Table of Contents
Chris 7-4-04
Subj: Info on your info
Date: 7/4/2004 4:52:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Chris
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Unlike many of the responses to your site that I'm sure you get, this isn't a
huge flame. This is just explaining to you why it is that God did what he did
(according to the Bible). Of course, I don't claim to know all of His motives,
but in my best humanly effort...
First let me give my credentials:
I am young (17), but I am smart, and I tend not to agree with mainline
Christianity on a lot of things. I think outside the box (for lack of a better
way to put it), and I do so a lot.
For proof of my intelligence, I am taking 5 college-level courses and 1 upper
level independent study class next year; furthermore, I made a 219 on the PSAT
(out of 240 possible) and will most likely be a National Merit Scholarship
finalist in the school year to come.
Mark Smith here} Congratulations on being intelligent. Good thing you weren't in the "Garden of Eden" though; the Tree of Knowledge was another "forbidden fruit". Seems that your Biblegod was happier with ignorance, rather than intelligence.
Obviously this is not a college education like I'm sure you have, but
Christianity is often not taught in colleges, anyway. I have, for the most part,
taught myself the information I'm about to give you. Try to take it in
objectively, because if you think to yourself "I hate Christianity" the whole
time, you will probably not get anything out of this email.
First off, it is true that God did many of the things that you say, but
nowhere
does the Bible condone such things as rape, and
God never ordered anyone to rape
anyone else. If it happened during an invasion, then this was the will of the
people, not God, to perform this action; however, this type of behavior was, to
my knowledge, recorded in the Bible (in terms of being performed by the Jewish
people).
Mark Smith here} You're over the age of 12 and I'm a legal adult, so we don't have to pretend here. When Biblegod specifically set aside the VIRGIN females, and ONLY the virgins, as spoils of war, you and I BOTH know what the hell that meant. What, were they going to bake cookies for the troops- if so, why virgins? Do virgins bake better cookies? You don't really think that Biblegod had to TELL these soldiers what to DO with their female virgins AFTER they gained possession of them, do you??? BIBLEGOD: "And oh, by the way soldiers, in case you don't know what to do with all these hot babes you just got, here's a lesson on the birds and bees..." In Deut. 20:14 Biblegod says, "but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you." You can bet your bottom dollar that when ordered to enjoy their booty, THEY ENJOYED THE BOOTY, especially as they'd been ORDERED to enjoy their booty. Do you think they brought these foxes (see below for an example of BOOTY) back to their tent and played chess with them? How about sitting around reading Old Testament verses to them? Get real- they RAPED and RAPED and RAPED these women till they couldn't get it up anymore- they ENJOYED THE BOOTY, as ordered.
|
The Booty
|
What to DO
with "The Booty"
"The women... you take as BOOTY... you shall enjoy" Deut. 20:14
"But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:18 |
Also, your site does not mention what the people had done to deserve such
punishments. For example, when God flooded the earth, He did so because the
world was wicked and had turned from His ways.
Mark Smith here} This excuse ALWAYS makes me wonder just how deeply some of you Christians really think these things through. Have you? Let's see... you ask what had these people had done to deserve such punishments? Well, I'm sure many of the babies had pooped their diapers. Others may have dropped food on the floor. Some of the four year olds may have not eaten all their vegetables, and maybe some of the retarded adults picked their noses in public. Yes, you are right- these people HAD done things worthy of the death penalty!!!
In reference to Jericho, what makes modern standards correct? To us, it sounds harsh to kill everything in a city or country, but the question is whether or not our standards are correct. By our own modern philosophical doctrine of questioning our traditions and whatnot, I ask you what is correct?
Mark Smith here} You don't have to apply "modern standards"- how about the standards of that guy Jesus? Would the mass murder of an entire village be something that Jesus would be comfortable with? Is that how one fulfills "do good to those who persecute you"??? On top of this, just WHOSE standards ARE we supposed to apply??? Standards have obviously evolved and improved thru the centuries- the abolition of slavery and the equality of women being just two quick examples. Are you saying that Biblegod's standards would be LESS THAN standards we mere mortals can come up with???
Also, in
Joshua, it does not mention a cause for the war, but it can be shown through
pseudo-mathmatical processes that they were evil in the eyes of the Lord. The
only group of people who followed the laws of God were the Jews (we'll call them
"A"). They were attacking country "B". Because we know that Jericho was not a
Jewish country, B != A (if you don't know, that's computer language for "is not
equal to", but since you made the website, I assume you know that). Therefore,
"B" was not following God's law, and was therefore
subject to extermination at
will. He created the universe, so despite what we may think, His standards are
supreme, not ours.
Mark Smith here} Has religion already hardened your natural humanistic feelings of empathy and compassion to the point where you could take a sword and, because your preacher said to ("God told me just this morning to pass this message on to you, Chris"), slowly take that sword and cut the guts out of a beautiful 16 year old naked girl JUST BECAUSE SHE WASN'T JEWISH???
Another point is this: Where is the "absolute morality" you Christians like to brag about so much? If genocide is WRONG here and now, it was WRONG back then. That's the whole idea of an "absolute" moral code. Is genocide wrong now days, Chris, or would you be happy slicing the throats of the local Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses because you had a dream where Biblegod told you to???
The Midian expedition that you commented on for quite some time is also the same
way, but there are some stretches that you make. For example,
you mention that
they essentially have their way with the virgins of the land. This is not so, as
it never says to have sex with them.
Mark Smith here} Chris, this is getting repetitive. Maybe if you would just slow down and R-E-A-D the passages in question, rather than racing thru them, I wouldn't have to keep showing you what you missed in these passages. Here is what the Old Testament says regarding the Midian massacre: And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian... But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:9 & 18) Chris, I ask you- think like an adult- without getting an X rating, just WHAT do you think this means??? If I have to spell these things out for you, you need to get your nose out of the Bible long enough to learn about the real world. Of COURSE this included FUCKING them, for Christs sake- nobody can be THAT naive!!!
They had laws governing sex/marriage/etc.,
and those would have been followed when dealing with them (i.e. they would
become members of the Jewish community, most likely, and would marry). Also, it
was not uncommon or unlawful to have multiple wives at the time (and I don't
know exactly whether or not it is unlawful now... we don't do so because it's
unlawful in terms of government and because we think it symbolizes something
like the marriage of ourselves to Christ... something like that, I don't care
too much either way in this area, because it doesn't make a difference).
I haven't bothered to read beyond there, but there are some key differences
between now and then that I should address. During their time, the Jewish people
were under what we refer to now as the "Old Covenant". There was no permanent
sacrifice that had been made to cover the penalty of their sins, and the
sacrifices that they did make were only to show obedience and did not really
make up for their sins. Those who did not follow the covenant, however, were
done away with whenever possible, as they were considered evil and unclean in
the eyes of God.
Mark Smith here} So you freely admit that religious intolerance & persecution- and not just persecution, but out and out MURDER, is ok if the victim is not of your religious background. So if you're a Baptist, you'd have no problem "doing away with" any Catholics in your town "whenever possible", would you? Chris- your religion BREEDS INTOLERANCE, as you so well exemplify here. No wonder the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland and Africa kill each other.
When Christ died on the cross, that changed everything. Ritual was no longer the
path to heaven (which it really never was, but rather it was the faith that God
would send the savior and obedience to His commands. He commanded them to do
these rituals, so in one sense, it WAS the rituals... anyway, it doesn't matter,
you get the idea). Now, both Jews and gentiles are capable of entering heaven,
as the price of their sins has been paid.
The Old Testament may seem crude by our standards, but again, who is to say that
we are correct? Our own doctrines imply that we might not be. If you have any
questions or comments, just email me back. I'd be glad to talk to you about
anything. And please, don't be rude in your response (which is not to say that
you would, I'm just making sure).
Mark Smith here} "MAY seem crude by our standards"??? What part of bashing in the brains of cute little toddlers DOESN'T "seem crude" to you, Chris??? I sure as hell HOPE mass murder and kidnapping "seems crude" to you- I sure hope that YOUR morality EXCEEDS the morality of that desert deity Biblegod that ordered such crude behavior. I hope YOU are a better and more moral being than Biblegod.
