DIU blog posts and comments

Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 27 January 2007King David's amazing census
You just never know what's going to piss off the God of the Bible.
Take King David's censis, for example. The whole thing was God's idea, if you believe Second Samuel, anyway.
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. 2 Samuel 24:1
But if you believe First Chronicles, it wasn't God's idea; it was Satan's.
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. 1 Chronicles 21:1
So what's a Bible-believer to believe here? Did God tell David to "Go, number Israel and Judah"? Or did Satan provoke "David to number Israel"? Or did the Dynamic Duo conspire together to make David do it? They worked together before to torment Job. Maybe they teamed up again to make David have a census. You just never know what those two might do.
But whoever was responsible for the dastardly census (Satan and/or God), it was David that God blamed. And God was really pissed off about it, too. So you might expect God to punish David for the census and he and/or Satan inspired, right?
Well, not exactly. Here's what God did according to 2 Samuel.
For when David was up in the morning, the word of the LORD came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? 2 Samuel 24:11-13
God decided not to punish David for the Divine/Satanic census. No, God liked David too much for that. So he decided to punish the people instead. But the Divine Decider just couldn't decide what punishment would be the most just. So he let David choose from three choices:
Seven years of famine,
Three months of war, or
Three days of pestilence
But David couldn't decide, so God chose option 3 for him, and 70,000 men (no one bothered to count women and children) died.
You can read all about it in 2 Samuel 21.
And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man. So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men. 2 Samuel 24:14-15
But if you believe that story, don't read the 1 Chronicles account. Here's what it says.
And the LORD spake unto Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and tell David, saying, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things: choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me. And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall now into the hand of the LORD; for very great are his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man. So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men. 1 Chronicles 21:8-12
So was option 1 seven or three years of famine? No wonder poor David couldn't decide! God's options as communicated by Gad were not clearly stated.
But at least both storytellers agree on the number of innocent people killed by God for a census that God and/or Satan inspired: 70,000 men (God only knows how many women and children he killed).
Stories like this can only be found in the Bible.
Posted by Steve Wells at 1/27/2007 09:40:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
53 comments:
 Jason said...
In this instance, "Satan" and "God" are the same. "Satan" simply means "adversary" and God was an adversary of David's. No 'dynamic duo' at work here.
Sun Jan 28, 06:42:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
"In this instance, 'Satan' and 'God' are the same. 'Satan' simply means 'adversary' and God was an adversary of David's."
So Satan and God are the same, Jason? Well, that explains a few things! Thanks for clearing that up.
Sun Jan 28, 07:10:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
They're absolutely the same. Once again, "Satan" is simply an "adversary". For example:
An obedient divine angel is Satan: Num. 22:22
Hadad the Edomite is Satan: 1 Kings 11:14
Peter is Satan: Matt. 16:23
As seen from this post, the confusion results when people inexplicably turn Satan into a mystical, supernatural evil deity instead of using the actual defintion of the word to explain things.
Mon Jan 29, 06:28:00 AM 2007 
 Robert said...
Once in a humanities class the instructor was relating the types of debates Socrates was killed for starting amongst the young generation in those days.... As an example he (our instructor) put forth a question for us to discuss... Who is stronger... God or Satan/Devil however you want to look at it. Arguments were made for both cases, but most of us came to the conclusion that God must be limited in some way as to what he can do to those that exist in the same manner as he does. For example it would seem god is unable to destroy the devil or even angels, he can only banish them from his domain. Similar to being exiled from a country. Anyway, I like the way it's put here lol... God (Jekyll) and the Devil (Hyde) this would seem to indicate that even god has a split personality that goes further than the trinity :)
Mon Jan 29, 11:14:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
What possible positive message or lesson is 'God' trying to teach people in this example? It's the typical 'Do as I say or you're gonna pay' mentality, which of course stems not from a 'God', but from those in power who made this crap up and use childish scare tactics to keep the sheeple in line.
Mon Jan 29, 11:24:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
It’s amusing how people have injected the Bible with a fictional evil entity who proves, in his own fictional way, that God isn’t all-powerful…
Mon Jan 29, 08:24:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Who was in power when Samuel and Chronicles were written and how would this particular account of "God's" interactions with a single individual have been used to keep the masses in line?
