheists retort that this is actually not true, for God explicitly asked us to kill apostates[Deuteronomy 13:1-10, Leviticus 24:14-23]. This is not exactly what atheists would call love. Even if this commandment was abandoned in 1965, this is of little comfort, since God has neither retracted the original commandment nor issued an apology.
In any case, God’s love is not love in the human sense. This is because it has no effect whatsoever on this world. What does it mean that God “loves” us if he watches people die in the millions every year of diseases, natural disasters, and poverty? Finally, claiming that some fictional creature loves you does not bring that creature into existence. Harry Potter loves you too. He really does. But he does not exist.
What is it the Old Testament teaches us? — repine, cruelty, and murder. What is it the New Testament teaches us? — to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.
There are so many other arguments!
We treat other arguments for a god, which are not specific to Christianity, in the Chapter on Proof for Gods. Arguments pertaining to the birth of life and the universe are treated in the Chapter on the God of Gaps, and we discuss the advantages of adhering to a religion in the Chapter on the Benefits of Religion.
An atheist view on Christianity
The Abrahamic God
We will now discuss aspects of Christianity that appear odd to the atheist, beginning with the Abrahamic god. As we have already seen, this god was created by the early Israelites. They fused the god El Elyon (who had universal powers) with the god Yahweh (who gave his name). Curiously enough, the Bible itself still contains traces of this process. This means that the Abrahamic god as worshipped today did not exist before that fusion — not even in imagination. To an atheist, it is incomprehensible how an entire religion (and in fact half of the world’s population) can believe so fervently in a god that was actually created by humans a few thousand years back.
We have also already discussed how the Abrahamic god has accumulated an impressive variety of contradictory properties: he is loving, but vengeful; he is ever-present but never speaks in a measurable way; he is universal but revealed to only a handful of people at the fringes of civilization; he is perfect but his creation is imperfect; he is omniscient but regrets he created humankind; he loves his creation but condemns it to hell; and he is benevolent but causes harm. To an atheist, these contradictions indicate that it was not God who created humankind but humankind that created God — and modified him along the way as it saw fit.
Let us now look at one aspect of the Abrahamic god that is specific to Christianity: the change from a brutal god to a loving god. In the Old Testament, God is brutal, vengeful, and thirsty for human sacrifices. In particular, he kills all of humankind (except one family) in a global flood as an act of collective punishment. And yet, God seemingly changes his mind in the New Testament: He now loves all humankind, including the sinners; he sacrifices his own son instead of asking us to sacrifice other people; and brutal punishments (by both God and humans) are nowhere to be found. To an atheist, such a narrative is inconsistent: God first erases his entire creation in a universal genocide and then suddenly talks of love? How can one trust such a being? And why does God first ask for human sacrifices and then stop? If it was never right, then why did he ask for it in the first place? To the atheist, this smacks more of a man-made compilation of stories than of an eternal revealed truth.
The books of the Bible reflect the times in which they were written. The Old Testament was compiled at a time when the Jews were in exile. Hence, its authors had every interest in presenting God as a vengeful character who ruthlessly punishes those who go astray. Jesus, in contrast, was able to gain adherents with the message of the loving god. But the writers of the New Testament could not simply cut away their religious and historical heritage, and so they presented the new ideology as a continuation of the old one — however inconsistent this was. By linking back to the Old Testament, Christianity could legitimize itself based on its common heritage. That God became an inconsistent character in this process was apparently the price to pay.
Are you saying that the smartest person in the universe once wanted us to kill every adulterer and homosexual, but then changed his mind? That somehow makes it better?
The Trinity
Let us now look at another unique property of the Christian god: the trinity. In 325 CE, the First Council of Nicaea decided that God was triune: he is a single being of three distinct beings, namely God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit.
For an atheist, such a concept is literally unbelievable: Something cannot be one and three at the same time. This becomes obvious when we consider the actual meaning of the concept, which is (in the definition of this book) the set of all of its logical consequences. One of these consequences is that God is his own father. He impregnated a human woman to be born from her womb. This alone is a logical impossibility. Another consequence is that, as God sacrifices Jesus, he literally sacrifices himself. Thus, God killed himself so that he could forgive humankind. When Jesus laments “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”[Matthew 27:46], he is basically saying “Myself, myself, why have I forsaken me?” 281. This is completely absurd.