Hehe and thanks for reading the long email.
-- Chris
Before you read all my responses, I'd like you to go back over your responses to
my original message and see how you would defend against them; you'll see all of
the holes in your arguments.
In reference to all of the sexual things here, I took those into account
completely. I considered that only taking the virgins, by our standards, would
seem like taking along a few sex toys to play with; however, I feel that is not
the case at all here. Every law God gives us has a purpose behind it, and the
laws concerning sex outside of marriage are all to protect us from STDs, among
other things. Ideally, I think that God would have intended for them to not
"use" them in any way until married, but we don't know what their reality was
(since we weren't there). You're also applying a modern culture to an ancient
one, as sex may or may not have been considered in the same way as it is now.
Again, we don't know, so any attempts to make definite assertions along this
line are useless.
Mark Smith here} Chris, I'm not about to waste mucho time trying to convince someone of the OBVIOUS, but here we go again... "Laws concerning sex outside of marriage" HELLO??? We're talking OLD TESTAMENT here; there WERE no "laws against sex outside of marriage" at this time, only some adultery laws against violating property rights of the male who basically owned his wife. Don't you remember Abraham giving his wife over as a sex toy to the king, or I believe it was Lot giving out his daughters to the horny mob? Besides all that, SO FRIGGIN WHAT if there WERE any laws against it- there are laws against speeding too- I guess therefore nobody speeds, eh???
When thousands of orphaned virgin teenage girls were G-I-V-E-N to young male soldiers as "spoils of war" back in the "good old days" YES, AS SHOCKING AS IT MAY SOUND TO YOUR CHRISTIAN EARS, sex happened. To even assume anything else is just plain IGNORANT. Like I said and you ignored, what did these soldiers have in mind for these virgins- have them bake cookies???
Maybe a web page that deals with how the ancients practiced this "booty snatching" will enlighten you:
Women were a prize of war, as demonstrated by the experience of Breisis, Chryseis, and Cassandra. In some respects these women seem to be sex slaves rather than rape victims. But the art that would glorify these women would show their beauty as prizes. http://www.fjkluth.com/gart.html
From another source, more on stealing women in the ancient world:
There were however not enough wives for all these men, and so Romulus decided to steal women from the Sabines, an Italian tribe. He there proclaimed a festival and invited many Sabines to it. While the attention of the men was elsewhere Romulus' men rushed in and carried off the women. This was the famous "Rape (carrying off) of the Sabine women", which later became a subject for painters. The Sabine men were furious and, led by their king Titus Tatius, made war on Romulus. When the fighting had reached its peak the Sabine women, who had grown fond of their Roman husbands, rushed between the ranks and begged both sides to make peace. So the battle was stopped. http://www.unrv.com/culture/romulus-and-remus.phpEven in our own times, rape is sometimes used as a weapon of war, as the Voice of America reports:
A leading human rights group says Arab militiamen in Sudan's western Darfur region are using rape as a weapon of war.
In a report issued Monday, Amnesty International says Janjaweed militiamen in Darfur are raping women and girls, some as young as eight. It says sometimes the women are tortured and their limbs are broken to prevent them from escaping.
The group says women and girls are being abducted and forced into sexual slavery not only to dehumanize them, but also to humiliate, punish, control, inflict fear and displace the communities to which they belong.
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=F8170631-D456-493F-AF72A1BA98D9BCE9
Now I know what you're going to say: well, it doesn't explicitly say they were doing to do anything with these women other than bake cookies... Oh well, I tried.
You also missed what I was getting at with the parts about "what makes you think
this is right or wrong" or whatever it was that I said exactly. What I mean is
that just because we think that our modern culture is greater than another
doesn't mean that it is.
Mark Smith here} I think the world has made tremendous moral progress, IN SPITE OF its religions. A few thousand years ago everybody- religions and their gods included- all thought enslaving someone was fine and good. Now they don't. Sorry you don't see things like ending slavery an improvement. I also think we're better because we don't burn women alive for being "witches"; we don't gather around and stone teenagers to death for pissing off their parents; and we don't go around "because god told us to" and wipe entire cities and their populations off the map for being a religion not our own. You don't see these as improvements? Then you're one sick puppy, dude.
Your mere intuition doesn't count for anything here,
because there is no backing to it. You, as a human, are prone to make errors.
Unless you have proof that you are non-human, then I will assume that you can be
wrong, and so should you (just as a note, a few of my remarks may seem somewhat
cutting or bitter, but just realize that I'm telling you these things out of all
sincerity, not out of revenge or wanting to be right for the sake of victory).
Because of your fallability, you can not just assume that your standards are
greater than another, because you can be wrong.
You also brought up the topic of "absolute truth". There is absolute truth at
any given time, but let me explain one thing before I go on with this.
There is
a line of Christian doctrine that divides human history up into "ages". From
creation to the fall is the first age, and from then to either Abraham or Moses
(there is definitely a distinction between time before Moses and time after) is
considered another age (or possibly two, the second being Abraham to Moses, but
again, I'm not too sure). When Moses recieves the law, the people fall under the
law, and until Jesus comes, this is the next age. From Jesus to the present is
considered another age, and then in the future, we have the tribulation and the
thousand year reign, etc., etc...
In these different "ages", we have different sets of laws (sort of). At first,
man was perfect, and no law was necessary except to not eat of the fruit (of the
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil). Then, from the fall to Moses (let's just
say it's all one time period), there is no law, but God speaks to Abraham and
there is a sense of right and wrong, but man is prone to err and so the law is
not definite (God's law is, but he hasn't told man what it is yet). From Moses
to Jesus, God uses the Israelites as somewhat of a correction force, and the
manner of judgement on earth comes in the form of warfare and more blatantly
visible intervention from God. From Jesus to now, we have the complete written
word of God, as well as the final sacrifice for our sins.
Mark Smith here} So you are admitting that the "Laws of Biblegod" are basically subject to change at any time without notice! You are admitting that while it may have been "just and holy" to burn women alive who were accused of being witches, it MAY not be right today. You are, in effect, admitting that Biblegod does NOT have any absolute laws that are valid in all times and circumstances. YOU, sir, are a proponent of SITUATIONAL ETHICS. Congratulations.
The two key things I will look at are the Moses and Jesus ages (these are my own
names for them, not the official ones). In the Moses age, there were rituals
that the Jewish people followed to show obedience to God. These things were not
permanent, but those who did not show obedience to God by following these
rituals were punished when God felt it was right (for whatever reason); however,
when Jesus came, he essentially wiped out the rituals, but the laws stood. We,
therefore, no longer have to do certain things like sacrifice lambs and goats,
etc., in order to atone for our sins, and therefore we don't have any God-sent
crusades (note that I don't deny the existance of the Crusades in the 12th
century or whichever it was) since the world is no longer required to perform
these things. In basic terms (for people reading this rather than for you,
because I think you have probably figured this out), the law has always applied
to all people, but the rituals that spared the Israelites from judgement were
only performed by the Israelites, and so the rest of the world was punished for
not performing these rituals. When Jesus came, the rituals were taken away and
he atoned for our sins, but the law still stands. That is why we don't rampage
around and kill everyone who is against God (and why stupid people who murder
abortion doctors are wrong). Some may call it relativism, but in a sense it's
still absolute. During any age, there is one absolute manner of dealing with
people who do not follow God's laws, which are absolute all the time.
Mark Smith here} Huh? I'm sorry, you lost me on that one, Chris. You're starting to sound like a "Church of the Nazarene" member there, with you word games of absolute relativism.
No, if my pastor told me to kill a girl slowly at the tip of a sword, I would
not do it. That is murder. Killing someone in warfare is much different. Murder
implies that you killed a person out of malice, whereas in warfare, killing
someone is done out of whose side they are on and who your targets are. There
might be people with malice towards their enemy, but the malice is not what
drives them to kill.
Mark Smith here} Why is it different? Warfare makes it OK? Alright, let's say your church declared war on the church down the block. Now there's "warfare" involved: would you NOW run your sword thru a baby's belly because your Pastor / Commander ordered you to? And if you object with "but my church is not a country" for the sake of argument let's say the USA fell apart tomorrow and yes, your church really WAS its own country now- small, but its own country. Would you kill the babies now???