Mon Jan 29, 08:31:00 PM 2007 
 Lurker said...
It always seemed to me in the Old Testament, and even in the New when Jesus is being tempted by him, that Satan works for God. There really isn't anything about him falling until Revelation anyway.
Tue Jan 30, 11:00:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Sometimes Satan is God, sometimes Satan is a person. In every instance, Satan is nothing more and nothing less than an adversary. What Satan isn't is an individual supernatural evil entity.
Wed Jan 31, 06:01:00 AM 2007 
 jake3988 said...
HAHAHAHAHA. I've seen pathetic attempts at christian defenses of the crap god does.
But this one takes the cake.
God and satan... the same person. Right. Go back off into delusional land.
Fri Feb 02, 04:30:00 PM 2007 
 jake3988 said...
That's quite funny. So God's suffering from some sort of weird multiple-personality disorder in Job?
HAHA.
Fri Feb 02, 04:32:00 PM 2007 
 Gen. JC Christian, Patriot said...
How do we know that we're not seeing a simple numbers territory struggle in those passages--like when Dutch Schultz tried to horn in on Bumpy Johnson's action in Harlam?
Fri Feb 02, 05:10:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Jake, you've been mislead by common religious thought because you haven't done any thinking for youself.
Hadad the Edomite in 1 Kings 11:14. The word "adversary" in this account is the Hebrew word "satan". Hadad, therefore, is satan. If Hadad isn't literally Satan (a supernatural evil entity), then why do you struggle with God being satan (an adversary) in 1 Chronicles? Look at where else this Hebrew word "satan" is used:
1 Samuel 29:4 - The Philistines call David an adversary ("satan").
2 Samuel 19:22 - David calls the sons of Zeruiah adversaries ("satan")
1 Kings 11:23 - Rezon is an adversary ("satan") to Solomon
The account in Job describes an adversary, not a supernatural evil being. We're not told who the adversary is but we know what it isn't: the ruler of the molten lava underworld. :)
This isn't a defense, this is an explanation of something you clearly don't understand. Read the passages for yourself - who, exactly, is "satan": an adversary or an ageless dark evil power?
Sat Feb 03, 08:07:00 PM 2007 
 beepbeepitsme said...
The devil is just god when he's drunk. (apologies to Tom Waits)
Mon Feb 05, 02:35:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Matthew 25
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels
46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Tue Feb 06, 05:32:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Does Matthew 25 prove the devil is a supernatural evil force bent on destruction and tormenting souls for eternity in burning magma?
Tue Feb 06, 06:29:00 AM 2007 
 Pieter grom the Netherlands said...
Unfortunatly, I've had a stroke at the age of only 19. Now I'm 25 years old, and although I've recoved a lot, I still have to use a wheelchair. It hurts so much to not be able to enjoy life at the same leveel as before.
The theodicies christians (and people of other religions) offer in order to reconcile the concept of suffering with the idea of a good God are SO incredibly dissatisfactionary it is rediculous. I personally ABSOLUTELY can't help feel I've been mistreated by God. Theodicies are just stupid theoretical nonsense.
(By the way, the God of the bible actually IS an evil, immoral bastard).
Tue Feb 06, 08:32:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Does Matthew 25 prove the devil is a supernatural evil force bent on destruction and tormenting souls for eternity in burning magma?
No, it doesn't.
That is God's work, you described him fairly well.
Tue Feb 06, 08:41:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
God burns people in burning magma for eternity? What version are you reading from? My bible says man goes the way of the animals (Ecc. 3:19-20) Unless...wait...does God eternally torment wicked animals in hellfire as well...?
That stingray that killed funny man Stevie Irwin is going to pay...
(BTW, what was the Matthew 25 reference for?)
Tue Feb 06, 07:19:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Ecclesiastes is Old Testament, are you Christian or Jewish? Jesus should have shut his mouth up before mentioning both devil and hellfire.