Christians argue that the trinity merely means that there are three distinct persons (God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit) that are “consubstantial”, i.e., identical in substance. However, what is the actual meaning of “consubstantial” in the sense of this book, i.e., what are the consequences of being consubstantial? It cannot mean that the three persons are all gods because Christianity is monotheistic. It also cannot mean that the three are one being because then we run into the above contradictions. So most likely the word does not entail any consequences at all. We are thus left with a word that is literally meaningless in the sense of this book.
Atheists thus suspect that Christians cannot really imagine the trinity either, they just say they do to show loyalty. This is because the concept is nonsensical. It was made up by the theologians, just like the rest of Christianity.
One may say with one’s lips: “I believe that God is one, and also three” — but no one can believe it, because the words have no sense.
Atonement
Christianity knows the concept of Original Sin: It is the hereditary guilt that resulted from the fact that Adam and Eve (the ancestors of humanity in Christian mythology) ate a fruit from a tree that God forbade them to eat from. As the Bible explains: “By the one man’s [Adam’s] disobedience the many were made sinners”[Romans 5:19, 3:23]. Saint Paul then introduced the idea that Jesus' death atoned for the Original sin[John 1:29, 10:11, Mark 10:45, Jesaja 53:8, Epheser 1:7, Romans 3:23-24].
To an atheist (and to a Humanist, in particular), the idea that an unrelated person has to suffer to clear some inherited sin is completely repulsive. Sin (in any common sense) cannot be cleared through suffering or death. If someone caused harm, then it does not help at all if some other, unrelated person is tortured. Anybody who draws comfort from such a thing is a sadist. As the Enlightenment philosopher Thomas Paine said282:
The Christian story of God the Father putting his son to death, or employing people to do it, cannot be told by a parent to a child; and to tell him that it was done to make mankind happier and better, is making the story still worse; as if mankind could be improved by the example of murder; and to tell him that all this is a mystery, is only making an excuse for the incredibility of it.
From an atheist point of view, the idea of atonement is just a means to rationalize the death of Jesus. The Gospels tell us that Jesus was crucified by the Romans as a traitor. If this really happened, it must have been devastating for his followers. Hence, that brutal (and dishonorable) death had to be explained somehow and Saint Paul came up with the idea that his death atoned for the Original Sin. In this way, the early Christians made a virtue out of necessity: the death of their prophet became the anchor point of Christian theology. For atheists, of course, the atonement is little more than an attempt to make people thankful to Jesus: We first invent a problem (the Original Sin), and then present Jesus as the solution to that problem. This is a well-known pattern used to make people emotionally attached to a religion.
I don’t even understand the connection with “died for your sins”. He died for your sin, well, how does one affect the other? “I hit myself in the foot with a shovel for your mortgage!”
Original Sin
As we have discussed, the “Original Sin” is humanity’s state of sin in Christianity, which resulted from the fact that Adam and Eve (the ancestors of humanity in Christian mythology) ate a fruit from a tree that God forbid them to eat from[Romans 5:19, 3:23].
The word “sin” means “an offense against religious or moral law”284. And indeed, the concept is used to make people feel guilty: “There is no one righteous, not even one; […All] have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one”[Romans 3:10], and “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”[Romans 3:23-24].
The idea of inherited sin makes no sense, of course: A person cannot inherit the guilt of another person. Even the Bible itself says so: The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child[Ezekiel 18, Deuteronomy 24:16, Psalm 47:16]. Therefore, theologians have re-interpreted the word “sin”. Suddenly, “sin” came to mean no longer an active offense, but a “reminder that all human beings are flawed”, “the acceptance that there will never be a final victory over evil”, “an acknowledgement that we can never be omnipotent”, or a “check on the utopian dreams of a perfect world”285 — ideas that have preciously little in common with what the word “sin” means in everyday discourse. From an atheist point of view, such a reinterpretation is, of course, just a desperate attempt to save the concept of original sin: If the word really meant “innate human limitations”, then it would be sufficient to say just “innate human limitations” rather than to disfigure the word “sin”. The use of the word “sin” keeps suggesting that humanity is guilty of something, even without having done anything. That, by itself, is wrong and manipulative in atheist eyes.