There is a demographic principle that you need to understand
in order to not
view killing women and children as immoral. People of a certain area will adopt
a specific culture almost without question. There are the few who don't, but
they often are ostracized from the community, such as a black man or woman
attempting to go far in school today (it's absolutely true that many people from
their community will downplay their educational efforts... it's not because
they're black, but because their surrounding culture does not value education.
It just so ends up that many of the people who buy into that surrounding culture
are black). So if God wanted to rid the world of a certain culture, he would
sometimes have to kill everyone there in order to do so. But again, this is only
for the Moses age.
Mark Smith here} So, that's the best "final solution" a super-intelligent god could come up with? "Kill 'em all!!!"??? Gee, I'm no all-knowing Biblegod, but if I were a god I could come up with at least a dozen BETTER solutions right off the top of my head that would NOT involve killing everyone off. If your Biblegod were real, why couldn't he?
Let's see, here's one solution that comes to mind: if I was a god, and I wanted to change a culture, how about changing their minds!!! WOW! That was difficult. Here's another: how about taking all the kids when they reach the age of two away, and raising them in a totally different culture? Then, when the first culture has died off, bring the now-grown kids back in to populate the cities??? Or, how about this: if the people were too violent, how about some valium in their drinking water to calm them down???
But no, the only solution your Biblegod can come up with is to massacre each and every one- even the little babies who did nothing worse than soil a diaper.
And please, answer my original question from before:
WHY WERE THE LITTLE BABIES AND FETUSES KILLED????
Lastly, I implore you to not generalize me with other Christians. I am very
different from mainline Christians (mainly because I actually think). In
reference to one of the other debates on your site, if you can disprove
Christianity, I will stop believing it. The problem is that I am sure you can't,
and that's where my faith lies. The God who made the universe will also line up
with the things in His universe, and if they do not, then I have the wrong
perception of God. And do not be so conceited as to think that you are more
moral than anyone else (no offense, just a neutral statement there), especially
God. Think: theoretically, if the God of this universe can see far more reasons
to do any given action than you can (such as kill a baby, like you mentioned),
why should you say that because the baby is dead it is wrong?
Suppose He knew
the genetic coding of that baby and the conditions he would have grown up in and
how he would respond and what he would become. Also, seeing as how the entire
point of our existance, in the context of the Bible, is to glorify God,
wouldn't
the death of a baby be a HUGE wakeup call?
Mark Smith here} If he knew the genetic coding, certainly the "inventor" of DNA would have no problem whatsoever re-sequencing the DNA so these babies were better people. That certainly beats beating their heads in till their little brains ooze out. But of course, since Biblegod never really WAS real, Biblegod knew nothing of DNA or genetics, and thus killing and murder was his only solution.
As for your wake up call, so you also believe then that THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS? You believe that if doing an evil results in a greater good, let the sins begin!!! If Biblegod wants to do evil that good may abound, so be it!!!
Chris, you have a very strange religion.
Anyway, I'll stop now. It was nice to hear back from you.
From,
Chris
"If life hands you a melon, life is dislexic." -myself
At first, I felt that you might actually dispense somewhat of an intellectual conversation back to me. After reading the response to my second email (which I didn't realize you had responded to until just a second ago), I can tell that you don't really care to read what I have to say. The email was about "The Universe According to Biblegod", and by selecting a certain part of it and responding to it out of context, you completely misrepresent what I have to say on your site. It is obvious to me, now, that you are simply on a political agenda rather than on a search for answers.
Mark Smith here} You, sir, are a LIAR. I posted your ENTIRE damn email, so don't go accusing me of taking ANYthing of yours "out of context". Maybe you should go learn what terms mean before you try using them. Jesus H. Christ- I don't know of any better way to respond to ANY thing in context other than what I'm doing right now- posting my comments smack dab in the middle of an email. How I can "misrepresent what you say" when I PASTE IN YOUR ENTIRE EMAIL is IMPOSSIBLE. Stop lying, you damn Christian.
I know the ways of people like you. You don't care to listen. You think you're
right all the time. I used to be like you, and then I realized I wasn't perfect.
No, that's not when I became a Christian, as I've been a Christian (who actually
understood Christianity, not the typical Christian) all my life, basically, but
I just reached a point where I actually conceded where I was wrong in arguments.
That is a skill that you may want to work on.
Mark Smith here} Maybe if you came up with some REASONS to counter my arguments, and not just SPECULATIONS, you'd have a chance of changing my mind.
Theoretically, what if you're wrong? At least you'll know that you think you
made a few people look dumb (the keyword is "look" in that sentence).
I'm sorry, but I cannot continue conversation with you if you will only respond
in such a manner. If you want, you may re-open conversation, as I am willing to
talk at any point, but until then, I hope and pray you change.
From,
Chris
Subject: Response to "Biblegod is a warcriminal."
Date: 8/10/2004 9:36:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Ok, I can’t help but try to at least attempt to set you straight on the topic
of God being a war criminal. Again, you quote a lot of Scripture (especially for
one who claims to be an Atheist, and wouldn’t be expected to even believe
Scripture is true or accurate), yet you take it out of context, and ignore the
circumstances of when and why it was written. *rolls up sleeves* Here we go.
Mark Smith here} The "take it out of context" is a knee-jerk reaction of almost every single xtian who writes to me. Of course, I have yet to have even ONE Christian out of thousands (present xtian included) who makes this charge and then backs it up with examples. Nope, it's always just a Pavlovian reaction, and usually made by people who don't even have the slightest concept of what "taking out of context" means.
For all the xtians out there, read this carefully: To take "out of context" means you lift something away from its surrounding text in such a way that you have changed it meaning. Pay attention to the following example}
The Original from OJ Simpson: "For me to say I killed my wife would be a lie"
Out of Context: OJ Simpson confessed today, saying "I killed my wife".
THAT, my friends, is an example of taking it out of context. Now Joey, please go back thru my essay and show me where I've taken ANYthing out of context, and if you can, I will change it. Or are you like ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL the other Christians who make rash accusations but never take the time to back them up??? (ARE THERE ANY CHRISTIANS LEFT IN THE WORLD WHO THINK BEFORE THEY SPEAK???) And oh, by the way, if you can NOT find even ONE example where I took ANY thing in my essay "out of context" I expect an APOLOGY in your next email. Thanks.
Let us first define what murder is. The dictionary says, “The unlawful killing
of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.” A different
dictionary says:
the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances
defined by statute (as with premeditation); especially : such a crime committed
purposely, knowingly, and recklessly with extreme indifference to human life or
during the course of a serious felony (as robbery or rape).
Murder is killing someone unlawfully and unjustifiably. God made the laws back
then. God defines right and wrong. This isn’t to say that He can do anything and
it’s just, but it does mean that God obviously knows what’s morally right and
wrong better than anybody else in existence. That means that God knows the
difference between doing something justifiably, and doing it unjustifiably.
We have no place to judge God.
Read Job chapters 38-41. Job thought himself wise and righteous. He thought he
could answer to God’s questions, if they were asked of him. Look at Job’s
response. He pretty quickly realized that he had been put in his place. God is
loving, yes, but he doesn’t tolerate arrogance. King David was called “a man
after God’s own heart,” and even he wasn’t presumptuous enough to claim to be
able to judge God, or to know everything about Him. He wrote in Psalm 139:6,
“Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too great for me to know!”, speaking of
God’s ways. Challenge God’s ways if you’d like, but you’d better know that it
can go both ways, God has a lot of ammo against you that He could use, if he so
chose.
Mark Smith here} You bring up several points here. One is the definition of "murder". I am assuming that YOU are assuming I'm going to do the tired old Atheistic "Thou shalt not kill" so why did God command murder? routine. You are wrong. You have to remember that I was on YOUR side of the fence for 20 years and know both sides of all the arguments. I'm not trying to show that Biblegod is contradicting the #6 no-no.
As for "we have no place to judge God", if that's the case, then at least be consistent about it. If I'm not allowed to take his bad deeds and judge him to be BAD then you're not allowed to take his good deeds and judge him to be GOOD. That means do not praise him, you do not tell others he is a GOOD god, for that is to pass judgment that he IS a "good" god. Are you willing to do this? Of course not. You just don't want anyone taking the available evidence and reaching a different conclusion.