Ecclesiastes 3:19
so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
There's no point in being Christian if you're gonna die regardless. All that "Let us make man in our image, and let them have dominion over the animals" is vanity. The Bible contradicts itself again.
Wed Feb 07, 05:36:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Just because something is in the Old Testament doesn't make it null and void. Christ and the apostles quoted from the OT dozens of times. And so shall I. See, there was nothing wrong with Jesus mentioning the devil and hellfire because people back then were intelligent enough to understood what he was actually talking about. None of this silly fallen angel garbage that's so prevelant today.
The whole point of being a "Christian", as it were, is to ultimately achieve salvation. Surely even you should understand this basic Christian principle. Everyone is going to eventually die, Christian and non-Christian. The only difference is a Christian believes in the resurrection.
lol What's the contradiction in "dominion over the animals"? Ecclesiastes is talking about how men and animals are no different when it comes to death. Genesis is talking about rulership. Do you see how they mean exactly the same thing? No, neither do I. But please, indulge me. Explain the contradiction. I'm obviously missing something.
Wed Feb 07, 06:22:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Either you know what parts of the OT are still valid or you're quoting the OT at your convenience.
Ecclesiastes 3:19
19For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity
breath = ruwach = wind, breath, life, spirit.
It seems that there's neither resurrection nor soul/spirit. Of course you can choose the meaning that best suits to your purposes, such is the clarity of the Bible.
Paraphrasing what I wrote before, the authors of Genesis were vain enough to believe man was created in the image and resemblance of a god. To me it seems that men created god, evidenced by Genesis misogynistic stance projected into the NT even (1 Corinthians 11:3 The head of the woman is the man) and the countless made-up gods throughout history.
Wed Feb 07, 08:04:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Anyone who reads the Bible knows which parts of the OT are still valid. It’s not like it’s a big secret! For example, just because Adam & Eve are in the OT doesn’t suddenly make them mystical creatures in the NT. Everything in the OT is valid on some level or another. The only thing that changed between the OT and NT was the doing away of the old law (sacrifices, circumcision, etc.).
Keeping in mind that the verse in Ecclesiastes is talking about death, not resurrection, I agree 100%: there’s no such thing as a soul or spirit in the common religious sense of the word. Yours is a perfect understanding of that verse: Breath = life. Once the breath leaves, so does life. Hence, Genesis 2:7: God “breathed life” into Adam. God breathed life into man and He breathed life into animals – they both end up exactly the same way in the end. See how easy and clear just this verse was to understand? Now imagine that on a much bigger scale, encompassing Genesis to Revelation.
That was a poor paraphrase about Genesis. :) I originally asked where the supposed contradiction is with the verse in Genesis compared with the verses in Ecclesiastes. You made a point, now play fair and back it up.
Wed Feb 07, 11:09:00 AM 2007 
 jake3988 said...
I really should point you out to my crazy insane evangelical aunt. I think even she would find you funny.
Considering if you think God IS Satan (Which makes God even more of an immoral bastard) then the entire basis for christianity is shot.
The whole god struggle, throwing out satan because he's a jealous whore... he did that to himself? No.
When Satan tempted Jesus in the desert it was some sort of cruel practical joke by his father?
You need help.
Fri Feb 09, 07:23:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
I'm not a Jew.
Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:
Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.
Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
A. Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
B. The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father.
C. The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
CRUCIFIXION
The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."
Further reading:
www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq057.html
www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html
Christianity contradicts Jewish theology
All the prophets foretold that the messiah would redeem the Jews, help them, gather in the exiles and support their observance of the commandments. But he caused Jewry to be put to the sword, to be scattered and to be degraded; he tampered with the Torah and its laws; and he misled most of the world to serve something other than God.
Taken from http://tinyurl.com/37er6
Read also www.jewfaq.org/looking4.htm
www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesus.html
Fri Feb 09, 01:11:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
The whole basis for Christianity rests on the existence of Satan...?
As I've mentioned a number of times in this post and others, "satan" is a Hebrew word meaning "adversary". This is what the word means, it's there for everyone to see for themselves. God is described as being an adversary, so is David, so were enemies of Solomon. This adversary isn't ruler of the underworld, lord of hell.
