Biblegod is NOT Perfect
Christians Claim to Worship a
|To say that God is perfect is to say that
there is no way in which God can be better. As with all
else that He is, He is infinite in His perfection.
It matters not what facet of God we examine, there we find no
blemish, no mark, no defect, no lack of anything.
|Make no mistake about it, God makes no
|Anyone who understands the truth about God knows that
God does not make mistakes. Not a one. Never.
|God makes no mistakes. There are no
accidents in the Bible. Nowhere will you find
where God messed up, or had to step back on something he
said. Many times His mind was swayed by the repenting of His
children, but nowhere did He change His mind because He realized He
|God, according to (Thomas) Aquinas, did not, and
have created anything less than
The God of the Bible is Not
i.e. It Created Something "Less
From "The Message" Translation
said, "It's not good
for the Man to be alone; I'll make him a helper, a companion."
||A god who "could
not have created anything less than good" would be incapable
of creating anything "not good". A god who was capable of creating
anything less than good, would not be a perfect god.
The god of
the Bible freely admits that it's "not good" for man to
be alone. But it's the god of the Bible that created this "not good"
situation in the first place. In short, in Genesis 2:18 we have
Biblegod himself admitting to being fallible, to doing something
that wasn't perfect, something that wasn't even good.
Another indication that Biblegod made an error is the fact that
he wants to fix the error with the creation of a companion. People
don't fix things unless they're broken, so if he's proposing a fix,
then it must have been broken, and thus in this one Bible verse we
have not just one, but TWO admissions by Biblegod that he's
fallible- capable of making mistakes that need correcting.
Speaking of Biblegod and the subject of perfection, Billy Graham
wrote, "if God isn't perfect, that means He can make
mistakes—and therefore it means He can't be trusted."1
I'll take Billy at his word, and conclude, based on Genesis 2:18,
that the god of the Bible can't be trusted; and if he can't be
trusted, then he also can't be trusted about Creationism, Heaven,
Hell, or Salvation.
formed from the dirt of the ground all the animals of the field and
all the birds of the air. He brought them to the Man to see what he
would name them. Whatever the Man called each living creature, that
was its name.
||In verse 18, Biblegod admits he did a faulty job by
creating Adam without a mate, then proposes to fix his error by
creating a companion- a wife-, for Adam. So in the very next verse-
verse 19- the wife Biblegod has in mind for Adam IS AN ANIMAL!!!
Read these verses in CONTEXT. Beasts of the field and birds of the
air are what Biblegod created for Adam to pick a wife from!
Biblegod parades all the animals in front of Adam so Adam can pick a
cow, chicken, or goat to be NOT his pet, but his wife-
THESE are the REAL "family values" the Bible is here so clearly
stating. But how do we know for an absolute certain FACT that was
Biblegod's intention? Because the very next verse in the sequence,
in the CONTEXT...
||The Man named the cattle, named the birds of the
air, named the wild animals; but he didn't find a suitable
||Verse 20, clearly states that "he didn't find
a suitable companion" among the chickens, cows, and goats, which
means HE MUST HAVE BEEN LOOKING for a "suitable
companion" i.e. wife among the chickens and cows, as you can't fail
to find something you weren't really looking for in the first place.
But don't blame Adam for this- it was another of Biblegod's bad
put the Man into a deep sleep. As he slept he removed one of his
ribs and replaced it with flesh.
then used the rib that he had taken from the Man to make Woman and
presented her to the Man.
|The Man said, "Finally! Bone of my bone, flesh of
my flesh! Name her Woman for she was made from Man."
||As preachers are wont to say, in order to understand
a section of scripture, you must pay strict attention to context,
context, and context. And what does the context here indicate? It
indicates, in regard to names, that Biblegod's original intention
was for Adam to marry a chicken or whatever, as Biblegod had Adam
give NAMES to all of the animals brought before him, and here, when
Eve is brought before him, he does the exact same thing AND
GIVES HER A NAME.
If Christians claim to worship a god that is perfect, it can't be
the god described in their Bible, in Genesis chapter two, for that
god not only makes mistakes, he also tries to fix his mistakes,
sometimes poorly, and that is a far cry from being a perfect god.