What this type of logic is trying to accomplish is to stack the intellectual deck in favor of Biblegod. Imagine two deities (Baal & Joe Hovah) on trial before a jury of 12 men. The jury is instructed by the Christian judge to, when deliberating the fate of Baal, take all relevant evidence into consideration. However, when they get around to judging Joe Hovah, the jury is instructed to ignore any and all incriminating evidence, and to base their verdict solely upon Joe’s good deeds- not his bad deeds. Given the perversion of this justice system, is it any wonder that Christians keep acquitting their favorite deity of any & all crimes against humanity? Christian justice, in regards to deities, is NOT blind- except to the defects within their owns gods. Any criminal, human or “divine”, judged under these circumstances, even a Hitler, will come off smelling like roses.
Or how about a non-religious sheep herder living in Syria in 1,000 BC looking for a cult to join, who has two competing missionaries show up at the door of his mud hut. One is representing Baal, the other Joe Hovah. The Baalist tells the shepherd that Baal has killed a thousand children over time via human sacrifices etc. Then he hears from the Jew, who brags that's nothing- Joe Hovah has killed a million times more children than that, not to mention countless adults, pregnant women, and just about every single animal on the planet at one time. Which god is the shepherd going to pick to worship- to love, admire, and look up to? If he were a REASONABLE man, he would pick Baal- the lesser of the two evils. YOU would tell him he's wrong- that when it comes to judging which deity to worship that one is only allowed to look at bad things from all the other gods, not yours. You would tell him when it comes to judging Joe Hovah one is ONLY allowed to consider the "good" things he's done, and must ignore the bad. Excuse my French dude, but THAT'S fucked up.
Here is a quote from another essay Jehovah Unmasked found on my web site in the Theology section, that may make an impression on you. The author Nathanial Merritt writes,
As you can see, the god that emerges from the pages of the Old Testament is a terrifying insane thug, far worse than Adolph Hitler. It is a truly satanic god. Torturing and killing multitudes in fits of rage, ordering the slaughter of millions (even babies and infants) over and over again. Losing its temper constantly, always angry and destroying and frightful. Jehovah is an egomaniacal murderous despot. That is why Jehovah uses the title "LORD of hosts". The church language of English translations often covers up the actual meaning of the underlying Hebrew words. Such is the case with the term "LORD of hosts" which is actually "Jehovah of armies!" The Old Testament even says "Jehovah is a Man of War, Jehovah is his name." (Exodus 15:3, American Standard Version of 1901) Contrast "Jehovah is a Man of War" with the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9) I gave an early draft of this booklet to a fundamentalist friend, and after he read this section detailing the evil vicious insane murderous acts of Jehovah god, he began to spout nonsense about Jehovah’s satanic behavior being a demonstration of “holiness”. Needless to say, anyone who equates such vile evil with “holiness” is a few bricks shy of a load. Completely hopelessly brainwashed. Holy beings do not throw temper tantrums and destroy things and murder people.
And here are some more things I wrote along the same line, found in my "Misc Topics" part of this web site: Shopping For A God These also address your point of "We can't judge Biblegod". Well, it turns out that we damn well BETTER judge what it is we're going to be willing to die for! Picking a god to worship may be THE most important decision of a person's life, and you are expecting people to do so without examining the evidence, without making a judgment, without weighing the facts? I think you are wrong- VERY wrong.
Who Can Judge Biblegod?
Assuming deities to exist, the one who is shopping for a religion (the religious consumer) must decide WHICH deity to buy into, i.e. worship. Out of the several hundred gods that are on the open market today, how is one to decide which is the BEST deity? One would have to make JUDGMENTS based upon a STANDARD. Joe Hovah, by ANY standard, is a genocidal jealous tyrant. Why would anyone pick him over the other gods???
When Christians look at the good things Biblegod has done, they judge Biblegod to be good, and no one says anything. However, when Atheists look at the bad things Biblegod has done, and judge Biblegod to be bad, we are told we're not allowed to do that: "who are you to pass judgment on God?". This is hypocritical, and shows some problems with Christian thinking.
If we, as "mere humans" are not allowed to judge deities, how is it you Christians judge your deity , Joe Hovah, to be good? Is it that only GOOD judgments are allowed towards Biblegod, and then only by converted Christians??? Are not pre-Christians allowed to judge Biblegod, and if so, by what standard??? And isn't it a FACT that Biblegod has violated many standards??? That being so, an intelligent seeker should not become a duped sucker and buy into a myth.
If a non-Christian, seeking a religion to join, were to objectively compare Joe Hovah to just about ANY code of morality, he would REJECT Joe Hovah in a flash. The net result? No conversions. Or should the gods of the Christians be the ONLY gods to be accepted without thinking???
Most Christians did damn little research on Joe Hovah before they bit the bait and swallowed the hook. And now that they are stuck swimming in circles in the bait bucket, they claim that fish that are caught shouldn't be judging the fisherman.
Are Deities ABOVE The Law? Equal To The Law? Subject To The Law?
If deities that we are to pick among are ABOVE the law, above all standards of conduct, then there is no way for us to decide among competing deities. We have NO standard with which to compare deities against.
If deities ARE "the law", if they themselves are the standard, there is still no way for us mere mortals to pick one over the others. When Molech IS the standard by which to judge all deities, guess which deity comes out looking perfect, i.e. matching the standard perfectly? Molech!!! When Christians stack the deck in their favor using the same reasoning ("Biblegod = The Standard"), the result is predictable- and just as flawed.
ONLY when deities are subject TO the law, can we humans make an intelligent decision between Molech and Baal, or Allah and Joe Hovah, or Thor and Zeus. With a moral code in our hands, we can judge which deities fit the bill, and which don't.
Good By Definition?
IF Biblegod by definition is good, THEN anything Biblegod does must also be good. Therefore mass murder, abortion (via killing pregnant women), slavery, and torture must be good things, or else Biblegod could not have done them. However, if the above acts are EVIL, then Biblegod, regardless of semantical games, is evil, for as Jesus said, "a rotten tree produces rotten fruit". If Biblegod is judged GOOD by Christians because he does good acts, then likewise he should be judged to be EVIL when he does evil acts.
Suppose a prophet of Baal were to come up to a Christian and say that everything Baal does is, by definition, good. Given that assumption, can any Christian come up with any conclusion other than Baal is good??? And if Christians can see the error in this, why do they continue to claim that Biblegod is, by definition, good??? If Christians can use it, so can Moslems, Baalites, and anybody else.
A book's mere claim of a god to be perfect does NOT constitute proof of perfection. The Bible can claim all the perfection it wants for its gods; that is NOT proof.
Can't Praise Biblegod
IF it is wrong to judge Biblegod to be bad by his acts, then it must be just as wrong to judge him good, wrong to "praise God". Therefore, Christians have no grounds to call him good, or just, or perfect, or anything. In short, they can't pass judgment: Biblegod can be neither good or bad, he just is. Are the Christians ready to stop praising their mass murderer? I don't think so. All they're looking for is an easy way to get us to stop criticizing their god.
By Their God's Fruits...
If Biblegod DOES good BECAUSE he is good, then when he does evil, does he do evil BECAUSE he is evil?
Is there anything, anything at all, your Biblegod could do that you would call evil? Anything??? To the blinded deluded fanatics of an evil god, the god is perfect; to the rest of the world, he sucks!
Is Biblegod considered to be perfect just because it's followers claim it to be perfect, or because an exhaustive and objective study has been conducted to judge Biblegod by an objective moral standard, and thereby concluded it to be perfect??? And anyway, who but a perfect and eternal deity would be qualified to judge if another being was perfect or eternal???
If Biblegod = The Standard
If Biblegod = "the standard", then he is neither shorter nor longer than "the standard." One inch = one inch. Therefore, Biblegod isn't good (~ more than the standard) or bad (less than the standard), he is just the standard. No moral judgments can be made, against -OR- for.
Biblegod Bound By His Own Rules?