I'm astounded that you, as an atheist, in a position of not caring either way, is choosing to defend mainstream Christianity.
Look at the definition of the word and its application in the references listed above (1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings). Do they prove the existence of a supernatural evil force created before the beginning of time itself?
Fri Feb 09, 04:23:00 PM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
Jews don't accept Christ because they don't accept the New Testament. Simple as that.
1. Regarding messianic prophecies, the four you mentioned haven't yet been fulfilled.
2. Prophets existed before Israel existed. Moses and Aaron are good examples.
3. There are how many prophecies of Jesus in the OT? 100? 200? Are they all mistranslations?
4. In what version of what Bible do you read that Jesus asked the world to worship him or something else other than God?
Fri Feb 09, 05:05:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
1. Therefore Jesus can't be the Messiah.
2. The Nation of Israel existed, the Kingdom of Israel did not.
3. Name them all.
4. You're Christian, aren't you? The NT revolves around Jesus not YHWH.
Sat Feb 10, 08:54:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
at #2: (In Moses time)The Nation of Israel existed, the Kingdom of Israel did not.
Sat Feb 10, 10:31:00 AM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
1. Jesus will fulfill the prophecies when he returns.
2. This was your remark: "Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry." Please clarify in light of your recent comment. Consider also, Abraham was called a prophet before the word "Israel" had even been mentioned, whether as a Kingdom or as a nation. Was Israel a "nation" in Egypt? Or when they were fleeing?
3. For sake of berevity, here's a few:
• Born in Bethlehem: Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1;
• Entry into Jerusalem on a donkey: Zechariah 9:9, John 12:13-14;
• Blood money to be returned for a potter's field: Zechariah 11:13, Matthew 27:6-7;
• Silent to accusations: Isaiah 53:7, Matthew 26:62-63;
• Soldiers divided his garments and gambled for his clothing: Psalm 22:18, Matt.27:35;
• Crucified with criminals: Isaiah 53:12, Mark 15:27-28;
• Given gall and vinegar: Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, 48;
• No bones broken: Psalm 34:20.... John 19:32-36;
• Vicarious Sacrifice: Isaiah 53:4-5, 6, 12, Matthew 8:16-17, Romans 4:25, 5:6-8, 1 Corinthians 15:3;
• Christ at the right hand of God: Psalm 110:1, Hebrews 1:2,3;
• The way prepared by John the Baptist: Isaiah 40:3,5, John 1:23, Luke 3:3-6.
Etc., etc.
4. I'll ask again: In what version of what Bible do you read that Jesus asked the world to worship him or something else other than God? (Remember, not all Christians are Trinitarian...)
Nonetheless, we should probably be having this conversation elsewhere. The topic here is Satan :)
Sat Feb 10, 12:57:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Sorry for hijacking this thread.
1. Jews don't believe that Jesus is the messiah because he never did any of the things that the prophets proclaimed the messiah would do. Christianity gets around this by saying that Jesus will come back to do all of those things.
2. The remark was not mine but a Rabbi's.
A nation is a group of humans who are assumed to share a common origin, identity, language, religion, ideology, culture, and/or history. Back in Moses' days world's Jewry was concentrated in Egypt, then Moses took them to the desert.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were more likely Patriarchs than Prophets. According to www.jewfaq.org/prophet.htm they were Prophets. Jesus didn't make it to the list either.
The Jews also believe that Adam, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not dead but sleeping in the Cave of Machpela, rising from time to time to beg mercy for their children, so whatever.
3. I'm familiar with Psalm 22 because it was heavily quoted by the evangelists. There David describes his own pain, anguish, and longing during those times when he was a fugitive from his enemies. Consequently, this is an historical rather than a messianic psalm. Furthermore, Psalms is not in the Nevi'im but in the Kh'tuvim, it is not a prophetic book. You can read further at www.messiahtruth.com/psa22.html
According to www.messiahtruth.com/isai53b.html Isaiah 53 is about gentile nations exclaiming their shock over how they had treated G-d's servant, Israel.
Isaiah 53:7 / Matthew 26:62-63
Ah, ok. But you forgot to quote Matthew 26:64
64 Jesus saith to him, `Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power, and coming upon the clouds, of the heaven.'