1) "My Answer by Billy Graham",
Therefore, the God Christians
Claim to Worship
is NOT the God Described in their Bible
|Since Christians claim the god they worship is
incapable of doing anything less than good, and the
Bible's god clearly does things that are less
than good, the god that Christians worship is not
the god found described in the Bible. If they'd like to modify their
definition of god, and say it makes mistakes, (like all the pagan
gods of olden times), then they can keep their god of the Bible. But
if they're going to insist that THEIR god is
beyond mistakes, perfect and flawless in all it
does, THEN they're going to have to jettison
their Bible's god, and probably their Bible along with it.
The Beastly Beauty Show in Depth
Mark Smith August 2005
Some Christians, ignorant of their own Bible, have disputed my contention
that the parade of beasts in front of Adam was for him to pick out a mate. The
text from Genesis shows otherwise. Please note:
Genesis 2: 18-22
The LORD God said, "It isn't good
for the man to live alone. I need to make a suitable partner for him."
So the LORD took some soil and made
animals and birds. He brought
them to the man to see what names he would give each of them. Then the man
named the tame animals and the birds and the wild animals. That's how they
got their names.
None of these was the right
kind of partner for the man.
So the LORD God made him fall into a deep sleep,
and he took out one of the man's ribs. Then after closing the man's side,
the LORD made a woman out of the rib. The LORD God brought her to the man,
and the man exclaimed,
"Here is someone like me! She is part of my body, my own flesh and bones.
She came from me, a man. So I will name her Woman!"
That's why a man will leave his own father and
mother. He marries a woman, and the two of them become like one person.
Contemporary English Version, by the American Bible
Note the sections highlighted in yellow, "It isn't good for the man to live
alone" and the very next thing Biblegod does after bringing up this problem
isn't to introduce Adam to a woman (which even the dumbest of us would have
known to do), but instead this Biblegod goes and makes a bunch of animals and
tries to "hook up" Adam with one of them, but (golly gee) "None of these was
the right kind of partner for the man." It would not have stated they
weren't the right partner, were it not for the fact that was the major reason
for the Beastly Parade in the first place.
What about the naming? Why was that done? Well, in case he found one he had
the hots for, how else would he ask for it? There are zillions of different
animals currently on this planet, and ten times that amount which have since
gone extinct. Therefore, for ALL these animals to have been gathered together
from the whole world, from below ground, above ground, in the water, not to
mention the sky, and lets not forget all the variety of insects, to feed and
organize and house all these critters (fish require aquariums, worms require
dirt etc), and cleaned up after, then paraded in front of Adam, would have taken
a VERY long time. How long? Well, if we conservatively estimate the number of
species on this planet that have ever lived at 10 million, and then allow each
species just one second on the "cat walk" for this ancient beauty show, and if
we ran this show 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, it would have taken...
over 9 months. Nine months, hour after hour, watching these critters slither,
crawl, fly, swim or trot their way in front of him... how else was he to specify
almost a year later WHICH of these critters caught his fancy, unless he had
names with which to specify each one? So that is why he had to name them, just
as in today's beauty pageants they put numbers on the contestants.
In short, Biblegod admitted he screwed up in creating man alone. Then he
tried to fix it via the beauty show but only failed again. Then he hit upon the
idea of creating Eve. Intelligent designer, or Cosmic Dumbass- YOU decide!
A Short Story... Accurately
Based on Genesis 2...
Down on the Farm with Joe & Mrs. Hovah
Genesis 2:18 You know
honey, I feel sorry for our neighbor Adam. He's so alone all the
time- he needs a wife, and by gum, I'm a goin' help him find one!
Genesis 2:19 Go next door
and get Adam, and I'll meet you both at the barn. We're goin' let
Adam take a goooood close look at all our farm animals.
...later that day after Adam went
Genesis 2:20 You know
honey, Adam didn't seem much interested in marrying ANY of our
animals! Why, he even turned up his nose at our prize cow Betsy!
Genesis 2:21 With him being
so fussy, just what does he expect me to do- create a wife for him
out of thin air or something???
IF the "God" of the Bible Admitted to Doing
Anything that's Less Than Good,
THEN He's Not Perfect.