Another blow to the theory of the Original Sin came in the 19th century when Charles Darwin discovered that there was no ancestor couple of humanity at all. Naturally, the Christian Churches at the time opposed this idea, and some still do today. However, a few hundred years later, most major branches of Christianity have accepted the idea of evolution. This means that Adam and Eve never existed. Consequently, they cannot have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, and, in turn, cannot hand down the Original Sin (in whatever sense). The entire concept of the Original Sin just implodes. This, however, means that Jesus cannot have died to clean us of that sin. Without the Original Sin, the entire story of the Atonement makes no sense anymore. Darwin’s insight thus shatters not only the concept of Original Sin, but Christianity as a whole.
Remember, if you don’t sin, then Jesus died for nothing.
Cafeteria Christianity (Old Testament)
Conservative Christians believe that we should follow the values of the Old Testament. They cite verses from the Old Testament to prove, for example, that homosexuality should be punished. Even liberal Christians use the Old Testament as a reference, such as when speaking of the 10 Commandments. The Bible also clearly tells us that “the word of our God stands forever”[Isaiah 40:8]. And Jesus agrees: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”[Matthew 5:17-20].
And yet, the Old Testament contains a surprisingly large number of rules that are incompatible even with conservative values. Consider, for example, a verse[Deuteronomy 22:28] that says: if a man rapes a woman, he has to pay money to the father of the woman, and gets to marry the woman. By most people’s standards (conservative or not), this is an outrageous rule: it totally disregards the suffering, the self-determination, and even the existence of the victim as a human being with rights. This rule rarely appears in Christian discourse today. It is just ignored. (That is regrettable from an atheist point of view because it would provide a very short path to the conclusion that the Bible cannot be the word of a benevolent god.)
The same goes for a vast array of other rules from the Old Testament: they are ignored and appear nowhere in contemporary Christian discourse. This phenomenon is called “Cafeteria Christianity”286. A good example of this type of Christianity was when, in 2002, Laura Schlessinger, a radio personality, held that homosexuality is immoral because it is condemned in the Old Testament[Leviticus 1:9]. Schlessinger is of Orthodox Jewish faith , but the same argument is brought forward by conservative Christians. In response, an anonymous writer on the Internet wrote287:
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord[Leviticus 1:9]. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness[Leviticus 15:19-24]. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Leviticus 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination [Leviticus 11:10], it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? [Leviticus 24:10-16] Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?[Leviticus 20:14]
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Cafeteria Christianity (New Testament)
We have seen that Christians routinely disregard instructions from the Old Testament. And while progressive Christians may argue that the Old Testament was superseded by the New Testament, even the laws outlined there are disregarded. Let us look at the following examples:
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent[1 Timothy 2].
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything[Ephesians 5:24].
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church[1 Corinthians 14:34-35].
Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering[1 Corinthians 11:13-15].
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife[1 Corinthians 7:10-11].
Even though the Bible is supposed to be God’s eternal word[Isaiah 40:8], most Christians completely ignore it:
Women are CEOs of major corporations.
Women are elected to high government offices.
Women are appointed as presidents of universities.
Schools employ (mainly) female teachers.
Women speak freely in church.
Many women have short hair, and many men long hair (most notably Jesus in the majority of modern-day portraits).
Christians do all of this in direct defiance of God’s Law in the Bible288. This suggests that Christians know too well that the Bible is nothing more than an ancient, man-made collection of stories and rules.
It’s almost as if the Bible was written by racist, sexist, homophobic, violent, sexually frustrated men, instead of a loving God. Weird.
Elijah
The Bible contains a beautiful story about how the Prophet Elijah defeated the followers of the competitor god Baal[1 Kings 18]:
Elijah said to [the prophets of Baal and Asherah], “[…] Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by fire—he is God.” [...]
They called on the name of Baal from morning till noon . “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made. At noon, Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. Midday passed and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.
Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come here to me.” […] He stepped forward and prayed: “Lord, […] Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.” Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones, and the soil. When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried: “The Lord — he is God! The Lord — he is God!” Then Elijah commanded them : “Seize the prophets of Baal. Don’t let anyone get away!” [The people] seized [the prophets of Baal] and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley, and slaughtered there.