Isaiah 53:4-5, 6, 12
Christians interpret this verse as a foreshadowing of Jesus’ atoning death on the cross. However, the verse does not explicitly mention such a concept, which is completely foreign to the Torah (Exodus 32:33), which tell us that a man cannot make atonement for others.
Psalm 110:1
Again, Psalms is not a prophetic book.
King David, while not allowed to build the Temple, did everything he could to prepare the way for it to be built, and among the things he did was compile the book of Psalms to be sung by the Levites in the Temple. This Psalm was meant to be sung by the Levites, and thus reflects their point of view, for they would call their king "adoni."
www.messiahtruth.com/psalms.html
Psalm 34:20
From http://tinyurl.com/ynphjj
Psalm 34 contrasts two groups of people - the righteous (34:7) and the wicked (34:16). It is in this context that verse 20 appears, as one of the benefits of being righteous.
Psalm 69:21
This requires belief in Jesus before this becomes a valid proof. Additionally, this same logic is used for the verse regarding drinking vinegar. Because Jesus drank vinegar on the cross, and the Psalm speaks of someone being served vinegar to drink, obviously the Psalm must be talking about Jesus! This sort of logic is hopelessly flawed.
Furthermore, this Psalm (69) disagrees with the New Testament's portrayal of Jesus:
Psalms 69:5 O G-d, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. (KJV)
It is quite well known that Christians espouse the doctrine of Jesus' "sinless nature." However, if the New Testament wants to apply Psalm 69 to Jesus, the Jewish people have no problem with the idea.
Micah 5:2
By searching the Internet I've found 2 solutions to this:
1) This verse should be placed in context with what is written about King David in Ezekiel chapters 34, and 36.
When these are put into context with Micah 5:2, then we can see that this speaks of King David, coming forth from Bethlehem to be the one king, and shepherd, in the last days.
2. Bethlehem, in the original Hebrew is Beit-Lechem, the house of Lechem (lechem = bread), and can refer to a city or clan. In this case, since the text says clan, it means clan. It does not matter what city the Messiah is born in, just what clan he is from. Since Jesus was claimed not to be Joseph's son, he is not a descendant of David or Solomon and, therefore, not from the clan Bethlehem of Ephrath. The phrase: "whose origin is from old" simply means the Messiah will come from a family with a long lineage.
This is one of my own: Matthew just quoted Micah 5:2
Micah 5:2 (KJV)
2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Matthew 2:6 (KJV)
6And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
4. You know people call themselves Christian because they follow Jesus Christ's teachings. Christians persecuted Jews, the Spanish Inquisition exiled the Jews, Christian Europe and Orthodox Russia were known for the pogroms against the Jews, that's why it's said that Jesus caused Jewry to be put to the sword.
Catholics aren't the only ones that worship Jesus as God.
I'm not a Christian anymore. FYI John 1 claims Jesus is God.
John 1:1,14 (KJV)
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Sat Feb 10, 03:42:00 PM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
Thanks :)
Sat Feb 10, 08:29:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
So you're not a Christian, you're a Jew? That's quite the leap! Impressive.
I'm curious, do you think Jesus caused the Israelites to be put to the sword in the OT?
Sun Feb 11, 12:07:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
I'm atheist, therefore I don't think Jesus caused the Israelites to be put to the sword during the Old Testament time frame.
From an Orthodox Jewish perspective, Jesus Christ didn't exist at all, therefore he couldn't have killed Israelites in the OT narratives.
From an Unitarian perspective(Mark 10:18, John 5:19, James 1:13) Jesus is not YHWH and hence he couldn't have killed Israelites in the OT narratives.
From a Binitarian or a Trinitarian perspective (Mat 14:33, John 1, John 10:30-33, John 20:28, 1 John 5:20) Jesus as YHWH killed Israelites in the OT stories.
From a Mohammedan perspective, Jesus (Isa) was only a messenger of Allah (Qur'an 4:171)he didn't exist prior to his earthly birth so he couldn't have killed Israelites in the OT narratives.