According to Christians, Biblegod invented the "laws" regarding justice in the Universe. It was he who, according to Christians, would have invented the demand that innocent blood be shed to compensate for evil deeds. It was he who supposedly made it where the "debt" of evil in the Universe has to be "paid off". No one, besides Biblegod, set up the Universe in such a way that if I break even one of Biblegod's many self-made rules, his son Jesus would have to be born to die to "pay off" my rule breaking. Biblegod makes the rules at his whim. He could have just as easily declared farting to be a sin worthy of his son's death. He makes whatever rules he wishes. He arbitrarily created the rule that demands the shedding of blood to pay off the debt of sin. Biblegod arbitrarily created rules & regulations for mankind to follow (that he himself may break at any time), and Biblegod also created the rule that when mankind fails to follow a rule or regulation, that Biblegod's son must die to compensate for the rule breaking. He arbitrarily created one rule (atonement) to compensate for our breaking of other equally arbitrary rules.
Morality becomes relative when Biblegod murders millions and it's ok, but when Hitler murders six million he's evil.
Biblegod's "absolute laws" are NOT absolute- witness the way Christians have shelved most of the Old Testament laws.
See No Evil
Christians tend to be blind to the faults of their Biblegod. They are exactly like the mother of a mass murderer who say of her son "He's not a bad boy- you just don't understand him!!!" when they say we can't understand Biblegod because we're not "spiritual" enough. The gods you worship even make your make-believe devils look good!!!! You arrogant geniuses are worshipping a god who not only has done many EVIL things (to which you're all blind), he even admits being the one who created evil in the first place!!!
Now, let’s continue in your email...
You then quote
Isaiah 45:7, which in the KJV says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things.” Now, I haven’t done a ton of research on
the KJV, but from what little I do know, the translators of that version were
using some inferior manuscripts. Now that doesn’t mean that the entire
translation is bad, but in light of the fact, I try not to rely solely on the
KJV for learning about God. I prefer the
NLT, or sometimes the NIV, for learning. In the NLT, that verse says, “I
am the one who creates the light and makes the darkness. I am the one who sends
good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things.” God is
telling Cyrus that it is Him that brings good times to the righteous, and bad
times to those who defy Him and do evil. God is not saying that He created moral
evil. God defined what moral evil is, but we’re the ones that made it reality.
Adam and Eve brought evil to the world. “Through Adam’s fall, we sinned all.”
The word the KJV translated as “evil” is the Hebrew word, “rah.” From my
research, that word can also be used to mean “trouble,” or “calamity.” God is
definitely talking about bringing punishment, not birthing evil.
Mark Smith here} What you have in Isaiah 45:7 is another case of "yes, that's what the Bible SAYS but this is what the Bible MEANS" that Christians like to use. The fact is, yes, the OT does indeed lay the blame on Biblegod for the creation of evil, and rather than try to explain the how's and why's of why many modern translations like to try to hide that fact (better sales???), here is a link to a very good book that goes into great detail on the topic. The book is "The Problem of Evil and The Judgments of God" by A.E. Knoch, and starting in Chapter 1 he covers that ground much better than I could:
THE basic truth of divine revelation, that all is of God (Rom. 11:36) is so severe a strain on the faith of some of God’s saints, that they instinctively reject it, excusing their unfaith on the ground that it is repulsive to their spiritual natures. They seek to shelve it by making the devil the source of all evil, yet they fail to tell us how the enemy could originate it, unless the power or capacity were given him by his Creator.
We sympathize heartily with the motive of those who shrink from associating evil with God, because we find that their conception of evil and sin is such that they cannot believe God’s plain statements concerning them, but must modify God’s Word to suit their misconception. There is dire need, therefore, of further searching of God’s Word on this subject.
There are many passages in God’s Word which bear out the great truth that all things—the evil as well as the good—find their source in the one and only God, Who alone can originate. Whence are the sufferings of creation, the evil that has perplexed philosophers and confounded the wise? Paul writes that the creation was not subjected to vanity voluntarily. It had no will or choice in the matter. God is subjecting it against its will (Rom.8:21). And the reason is not far to seek. It is only temporary. It is in expectation. Our sufferings will lead to an overwhelming glory, for which these sufferings are essential. Creation is enslaved by corruption with a view to a liberty which can only be enjoyed by that which has tested its opposite.
There is one feature which is common to all opposition to this truth, and that is the failure to distinguish between evil and sin. We have quoted the words of Yahweh Himself, “I . . . create evil” (Isa.45:7), and immediately we are accused of teaching that God is the author of sin. Now we did not write the passage in Isaiah, nor is the prophet responsible. It is the word of Yahweh Himself, and He ought to know. Speaking of the physical creation, He challenges Job,
Where wast thou when I earth’s foundations laid?
Say, if thou know and understandest it!
Well might He say to those who deny His creation of evil, “Where were you when evil was created, since you know I had no hand in it?” We admire their zeal for God, but we deplore their denial of His words. What causes the confusion which leads to such dire misunderstanding? It lies largely, we believe, in the lack of discrimination. Instead of the Creator of evil being the Author of sin, we are sure that He cannot sin.
In the languages of revelation evil and sin are clearly distinguished by terms not in any way related to each other. Our translations are only partially consistent, so that there is some excuse for cloudy conceptions on these momentous themes. With very few exceptions (Job 24:21; Psa.41:8; 111:11; Prov.12:21), the Hebrew word rahgag underlies the English rendering evil. A few of its renderings are, break, displease, ill, effect, harm, hurt, mischief, punish, vex, wicked. The adjective adds to these adversity, bad, calamity, distress, grief, grievous, heavy, ill favored, misery, naught, noisome, sad, sore, sorrow, trouble, wretchedness, wrong. It is evident that such diversity of translation will not aid us in forming a correct or concise conception of the real meaning of the term.
What is its exact import? This is best discovered in such passages as Psa.2:9, where it rendered, break, or Dan.2: 40, also translated break. Perhaps our word shatter is its nearest equivalent. In Daniel it is used with the same force as the Chaldee d‘’kak, break in pieces, or pulverize. In the second Psalm it corresponds to nahphatz, which is rendered dash in pieces. In its literal root meaning it describes the effect of iron, the hardest of the common metals, when used to shatter and destroy.
It has no moral bias, such as we usually associate with it. In the passage quoted the evil is done by the hands of the Son of God. He shall deal out evil to the nations with a rod of iron when He comes again (Psa.2:9). The fourth kingdom that will be on earth at the time of the end will deal out evil to the other nations before it, in turn, is the object of His evil work (Dan. 2:40).
The adjective is used of the “ill favored” kine of Pharaoh’s dream (Gen.41:3-27). They were lean, no doubt, but what moral evil were they guilty of? The wonders done in Egypt were great and “sore,” or evil (Deut.6:22). Who doubts that the Lord Himself did this evil? Who would insist that it was morally wrong? The same is true of all the evil brought upon Israel in the land (Joshua 23:15; 1 Kings 9:9; Neh.13:18).
How firmly immorality is associated with evil by theologians is evident from their desire to shield God from all association with it. Our common translation quite correctly states that an evil spirit from Yahweh troubled Saul (1 Sam.16:14). Newberry changes this, in his margin, to a sad spirit! This literally shows the “sad” effect of the unfounded fallacy that evil is, in itself, tainted with sin. The evil spirit was not an emissary of Satan, but of God. Our translators have tried to hide this at times, as when, speaking of the waters of Jericho, they say “the water is naught” (2 Kings 2:19). It was evil.
Job had learned this simple lesson long before his testing. In answer to his wife’s reflection on God, he replied “What? Shall we receive good from the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” We can almost hear someone shout “Blasphemy!” when they read this. But the divine comment is, “In all this did not Job sin with his lips” (Job 2: 10). “Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good?” (Lam.3:38).
The neutral character of evil is evident when both words are used together. Zimri “sinned in doing evil” (1 Kings 16:19). From this we may freely infer that evil is not necessarily sin.