This story suggests that it is permissible to ask for evidence for God. However, nowadays , there is no evidence for God. God does not do verifiable miracles upon demand. He does not even answer prayers. This shows, by Elijah’s argument, that God does not exist. If we were to follow Elijah’s lead, we would abandon the belief in God and proceed to slaughter his prophets.
Christians argue that one shall not “put the Lord to a test”[Deuteronomy 6:16]. They will also say that God “hides his face”[Deuteronomy 31:17]. However, the Bible contains additional stories of people who doubted the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus. In each case, God does not remain hidden at all — he provides a visible proof:
The Doubting Thomas at work
in the Dome of Naples, Italy
Saint Paul was an ardent critic of Christianity before Jesus appeared before him.
The Doubting Thomas was an apostle who did not believe in Jesus’ resurrection, saying: “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.”[John 20:24-29]. Jesus then let him examine the holes in his hands and Thomas believed.
Saint Peter doubted that the man who walked on water was really Jesus. He said: “Lord, if it’s you, tell me to come to you on the water”[Matthew 14:28]. Jesus made him walk on the water and all those present concluded that “Truly you are the Son of God”[Matthew 14:32].
Thus, even Jesus’ contemporaries doubted his miracles. Hence, atheists reason, we are also entitled to question his miracles. We are even more entitled to question his miracles because we know of them only by reports of people who lived thousands of years ago. If the ancients did not believe without evidence, then neither should we.
The problem is that there is no evidence for Jesus’ miracles. All we have are reports by people whom we do not know.
Over 90% of Christians admit that they have never read the Bible
...which is ironically one of the ways in which you become an atheist.
Prayer
Charismatic Christians believe that God continues to work miracles to this day. This belief is based on Bible verses that promise God’s response to prayer.
Unfortunately, prayer works only (if at all) for things that can happen by coincidence anyway: people pray to win a match, to find lost keys, or to recover from an illness. Whenever such a thing happens after prayer, Charismatic Christians see it as proof that prayer works. However, prayer does not work for things that cannot happen by coincidence: Prayer will never restore the limb of an amputee289. Prayer will never alleviate the world’s hunger spontaneously, even if millions of people pray for this every day.
The computer scientist and author Marshall Brain illustrates this by the following story: There is a Christian housewife in Pasadena who firmly believes that God answered her prayer this morning to remove the mustard stain from her favorite blouse. She prayed to God to help remove the stain, and after she washed it, the stain was gone. Praise Jesus! [Now,] if God is removing the stain, then why doesn’t our housewife pray for poverty to disappear too? Why doesn’t she watch tomorrow as the world magically transforms itself into a poverty-free utopia, in the same way that her blouse became mustard-free? 290
Charismatic Christians come up with a large number of rationalizations as to why such prayers do not work: It is not God’s will; it is not part of His plan; the prayer is “too big”; the prayer is “too obvious”; the Lord works in mysterious ways; the prayer will be answered later; the prayer was sincere enough; God will eventually inspire scientists to erase all forms of poverty, etc.291
These explanations, however, can equally explain why prayer to any other god works (or does not work). Let us pray, for example, to the Hindu god Vishnu. If we pray to Vishnu, some of the things we ask for will happen by coincidence. These prayers will be “answered”. Others will not happen. Then, it’s not Vishnu’s will or part of Vishnu’s plan. But no matter what, the probability of a prayer being answered will be exactly the same whether we pray to God or to Vishnu292. To spin this idea further, we could even pray to a jug of milk. If what we ask for happens, then our prayer has been answered by the jug of milk. If the prayer is not answered, then our wish was not in the jug’s plan. Again, the prayer to the jug is as effective as the prayer to God. No matter whether we pray to God or to the jug of milk, the probability of the prayer materializing is the same. This means that the jug of milk has the same powers as God, or, conversely, that God has the same powers as the jug of milk 293.
If prayer really worked, we would not need hospitals. We would not need health insurance. We would not need seat belts, glasses, or helmets. And yet, even Charismatic Christians use all of these. This shows that they do not believe their claim of effective prayer either.
We thus find ourselves confronted with a claim that is not true (“prayer works”), and with people who say they believe in it but who act in every way as if they did not. Everybody knows that prayers do not work. And, according to atheists, prayers do not work because there is no one who listens.
