the cross [of Zombie] doesn’t make sense till you become stupid

er.. I mean till you have faith. And I call this load of crap.

I don’t think there is a right way of being an atheist. But there are a group of believers that I treat with a lot of suspicion. The type who every post they write they say when I was a non believer this or that. I understand it is possible to convert to a delusion religion after having being irreligious. I, however, would expect that these group of believers write articles that are better thought out than their other brethren and sisters. I don’t understand how it is they churn out the same kind of trash. Maybe, religion does really atrophy the brain.

This particular theist writes

When I was a non-believer I could grasp that Jesus was a great man. I could grasp that His death on the cross was a travesty of human justice. I could grasp that He was a holy man of God that spoke great truths of the universe.

A statement, which from the face of it points to one who was generally ignorant of the scholarship on Jesus. Any one with a little common sense would as well have written this. Adding he was a non believer doesn’t add any value to the above statement. It isn’t profound.

He continues to write

However, as a non-believer, I just could not grasp the Christian theology that Jesus’ death on the cross was for me. I just could not grasp that Him hanging on the cross was for the forgiveness of my sins. How does a man dying on the cross reconcile me to God, I asked myself?

And I see the ramblings of a believer, a confused one but still a believer. The much he could be, in my opinion is a Muslim who was trying to grasp what the message of his fellow book people mean with a dying messiah. It’s a statement lacking any attempt at being critical.

His conclusion that

Jesus dying on the cross was just the end of a cool dude’s life and then the church fabricated the resurrection thing. It just doesn’t make any sense if Jesus was just…a man.

sounds more like apologist rambling than one engaged with an intellectual question. In fact, had he not written he was a non believer, I would think he belongs to the WLC school of apologists. Those who, like Brandon and UnkleE pretend to have a faith that is intellectual. How this is even possible, I am yet to understand.

Mark tells us

During the last plague in Egypt, God commanded the Israelites to paint the blood of an innocent pure lamb on their doorway so that the death plague would passover their homes. This points to Jesus on the cross. His blood was spilled so that we might live.

and I wonder what happened to humanity? Putting aside the myth of the story of the plagues, for a minute, how in the name of all that is profane would someone take joy in senseless murder so that he may live? Would Mark be willing to die so that other people in some distant future may live forever plus 1? I want to bang my head on my computer when I read such crock, except I still need to use it tomorrow. My head, I mean.

Mark tells us it was important for Jesus to commit suicide because

It all goes back God’s sacrificial system. Jesus is the culmination of that. The animals used in the passover and the sacrifices at the Tabernacle and later the Temple had to be pure and spotless to be used to atone for the sinner’s sin. Jesus was pure and spotless.

A former non believer, who has lost all sense of decency, tells us a god could not find a way to forgive people without recourse to a scapegoat? Think about it for a moment. So god needed to die to save us from god. The same god who had created the conditions for our failure, first by making us in his image, an image that I think is full of shit and then cursing the land, making it possible for malingerers to flourish. I sympathise with Mark. He would have remained a non believer or if he had to believe this silliness, he shouldn’t have become an apologist.

If, as he writes,

On the cross, He was thus sacrficed for sin. He became all sin of all time, past, present and future.

why should the christian be moral? All his sins have been paid for in advance. What is the point in repentance when all the sins have been washed away by the sacrificial lamb? And how does this work? Does it mean if Mark steals from his neighbour, he can point them to the cross in his house or one hanging around his neck? Or do I need faith to understand this trope?

This post is already longer than I would want it to be. The rest of the post is the same trope. Freewill, Satan and all the other excuses apologists come up with to explain their inability to think critically. Go read it.


About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

90 thoughts on “the cross [of Zombie] doesn’t make sense till you become stupid

  1. Adam and Eve’s family consisted of sons Cain, Abel and Seth, plus a minimum of two other sons and two daughters. Why are the other children not named?

    Did the sons have to fuck the sisters or the mother to make more kids? Did Adam fuck his daughters? I mean how did we populate the earth without the crime of incest. Oh wait the bible loves incest. Why don’t Christians today? I mean if you can’t keep it in your pants, keep it in the family.