The claim has been repeatedly made that, since evil is contrasted with peace, rather than good, it denotes calamity rather than “moral” evil. This method of discovering the meaning of a word is a good one, but, in this case, suffers from unskillful use. First we must be sure of the significance of the contrastive term. Then we must determine its real opposite. Moreover we must not base our conclusion on a solitary text, but upon all available occurrences. And, above all, we must not allow one instance to completely overrule the plain teaching of a multitude of others. All of these precautions are thrown to the winds when evil is denied to “moral” evil because it is the opposite of peace. “Peace,” in Hebrew, has a much wider range than in English. “Calamity” is not its antonym, even in English. Evil is seldom contrasted with peace, but often with “good,” which, it is allowed by all, gives it a universal range, to include all species of evil.
While evil and peace are in contrast a few times, evil and good are set over against each other often. The following are most of the occurrences:
Gen.2:9,17; 3:5,22; 24:50; 31:24,29; 44:4; Lev.27:10,12,14, 33; Num.13:19; 24:13; Deut.1:39; 30:15; 1 Sam.25:21; 2 Sam.13:22; 14:17; 19:35 (36); 1 Kings 3:9; 22:8,18; 2 Chron.18:7,17; Job 2: 10; Psa.34:14 (15); 35:12; 37:27; 38:20 (21); 52:3 (5); 109:5; Prov.14:19; 17:13; Ecc.12:14; Isa.5:20; Jer.18:20; 42:6; Lam.3:38; Amos 5:15; Micah 3:2.
If God intends us to understand “moral” evil when it is contrasted with “good,” here is evidence sufficient for anyone.
We are not trying to prove that God creates “moral” evil, but that the distinction is unfounded and futile. The word evil has no “moral” bias. It may or may not be wrong. Is it “moral” evil in the following passages, where it is coupled with good! “Whether it be good, or whether it be evil, we will obey the voice of Yahweh our God” (Jer.42:6). Moral evil is sin, and God does not demand that His people sin. Much will be gained if the term “moral” be discarded in this discussion, and “moral evil” be given its true name, sin.
Calamity usually heads the catalogue of evils that are not “moral.” Yet it is impossible to consider a single calamity which has not a moral effect. Take the recent Japanese earthquake. No one doubts that it was a divine infliction. And who can doubt its moral effect? Japan cannot strike back at God. If the destruction had been occasioned by some other nation, however, it would be considered one of the greatest wrongs ever perpetrated against a people. It was much worse than anything done in the great war, for they were given no warning and no chance to defend themselves. So that, in reality, the proposed distinction is not between various classes of evil, but that which is from the hand of God and that which is from the hand of man.
Perhaps the most notable and striking dissimilarity in the usage of evil and sin lies in their relation to sacrifice. Indeed, that blurred idea, which struggles so unsuccessfully to crystallize in such unscriptural expressions as “moral evil,” may be clearly conveyed in the question, Does evil require a sacrifice? A careful consideration of the hundreds of passages in which it occurs will lead to the startling conviction that it is never connected with the altar and the blood. The many occasions where God is said to do evil are, of course, as righteous and holy as all His acts must ever be. In the hundreds of cases where men do evil, the presumption is that the evil is also sin and this is pointed out on rare occasions (1 Kings 16:19). Nevertheless we have found no passage in which the evil, as such, is to be covered by sacrifice.
In convincing contrast to this, the student who will go over all the passages in which sin occurs, will find sacrifice and sin such close companions, that in scores of cases, in the feminine form, the word sin has been rendered sin offering. In Leviticus, evil is mentioned scarcely half a dozen times, and then mostly in the latter part, and never in connection with the sacrifices, while sin (including the rendering sin offering occurs over a hundred times.
Never is there the slightest hint that evil must be expiated by an offering. This is necessary only when it is sinful. A striking sentence is found in the midst of one of the definitions of the so-called trespass or guilt offering—the very place where we would expect to see evil condemned. “If a soul swear pronouncing with his lips to do evil or to do good, whatsoever it be . . . then he shall be guilty . . . ” (Lev.5:4).
Until not only the true significance, but the moral bias of our vocabulary agrees with the divine usage, we shall not be able to fathom such truths as the origin of evil and the source of sin. We have an innate repugnance, an instinctive abhorrence of any suggestion which seems to associate sin with God. So long as we think of evil as essentially sin the door is barred to an understanding of its introduction into the universe.
The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, usually uses one of two different Greek words in rendering the Hebrew for evil. One is the element -kak- and its derivatives, which we render EVIL, and the common text translates evil, wicked, harm, ill, bad, vex, hurt, etc. This corresponds closely with the Hebrew in its usage. The other word is -ponˆr-, literally MISERY-GUSH, or wicked. This is usually translated evil, wicked, iniquity, etc. It carries with it a moral taint. Its contexts, associated with the word evil, have given the word the moral bias which has gradually spread until it seems to taint the acts of Yahweh Himself.
We may be sure, then, that evil, as spoken of in the Scriptures, is an act which shatters and demolishes and brings with it a train of trouble and distress. But it is neither right nor wrong in itself. This leads us to consider the subject of sin.
Now back to your email...
Also, let us consider why it’s ever wrong to kill someone. It’s wrong for a
person to kill someone, without a good reason, because we don’t own their life.
We didn’t create them. I’m not supposed to break things that aren’t mine, and
likewise I’m not supposed to take
others’ lives. It’s also wrong to take your own life, yes, but that’s
because it doesn’t solve anything. It’s the easy way out. Anyway, as the book of
Job also points out in the well-known verse:
Mark Smith here} What you have said in the yellow- let's build upon it. Let's say if Biblegod wants to come down and slay Midionites, let him have at it. I know I feel as safe from being killed by Biblegod as I do being killed by the Easter Bunny. It's Biblegod's deluded minions that worry me!
For example, a lowly PFC in the ancient Israeli army only had a command from his staff sergeant, and on up the chain of command till you get to some nutcase in flowing robes who is claiming to be channeling Biblegod for the king. How is the PFC supposed to know for certain that Biblegod REALLY wants him to run that sword thru the little baby's gut??? What if the so-called prophet is a fraud? It does happen- ALOT! Even you would admit that the VAST majority of televangelists are frauds even in our day. Should the soldier go ahead and do what he knows to be wrong, just because he was ordered to? (NOTE: this was the exact same defense used by the Nazi's in the Nuremberg trials after WWII) No, the safer road to travel is: let Biblegod do his own dirty work. If he really wants to smash the skulls of babies into rocks until their brains flow out of the cracks, let him. But don't YOU do it just cause some nutjob says he talks to Biblegod.
"Naked I came from my mother's womb,
and naked I will depart.
The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;
may the name of the LORD be praised."
God gives us blessings, and sometimes He takes things away from us. And it’s not
like anything God takes away from us in this world will be forever. God could
even take our lives, but He also gives us the opportunity to be in eternal
happiness with Him. If you ever acquire the power to create life from nothing,
then you have a right to destroy that life. Since neither you, nor me, nor any
other human being, can create life, none of us have a right to take away life
without due cause, such as self-defense or defense of others. Ultimately, God
takes the life of everyone (aka death). It’s only a question of when and how,
and how you spend eternity afterward.
Mark Smith here} I am very familiar with Paul's "the potter and the clay" routine. But you must try to figure out how to balance that, and Jesus saying that we should be perfect as our father in heaven is perfect- and if our father in heaven is out bashing brains in, are we to "go and do likewise"???
It’s also wrong to kill someone if they’ve done nothing wrong against us. That’s
what’s called cold-blooded murder. I would agree that God did some evil things,
if He killed innocents. Let us take a closer look, however, at the “innocent”
lives God destroyed. The peoples that suffered the LORD’s wrath weren’t just
some average ho-hum people, being kind and minding their own business. These
people were violent, and the sheer gravity of their sin necessitated their
destruction. Take the Amalekites, for example. The people that God helped Israel
destroy in Exodus 17. Near the end of the chapter, God vowed to Moses that He
would blot out all of Amalek from under Heaven. This may sound cruel, since He’s
talking about every single Amalekite, but
they were far from innocent. Their
mission was to destroy all of Israel, for no apparent reason. So the Amalekites
themselves were trying to commit genocide upon Israel. God had to defend His
chosen people, and destroy every Amalekite. Otherwise, they’d continue on their
rampage to kill every Israelite. These people chased the Israelites, and
cowardly killed the ones that lagged near the back. The weak, the sick, the
elderly. The Amalekites would have killed all of them if God hadn’t intervened.