The man who prays is the one who thinks that god has arranged matters all wrong, but who also thinks that he can instruct God how to put them right.
The Bible
Christianity bases its belief on the Bible. If it were not for the Bible, there would be no reason to believe that God created the world, that Jesus was his son, or that he was resurrected. For proof, look no further than the Americas: Before Christian missionaries brought the Bible there, Indigenous Americans had no reason to believe in Jesus and the Christian God.
At the same time, the Bible is a very unreliable source:
It talks of serpents that can speak and people who can walk on water. Serpents cannot speak, and humans cannot walk on water. Thus, the Bible is clearly a fictional account.
It is not written by eyewitnesses — neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament. Rather, it is written by people whom we do not know. We thus have no-one to vouch for its factuality.
Indeed, it contains factually false information or outright absurd claims, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament.
Thus, the Bible cannot be a factual account of things. Since it is not a factual account of things, there is no reason to consider true what the Bible says. However, if we remove the Bible, there is no other source to tell us about God, Jesus, or his divine nature. In other words, there is no reason to believe in Christianity at all.
Liberal Christians say that the Bible is merely metaphorical. Yet, once some part of it is metaphorical, there is no reason to assume that the rest is not.
The writers of the Bible did certainly not collect the Biblical stories with a bad intention: they may have seriously believed in these stories, or they may have intended the stories to be told as tales. In this sense, they can still inspire people today. And yet, from a factual point of view, there is no reason to believe in them.
You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, and people walking on water — and you say we’re the ones that need help?
The Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, has made a number of moral mistakes in the recent past, some quite serious. In 2014, the UN Committee on Rights of the Child issued a damning report294 criticizing:
an incompatibility between Catholic Canon Law and the UN Convention of Children’s rights, in particular relating to a child’s right to be protected against discrimination, violence, and all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse,
a social stigmatization of homosexuals,
a disregard for legal equality between genders, which is often used to justify discriminatory legislation,
sexual child abuse, in which the Church has consistently placed the preservation of the reputation of the Church and the protection of the perpetrators above children’s best interests. In the US alone, the Church has spent $ 4 billion in settlements and judgements 295,
the toleration of the quasi-enslavement of young girls in the Magdalene laundries of Ireland until well into the 20th century296,
the promotion of the corporal punishment of children,
the obstruction of investigations of sexual abuse committed by members of the Catholic churches, and
the obstruction of efforts in certain countries to extend the statute of limitation for child sexual abuse.
These positions are in grave contradiction with the rights of the child. They are also in grave disagreement with universal Human Rights or any harm-based moral framework. Therefore, most atheists (and certainly Humanists) cannot agree on such policies. This disagreement extends to the present, because the Church did not abandon the above positions. On the contrary, in its reaction to the report, the Church “regrets to see […] an attempt to interfere with Catholic Church teaching” 297.
This divergence between Humanist values and Catholicism has a long history: Pope Gregory XVI opposed liberty of conscience, freedom to publish, and the separation of Church and State298; Pope Pius IX declared it an error for the pope “to reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization”69; and the Catholic Church’s initial response to the “Declaration of the Rights of Man” was complete rejection 299. This latter position changed in the 21st century, with Pope Francis praising Human Rights 300. However, as of 2024, the Vatican is the only European country that has not signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Thus, Humanists and the Catholic Church continue to be in disagreement.
I can’t believe what you say because I see what you do.
Papal Infallibility
The First Vatican Council defined that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [...] operates with [...] infallibility [...] and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.” 301. This infallibility has been much criticized. However, from the perspective of this book, it is only natural that the pope should be infallible when he speaks in matters of faith because he defines the faith. It is a bit like when French scientists defined how heavy a kilogram is — they cannot err because they defined the measurement. Furthermore, the infallibility of the pope applies only when the pope speaks “ex cathedra”. This notion is not clearly defined, but the consensus is that it applies only when the pope explicitly evokes divine authority. This has so far happened only two times.
However, in the Catholic belief system, the Church still has the highest moral authority, with Priests able to deliver absolution for sins. When they do so, they speak in the name of Jesus Christ, i.e., in the name of God himself2. The formula is “ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti” (“I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”). This is not a request to God but a declaration by the priest in the name of God. This authority is granted based on a Bible verse in which Jesus told his disciples: If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven[John 20:23].