According to the story in the
second chapter of Genesis...
Of all the creatures, the only one
created by Biblegod
a female, was the human.1
Later Biblegod said "It isn't good
for man to be alone" and then created Eve.
Things to note here:
- Biblegod is the one who
declared the situation wasn't good.
- But Biblegod is the one who
created the situation in the first
- Therefore Biblegod created
something that wasn't good.
- Therefore Biblegod is not
- "If it ain't broke, don't fix
- Biblegod fixed it by creating
- Because it was fixed, it must
have needed fixing in the first place.
- Therefore Biblegod created
something that needed fixing.
- Therefore Biblegod is not
A truly perfect being is incapable
of making mistakes- even one. But Biblegod MADE a mistake by
creating the human male (complete with penis, sperm and
testosterone) without a female companion, and this AFTER having had
the common sense to create all the other animals male/female.
Biblegod went on to confirm it was a mistake by freely admitting
what he had done wasn't good. Biblegod then went on and proved
beyond all doubt that it certainly WAS a mistake by fixing the
mistake (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). Thus (if Biblegod were
real) Christians are worshipping a faulty, imperfect god, who makes
mistakes, and has to go back and fix the mistakes he himself made.
In short, the god of the Bible, by his own admission,
As for the inevitable Christian
word quibblers, the word "good"
in Genesis 2:18 (Strongs word #02896) is the EXACT same "good"
used in the verse right before 18, i.e. Genesis
2:17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of
and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die." So apparently, Biblegod
himself didn't have "knowledge of good
and evil" or else he wouldn't have done something that wasn't
good. It is also the same "good"
as used in Genesis 1:31 "And God saw every thing that he had made,
and, behold, it was very good.
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
1) Genesis 2:7 2)
Biblegod, in Genesis 2:18
NOTE: The above line of reasoning is a
silver bullet to the vampire heart of Christianity. They have NO
answer or defense to it, other than to ignore it. I recommend to all
Freethinkers, Atheists and Agnostics, to work it into their
conversations with their Fundy friends. It might just be the
"hammer" that cracks their arrogant eggshell of self-deception.
Biblegod Is Not Perfect
Mark Smith June 2003
Biblegod can not be perfect. A perfect being, by definition, has no needs or
desires or wants to be met. A perfect being in a perfect situation would not
have a desire to change a thing- in fact, it would have no needs or desires at
all. Perfection could not desire anything other than perfection, i.e. itself.
Beings can only desire what they don't already have, and a perfect being already
has everything it wants, and therefore a perfect being can have no wants.
Therefore, if a perfect being existed, "in the beginning" it would have done
nothing at all- as nothing at all would have ever needed to be done- you can't
improve on perfection- you can only mess it up. You are complete- you lack
nothing. Therefore, if there really were a Biblegod, and if it were really
perfect, it would have done nothing. Forever. It would act as the most stoned
stoner that ever existed, the ultimate cosmic couch potato.
The fact that we and the universe around us exists is proof positive that
there is no such being, there is no perfect Biblegod. Chad Docterman summed it
What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God
was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and
compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be
perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete -- it needs nothing else.
We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing the elusive
perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between
what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no
disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing
he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A
perfect creator God is impossible.
Picture yourself a perfect being in a perfect world. You are neither hungry
nor full; therefore you seek no food. You are neither cold nor hot; therefore
you seek no heat or air conditioning. You are neither bored nor overly excited;
therefore you seek neither entertainment nor calm. You have no itches to
scratch, no beds to be made, no "To Do" lists to fulfill, no loneliness to cure.
You are a perfect being in a perfect world living in a state of perfection, with
no wants, needs, or desires.
Another website commented on this same topic:
It is said
that God is perfect. If this is the case, he cannot have flaws. He has no needs.
Nor can he have any wants, for to suggest otherwise implies that he is not
satisfied with his current state. Dissatisfaction is a product of imperfection,
thus a perfect God would be totally satisfied with a static existence; that is
to say, he would change nothing.
Yet, according to our definition, he changes everything. He creates. He spends
six days doing so. Granted that to a timeless being six days would be
instantaneous, but still, he is not static. This is a contradiction. An
all-powerful being that neither needs nor wants to change does not change.