He could have used a fire, or a flood to do the job, but He instead chose to use
His chosen people as His instrument of justice.
Mark Smith here} Aw come on now! Even you and I could think of alternatives, and we're not even supernatural geniuses!!!! Have you ever heard of ANGER MANAGEMENT classes? Why couldn't Biblegod have put them in a class? How about therapy? How about change their government- like Bush did to Iraq? And what ever happened to all that talk of MERCY??? Why couldn't your Biblegod have forgiven them and given them a new heart??? How about a hundred other things a REAL god could have done, short of wiping out every man, woman and child??? You can't tell me that for a being with infinite intelligence, the best solution the "Great Physician" could come up with IS TO KILL THE PATIENTS!!!!
You may ask, “But why the children?” Amalek was such a depraved nation, that
there was no hope for the children. If they had been allowed to live, they would
simply have grown up to be just like their mothers and fathers, trying to kill
Israelites. And besides, according to the Bible, children who die before the age
at which they can be held accountable for their sins go to Heaven to spend all
eternity with their heavenly Father. Isaiah 7:16 talks about an age where a
child learns enough to know enough to choose right or wrong. King David speaks
of seeing his dead baby in Heaven. Jesus says that the Kingdom of God belongs to
little children. Yes, God may have had the children and babies killed,
but now
they are with God, instead of growing up in a hopeless nation in which they
would have become only depraved murderers. Keep this in mind when you read Psalm
137: 7-9, which you quoted in your essay.
Mark Smith here} KILL BABIES = GOOD THING Here we have the full horror of what the Christian religion can do to a normally compassionate man. Joey has been so brainwashed he sees no problem in the wanton killing of little babies- he'd probably even be willing to help- kill, that is, not save their lives. And he sees no contradiction with this action of his gods and Jesus' claiming to LOVE little children. As for how he KNOWS that there was no hope for these children to turn out any differently, HOW does he know this? He doesn't. It's nothing more than a wild ass guess. And again- is THIS the best "cure" his "Great Physician" could come up with- don't cure the kids, just mass murder the patients??? Any of us know that these little babies could have been sent out for adoption, raised in a new culture, and turned out perfectly fine IF that option had even been thought of. But of course, the ignorant ass Biblegod can't think that far ahead.
As for killing the babies so they can all go to heaven, that's a GREAT idea! In fact, how about kill ALL babies today, BEFORE they have a chance to grow up and actually READ the Bible and reject Biblegod. This would guarantee their entrance into heaven. In fact, how about start up universal abortion camps where ALL pregnant women must go to get abortions, so that their protoplasm may go directly into heaven??? Gee, see where good Christian reasoning can lead to??? Scary, isn't it- and THESE PEOPLE WANT TO RUN THE COUNTRY!!! Run it where? Why, straight into the ground, that's where!!! Following this kind of Christian logic leads straight into the concentration camps of Nazi Germany- Seig Jesus!!!
Amalek wasn’t much different from any of the other people God destroyed. The
Canaanites were so sinful, that it nauseated God. Brutality, cruelty, incest,
bestiality, cultic prostitution, and sacrificing children and babies by fire
were all too common to these peoples. How can you call God evil for killing baby sacrificers, when, explained above, God is bringing the children to Paradise
with Him? The Canaanites also wanted to destroy the Israelites, just like the
Amalekites.
Mark Smith here} You AND your gods have no reason to complain about others killing babies, especially after you've already explained how wonderful it is that all these murdered babies go straight to heaven. How can one baby killer (Biblegod) complain about another baby killer??? Oh, I forgot- hypocrisy. Besides, you just got done explaining what a good thing it is for babies to be killed- you wrote they "go to Heaven to spend all eternity with their heavenly Father", remember???
Time must also be taken into account here. God always gave the wicked nations
plenty of time to turn from their ways. If you take into account all of the
Amalekites and all the Canaanites, they had over 400 years to turn from their
ways. They didn’t. God was patient, and gave them a chance.
Any that heeded His
warning fled, and all the rest were judged later.
Mark Smith here} Yes, the little 4 month old babies could have crawled away when given the warning, but they didn't, so KILL THEM ALL, eh??? Stomp their heads in for Jesus! Drop kick the little buggers via a steel toed boot to their midsections- zoom they go thru the goal posts- praise God!!!
These people weren’t just bad some of the time. In Genesis 6:5-6, Moses writes
of God’s grief toward the evil of people:
The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every
inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD
was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with
pain.
Mark Smith here} And your Biblegod, according to your own stupid Christian beliefs, knew this was exactly how things would turn out when he set up everything in the first place. He designed it that way- he engineered it to fail. He could have done things differently, but didn't. It's no different than a man who designs a roller coaster knowing full well that after x years of usage, the top track WILL break and kill and maim whoever's riding that day. In short, your Biblegod is EVIL.
This isn’t too be taken lightly, that God, Creator of everything, was grieved,
grieved, that He had made human beings because of our evil actions. God gave
them all a chance to repent, but only Noah and his family were found worthy of
existence. That’s why He used the flood to wipe out everything else on the
planet. And don’t forget, that afterward, God was so pleased with Noah, that He
made a covenant, a promise, to him: “I establish my covenant with you: Never
again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there
be a flood to destroy the earth” (Genesis 9:11). He created a rainbow as a sign
of this covenant, so that whenever it rains, and we fear that God is again
flooding the whole world, and we see a rainbow, we’ll remember that He has
promised never to wipe us all out.
Mark Smith here} Yes, all praise to such a nice god- mass murderer to the extreme- kiss his murdering ass- kiss kiss kiss, and better kiss it once more before he smites your own ass.
How can God be called merciless, when He spared everybody that repented?
In the
case of Jericho, Rahab, the prostitute, was spared, because she repented, and
helped the spies Israel sent to scout out Jericho’s defenses. In respect to the
great city of Nineveh, Jonah 3:10 says, “When God saw what they did and how they
turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the
destruction he had threatened.” And don’t think God plays favorites. There were
plenty of times when Israel rebelled, and God judged them, too. God even used
their rival nations to do it. And every time the repented, God saved them. I
call that compassion and mercy.
Mark Smith here} Yes, what MERCY!!! The mercy of a demented serial killer who, once in a blue moon, lets a victim live. Kill a thousand, let one live. Kill 23,000, let 4 live. Praise his mercy!!!
I admire your heavy use of Scripture in your arguments, but it just doesn’t cut
it, when you don’t consider the entire message as a whole. Taking a verse
separately, apart from all the rest, will never do it justice, especially when
it’s not in its original language. You fail to mention the instances where God
spared repentant people. You just so happened to forget to mention, in your
quotation of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his own son, Isaac, that in the
very next verse, God stops Abraham, and informs him that it was all just a test
of his obedience. Isaac isn’t killed by Abraham’s hand. Abraham certainly proved
that he loved God more than his own flesh and blood son, as he should.
Mark Smith here} And how many people in our OWN era hear that same voice of God in their heads and DO kill their kids??? Maybe you should go to my page Victims of Religion and see what happens when people start imagining their "god" is talking to them.
But you do bring up a good point- some may not know how the story of Abraham and Issac ended up. Therefore, for all who may have just stepped off the UFO from Mars and haven't heard the story, I added the following to that section:
Comment: Even though according to the story (as everybody knows) Isaac survived, imagine the deep psychological scars this level of child abuse would produce. Would Isaac ever be able to trust his dad again? What if the next time Dad starts hearing voices they don't stop him? How could Isaac even get any sleep, knowing the old man in the next room sometimes hears voices telling him to kill his son?
As for your implication that the verse was out of context, I labeled that whole section as CHILD ABUSE, not murder. Maybe you should read before you respond. What Abraham did would have gotten him locked up in the local nut house today as extreme child abuse.
You
neglect to tell your readers of God’s covenant with Noah after the flood. You
don’t seem to notice that only the appointed High Priests were to touch the ark.