The pope has even more divine power. He is the “guardian of [Jesus'] entire flock in His own place” and the “Vicar of Christ [, a title] which he bears [...] with vicarial power derived from Him” 302. More succinctly, the pope “hold[s] upon this earth the place of God Almighty” 303. Thus, the priests, and even more so the pope, can speak in the name of God himself. The Church itself “was instructed by Jesus Christ and His Apostles and that all truth was daily taught it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”111.
If this authority decides (or ever decided) something that is in grave contradiction with universal Human Rights, then God would surely withdraw their right to speak in his name. But he has not. This could mean that God does not like Human Rights. More likely, however, it means that the Church merely claims the ability to speak in God’s name — an easy claim since nobody can check whether or not it is true.
In sum, one cannot uphold Human Rights on the one hand and believe in the Catholic Church as a divinely inspired institution on the other.
Amoris Lætitia
There are other reasons to doubt that the Catholic Church is in any way connected to God.
It was once common practice that divorced people could not receive the Eucharist. This was reaffirmed in 1981: “The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. […] Reconciliation […], which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who […] take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples”304.
However, in 2016, Pope Francis published his “Amoris lætitia”, which seems to suggest that divorced people may receive the Eucharistic Communion in certain cases without the requirement of abstinence. The Vatican’s own newspaper Osservatore Romano affirms this interpretation: “A separated or divorced person who lives in a new union comes [...] to recognize and believe that they are at peace with God, and they cannot be prevented from approaching the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist (see Amoris lætitia, notes 336 and 351)”305306307.
This has led to an open discussion among clerics about whether the communion for divorced and remarried people would be allowed or not. 45 clerics asked the pope in an open letter to “repudiate” what they see as “erroneous propositions” in Amoris lætitia308. Other bishops, scholars, cardinals, and dioceses have offered their own responses, ranging from outrage about the Amoris lætitia to guidelines as to how to apply the letter.
Now think about this for a moment: If the pope were really guided by God, would he publish a document that gives rise to so much dispute? Would he not, by divine guidance, be able to formulate the document in such a way that it is clear and does not require guidelines? Vice versa, if the critics of the document really believed that the pope were guided by God, would they dare criticizing the document as “erroneous”? And, if these people believed in the power of prayer, why did they not ask God directly to sort it out?
The obvious answer is that neither party in this process is guided by anything divine. The document and the ensuing criticism are the results of ongoing discussions in the Church of how to deal with the reality of divorce. What drives this discussion is the desire to remain attractive to adherents in a modern world, to reconcile the previous position with the future positions, and to support divorced couples without antagonizing the conservative circles of the Church. These are political considerations, in which God is not involved in any way.
Diversity in belief
In this chapter, we have discussed a wide historical diversity of beliefs in Christianity. Over time, numerous convictions were first upheld and then abandoned, such as slavery (once universally approved but now universally shunned), belief in witchcraft and the persecution of witches (witches were once persecuted and killed but nowadays nobody talks about them), and heresy (once severely punished and now a non-issue). To atheists, all of this shows that believers have had no divine guidance whatsoever. Christian authorities were straying in the dark just like everyone else — and even longer than everyone else.
Christianit y is trapped: Either it changes its opinion concerning slavery, heresy, and witches — but then it cannot claim eternal moral values. Or it does not change its opinion — and then it would find itself incompatible with today’s Western values. Either way, Christianity loses.
Even today, Christianity is not united. There are hundreds of denominations and each of them holds a slightly different view on a wide range of topics: Shall we execute a murderer? Can God still work miracles? Is contraception allowed? Is hell a physical place? Can non-Christians go to Heaven? Is abortion allowed in some circumstances? Shall women have the same rights as men?
Atheists reason that if people had a connection to God, they could just pray to him and ask for an answer to these questions. In this way, everyone would have the same beliefs. However, this is not what happens. Everyone believes that God wants something different, and everyone believes that God wants exactly what they want. To an atheist, this just shows that everyone imagines God in their own head. God exists only in the believer’s mind.
“On Earth as it is in Heaven” runs the Christian prayer. The truth is much closer to “In Heaven as it is on Earth”: humans create societies and then cook up heavens to match.