  2. You sure can find ’em. Doubtful this fellow whose post you link here is aware even that his idea of “Jesus” and the cross are constructs of Paul, and many other writers of fiction after him, which were solidified in our culture by Constantine, and many after him, through murder, violence, and terror. No body was found in Jesus’ tomb because there was no tomb and no body. It is a fabricated story. Had a Jewish preacher lived whom the Romans crucified for crimes against the Empire, his body would have been left on the cross after he died to be scavenged by dogs, birds, and other animals. This was how the Roman practice of crucifixion worked, and because of this, we have almost no physical evidence from ANY crucifixion. We know of it through what was written of it by the Romans and other writers. This fellow is an apologist like WLC, and I find his writing to be annoyingly ignorant of reality.


  3. archaeopteryx1 says:

    I think that’s a growing trend, Mak – whether it’s a sincere one or not. CS claims it, Wally claims it, and many others – I suspect it’s a lie to counter the effectiveness of being able to say, “I used to believe, but now I don’t,” by countering with, “I used to not believe, but now I do.” Frankly, I can’t imagine anyone, short of experiencing a massive head trauma, going from having evidential proof that the Bible is a crock of crap, to suddenly believing in magic. My guess is, they’re trying to equate with Paul.


  4. A Guy Without Boxers says:

    As one who believes that there is no original thinking in all of the major faiths, I congratulate you on recognizing this trend. Superlative job, my Nairobi brother, in highlighting the fallacy of eternal forgiveness for all sins and transgressions. If this is true, then why bother to forsake “the good life?”

    Much love and naked hugs, O Sanctified One!


  5. Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

    Huh. Well I almost always say I’m a former believer at the beginning of my posts, simply as an explanation for how stupid I used to be. Maybe he’s doing the same? Because he’s a believer now and super-smart!

    “god could not find a way to forgive people without recourse to a scapegoat?” This is a good point Mak, and it weighed heavily on the back shelf of my brain when I was a christian. God CREATED the f’ing sacrificial system…couldn’t he have changed it so the torture and murder of his own child wasn’t necessary? No. Because a loving father, creator of all the universes, had to have his kid whipped and crucified for the benefit of his horrible creation (the last bunch of his creation he just drowned). It’s sick and twisted.


  6. >>> “When I was a non-believer…”

    BS. I have never in my life met anyone who converted to religion after first contemplating, and then accepting a philosophy of non-belief. Those who claim so were never non-believers in the first place – IMO.


    • makagutu says:

      Bob, you know I agree with this

      Liked by 1 person

    • Well except, that takes us down the road of Christian reasoning ie you were never a True Christian, or you were a member of the wrong 40,000 th branch.

      I happen to agree, but I think best to ignore their claims they were atheists and deal with the here and now.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Who cares? Sensible, reasonable folks already understand why people are leaving religion in droves. Christian fanatics, who are neither sensible nor reasonable, are beyond such understanding.

        Self-described former non-believers are either lying outright, or are suffering from some delusion. Their deceit and/or psychopathy should be open to scrutiny.


      • makagutu says:

        You raise a valid point roughseas. I try to avoid that line of reasoning but raise questions on their claims especially when they don’t seem to me valid


  7. I don’t know how you read through some of this stuff. I can’t follow this line of reasoning at all.


  8. Captain Cassidy over at “Roll to Disbelieve” (now on Patheos) used to talk about this a lot. Her abusive ex-husband was one such former “atheist” whose conversion story got bigger every time he told it. Really the point of the “I used to not believe” rhetoric is couched in terms to immediately draw the conclusion of salvation.

    Honestly, what this person you quoted wrote just goes to show that knowledge of the Bible is inversely proportionate to belief in it.


  9. Ignostic Dave says:

    The only way I can make sense of this is if I insert “theistic” before “non-believer”.


  10. john zande says:

    I’ll take your word on it.


  11. Nan says:

    I wrote a comment in response to his reply to your pingback. Since I doubt it will be approved, here’s what I wrote:
    What pure, unadulterated nonsense in your response! Just because a non-believer happens to read your post has absolutely nothing to do with their spiritual “searching” or does it mean they have a “struggle” within their soul.


  12. foolsmusings says:

    If he was truly a non believer, why was he so certain that Jesus existed. There is really no solid proof beyond a book riddled with contradictions and inaccuracies. By any other accounts there were dozens of ‘messiahs’ back then.


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s