If God puts His very presence into an ark, I think He can take care of it so
that it doesn’t fall. Uzzah thought God needed help, which was arrogant. God had
used that Ark to part the Jordan, to make walls crumble, and to defeat entire
nations. He can protect it from falling off a cart. You seem to not realize that
the Israelites following Moses had seen God’s presence lead them through the
desert, and dwell in the Tabernacle, and that He personally told them not to
worship any other gods. They knew very well that God is the only true living
God, but they chose instead to disobey, so they were punished. As you can see,
you seem to be leaving out a lot in your alleged “proof” that God is evil.
Mark Smith here} So you see no problem with implementing the death penalty for anyone who tries to help keep a priceless antique from crashing to its destruction? You don't see this as an example of a despot gone mental in his demands for perfect blind obedience? Oh, I forgot, you Christians also don't see anything wrong with punishing the whole human race because some woman ate an apple in a garden. Petty, so petty.
My main question is this: How can you read the Bible and conclude God is evil?
Mark Smith here} How can YOU read the damn book and conclude anything else??? Your god murdered the entire human race (let me repeat that for you: THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE) save for one family. If that had been done by Molech, or by Baal, or by Thor, or by Zeus, you yourself would have declared said gods evil. Just because it's YOUR "sacred cow" getting gored this time, whoa! hold on there! I can hear you saying already: "Those OTHER gods were evil for murdering a few thousand babies, but MY GOD is NOT evil for murdering even a million times more that amount! Why? Because he's MY god, that's why!" Your blindness is sad, and disgusts anyone and everyone whose conscience has not been seared by the branding iron of warped Christian values.
If you claim God is evil, then you can’t have really read it. Either that or you
read it with preconceived biases already in mind.
If God were as evil as you
claim, he’d have obliterated everything long ago. Instead He maintains
existence, and even gives us hope of eternal life with Him. It’s also prudent to
keep in mind that God Himself, in the form of Jesus, suffered the greatest
suffering anybody has ever faced.
Mark Smith here} Well, according to your own Bible, Joe Hovah IS going to destroy everything- the entire universe- very shortly in the future. Not only that, he's going to toss into the cosmic trash bin you call hell 99.9999% of every human being that ever lived. If THAT does not fit the definition of EVIL, nothing does.
Oh, by the way, just a little advice to you.
I suggest at least a little bit of
respect when presenting your idea, rather than using such harsh language. If
we’re the “sick mutherfuckers” and “cold-hearted bastards,” then try to put it a
little more civilly. “You fucking god-damned hypocrites- damn all of you to the
hell you so desire everyone else to end up in. Damn you for turning a blind eye
to this- you make us SICK.” Not exactly what I’d call a good way of convincing
people that you’re a free-thinker. Try opening up a bit, and objectively
following the evidence. You might be surprised by what you find.
Mark Smith here} Yes, try to be respectful of mass murderers and demonic gods who enjoy the sport of swinging living babies by their feet and SMASHING THEIR HEADS INTO SOLID CONCRETE WALLS. Oh yes, we must be polite and respectful of people who do such things and support such things. Sorry but, excuse me while I BARF!!!!!
I leave you, and anyone else reading this, in peace. God is with you all.
Subject: In responce to: Biblegod The Warcriminal (Mostly)
Date: 9/12/2005 3:34:11 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
In responce to: Biblegod The Warcriminal (Mostly)
You should read some novels and post an excerpt of them here. Maybe if one were
to jump
in the middle of the story, they could come up with a different outlook on those
as well!
You see, there was a war going on from the beginning where Satan (Recall Satan
was the
original murderer, with the conviction within himself to rise above the throne.
I don't
know about you but I don't want a murderer ruling over all people) was
attempting to come
into power, and those offspring that were killed in the bible so spoken belonged
to him.
When engaged in war, murderers must be
neutralized to stop the murdering of the innocent
or opprossed. This may sound sad to some but is nonetheless true.
However, you seem to
leave those points out in your views of the Bible.
Mark Smith here} Sooooo let me see if I understand what you're saying. You're saying that these UNBORN FETUSES that were RIPPED FROM THEIR MOTHER'S WOMB were "murderers" that had to be "neutralized to stop the murdering of the innocent". OK. I think that is dumb enough for all to see without me having to make some smartass comment. I would just like to take this time to THANK THE LORD for saving us from all those murdering fetuses rampaging across the world!!!!
Now, before you go judging me and
writing me off as a white supremesist or whatever derogatory label, let me just
say that
they confuse matters by carrying this on as though they themselve are some sort
of "gods"
seeking to bring about the true GOD. Christ has came already at this point. A
little more
explaination is due here before I continue. In short, Crist was to be born of
women as
were other humans, but Satan had a different plan. He came down NOT born of
women Hoping
to be seen as God himself. In hopes you understand, Satan tried to stop the
leader of the
people by trashing his genealogy (family tree) and stop him from being born in
the same
way as was set forth in the beginning. Thus, those destroyed in the flood for
example were
a mixture of fallen angels and flesh (This is to say, Man). Beginning to
understand? A lot
of other stuff going there. The flood was a cleanup for a new start and Noah
being not a
mix of angels and man but pure in the sense he was born naturally. Now if you
can't see
this, then there is probably no use in reading any further.
Mark Smith here} And your SOURCE for all this new revelation? Oh, you pulled it out of your asshole? I thought so- I could tell by how much it stank!
Think about it. If Satan had his way, then no one would be safe because he is a
destroyer
and deviant (e.g. tries to make himself look good while destroying). Question:
If you had
children and someone came into your home and started tearing them apart, would
you think
killing looked so bad in that case or would it have became a necessary evil to
save your
family? Yes, thats right, killing is an evil in the eyes of those getting killed
even when
done for the right reason. Thats what confuses many into thinking that killing
and murder
is the same thing. To murder, one must premeditate and and then lie in wait for
the kill
usually for the purpose of rewarding ones self and no other. Its a selfish act
of
sometimes senseless violence for selfish means. To kill is an end result with
cause. The
Bible was written over a long period of time, and jumping in the middle of a war
scene is
always going to look bad in the minds of thoses that have no background. There
is a
difference in the history of offensive actions over a long period of time and
the
resulting defense compared to a short line reading finding they all ceased to
be.
Determining that every time someone is killed is a bad thing for everybody isn't
quite
correct. Not knowing the full story
behind the struggles that brought on these killings
and what the purpose it served could easily generate confusion.
Mark Smith here} Oh, I think I know enough of the story without having to make excuses up for, what if true, is the greatest MASS MURDERER in human history.
Please do not get mad at me, or write this up as though it is some sort of joke.
I too
have wondered about things in the Bible and have found that when I seek further
I tend to
find things self explanitory having grasped a more complete picture.
God is Good, he just
has to get stern sometimes to rid us all of the true uncaring evils around and
about.
Mark Smith here} Yes, regardless of how many MURDERS he commits, Biblegod is always and forever defined as GOOD. Therefore, even when he does EVIL he is GOOD because BLACK IS WHITE AND WHITE IS BLACK in my Christian worldview.
He
is a father and if you happen to be one yourself, you understand the meaning of
protection, punishment, and acting in the best interest of your children. In
conclusion,
in all actuality God's actions couldn't possibly have been farther from evil. He
was
preserving the natural order of things.
Amen:
C.J.
Subject: Re: Biblegod the War Criminal
Date: 9/13/2005 4:30:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me
HA ha ha hahahaha HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Stick it to those sheep. Anyone who believes a book with absolutely NO
evidence of truth deserves to be ridiculed until the day he dies.
**Some people are like a Slinky.....not really good for anything, but
you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
Subject: (no subject)
Date: 9/29/2005 6:26:12 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
your a retard. For example, re-read the Noah story and put it word for word on your site. Read it and see that God did not kill all but wanted man to start over with Noah alive because he was pure. He also told him that he was going to do that to wash away sin. And your forgetting that he took two of each animal to have them reborn. Did he not also send himself/ his son down to wash AWAY our sin. Don't see that posted up there either. So you think your so smart but your missing the point of why he did all those things. Think about that before you run around maiming him. Did I mention your a fucking retard who can't read right?
Mark Smith here} What can I possible say? After all, I'm a retard, and a "fucking retard" at that. I'm a retard for I believed that Biblegod killed every man on the planet except Noah & Company, according to the Bible. Wow! How stupid of me!