Therefore, either God is not perfect, or he did not create the Universe.
Any possible action that a Biblegod might have taken (if he really existed)
would only have been in response to an imperfect situation, as perfect
situations need no responding to. Given a perfect being in a perfect setting,
there would have been no actions. None. With all things perfect, there was no
room for improvement, therefore no room for changes. In fact, with all things
already perfect, any change at all would have only resulted in a situation
less than perfect, since by definition perfection can not be improved,
only maintained or messed up.
A Buddhist anti-Christian website put it thusly:
Christians claim that God is perfect, that he is complete
in every way, but if God really did create the universe this would prove that
he was not perfect. Let us examine why. Before God created the universe there
was nothing - no sun, no earth, no people, no good or evil, no pain - nothing
but God who was, according to Christians, perfect. So if God was perfect and
nothing but perfection existed, what motivated God to create the universe and
thus bring imperfection into being? Was it because he was bored and wanted
something to do? Was it because he was lonely and wanted someone to pray to
Christians will say that God created everything because
of his love of man, but this is impossible. God could not love humans before
he created them any more than a woman could love her children before she had
conceived them. God's need to create indicates that he was dissatisfied in
some way and therefore not perfect. Christians might then say that God created
spontaneously and without need or desire. However this would mean that the
whole universe came into being without purpose or forethought and therefore it
would mean that God was not a loving creator.
Take a piece of lumber as an example. Let's say that you need a 2x4 cut to
exactly 5&1/2 feet long, plus or minus nothing. The length of 5&1/2 feet
is the perfect length. Any deviation from that whatsoever is a
deviation from the state of perfection into imperfection, regardless of what the
deviation is. Any changes whatsoever would be a confession that things weren't
perfect to start with.
What did Biblegod lack in a perfect world? The very word "lack" implies an
imperfection crying out to be improved, not perfection. A perfect god,
unlike the Christian's Biblegod, would have lacked for nothing, and thus done
nothing. A perfect situation needs no improvements, alterations, or changes.
Therefore, the minute Christians admit that their Biblegod DID make changes,
DID seek to alter his situation in any way whatsoever- such as creating a
universe complete with angels and humans, his situation must have been, per
definition, imperfect to start with, and therefore he must not have been a
perfect being in a perfect environment. Biblegod, before anything at all was
ever created, in order to create, must have seen things he could improve.
By making these changes, Biblegod proved himself for time and eternity to NOT be
a perfect being. Biblegod, before anything and everything- when it was just he
himself alone that existed, when there was nobody else to blame (as he was all
that existed), Biblegod decided to "fix things" and as we all know,
"if it ain't broke, don't
Conclusion? He "fixed it", therefore "it" must have been broken from
the get-go, and since Biblegod was the ONLY
"it" at the get-go, by all that is reasonable and logical,
by all that makes sense in this world, Biblegod was not,
could not be, and is not, perfect. Biblegod, back
when there was ONLY Biblegod and nothing else BUT Biblegod, Biblegod saw the
need to improve things- that is, HE SAW SOMETHING THAT WASN'T PERFECT, and the
only thing to see back then was... Biblegod.
In other words, the mythical god of the Christians, the one they are trying
to sell to the world in competition to all the other mythical gods out there,
this god saw room to improve himself and his situation. Therefore, Biblegod was
The following idea was suggested by a reader, Steve McClellan, of
San Luis Obispo, CA. I liked it, so here it is...
Has Biblegod always
wanted people to worship him?
( ) Yes
(Therefore Biblegod was in want of something, and therefore not
( ) No
(Therefore you are wasting your time doing so, so stop already!)
A Perfect Creator Cannot Exist
If God exists, then he is perfect.
If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be
But the universe is NOT perfect.
Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the
creator of the universe.
Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.
God: The Failed Hypothesis Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus
Books, Amherst, NY 2007, p. 32
Responses to Biblegod Not Perfect
NOTICE: Any and all emails sent to SET FREE become the
property of SET FREE to be used or displayed upon the web site of
SET FREE however SET FREE decides, but don't worry, your email
address will probably be deleted. Views contained in SET FREE
represent the views of the authors. No implicit approval by SET FREE
is to be assumed.