Mon Feb 12, 10:21:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Sorry, it's just that you seemed to have been supporting the Jewish opinion about Christ not being a prophet...
Christ never taught the idea that he was God. This is a fundamental point that goes astonishingly unnoticed. But as an atheist, I'm sure you don't really care either way ;)
It's kind of like Satan. The fact that "satan" is nothing more than an "adversary" shouldn't be relevant to someone who doesn't believe either way. This is why I don't really get why so many atheists here are debating who he is and isn't!
Mon Feb 12, 02:44:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Well, Jesus didn't write anything himself, it was the evangelists who put words in his mouth. The NT flirts with the "Jesus is God" idea, though.
Yup, maybe we atheists shouldn't care much about Satan/The Devil besides pointing to the fact that he seems much less evil than we know who. I think that fellow atheists want you to know that you believe the wrong version of a false religion (Please, I beg you to take no offense)
Hey, have you read "Letters from the Earth" by Mark Twain? www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm It's about Satan writing to Michael and Gabriel about humans and their weird customs. Read it just for fun.
Tue Feb 13, 06:02:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
I'm not sure what your first point is all about...? None of the writers wrote anything without first being inspired by God.
The NT flirts with lots of things but only because people try and fit their beliefs into Scripture instead of the other way around. That Jesus is the son of God and not God himself can be explained and proven in any number of ways so, so easily. But Christian tradition is too thick for anyone to change their minds now. It's a shame.
You're absolutely right. An atheist shouldn't care about Satan because it's absolutely irrelevant. An atheist telling me I believe the wrong version of a false religion is truly, honestly nothing I'm going to take seriously. No offense.
I have yet though, to see anything offered about why my beliefs about Satan are false. Argue the facts, not your presuppositions.
Tue Feb 13, 07:28:00 AM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
lol "...the wrong version of a false religion..." What a bizarre statement.
Tue Feb 13, 09:52:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
So, the god of truth is also the father of lies (satan). That means the holy spirit is also the evil one. Jason has just blasphemed against the holy spirit - stone him, he's a witch!
If god is real, I'll see you in hell dude
Billy Sands
Wed Feb 14, 02:59:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
lol Billy, you're a comedien.
Have you actually read this whole post? For the hundredth time, God was an "adversary" to David, as Hadad was an "adversary" to Solomon and Peter an "adversary" to Jesus. The English word "adversary" is the Hebrew word "satan". Is Hadad considered to be the "Father of Lies"?
Instead of regurgatating the same old mindless drivel, why not try the intellectual route and do some satan investigating. You'd probably be surprised how simple this issue is to figure out.
Wed Feb 14, 08:02:00 AM 2007 
 Roopster said...
Here's what ApologeticsPress.org says on the subject:
Who Incited David to Number Israel?
Sat Feb 17, 07:50:00 PM 2007 
 Dave said...
41 replies, with nary a one discussing Steve's original point. According to the bible, 70,000 innocent men died because God/Satan was unjustly upset with David. This hideous immmoral story on its own proves to me that the bible has no connection whatsoever with a loving creator. Getting wrapped up in the definition of "Satan" is like arguing over how to properly spell the name of a rapist. This story, as do dozens in the bible, sicken me.
Fri Feb 23, 07:01:00 AM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
We're owed nothing and we have no rights. God gives life and He takes life away. Whether we think God is right or wrong is unfortunately of no consequence.
Fri Feb 23, 08:12:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Dave,
If God killing people sickens you, I would imagine that God saving people leaves you feeling happy?
Fri Feb 23, 07:26:00 PM 2007 
 Dave said...
Anonymous, no. The concept of salvation based on a single irrational and immoral decision as all others die or worse sickens me as well.
Mon Feb 26, 06:52:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Who's talking about salvation? When God does something 'good' in the Bible, I would assume this makes you happy.
Mon Feb 26, 07:48:00 AM 2007 
 Dave said...
Um, read your own post. You said, and I quote, “…God saving people…”. That means salvation. It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion if you don’t use the words that match your intent. And when God does something “good” in the bible, yeah, it makes me happy, just as when Captain Kirk does something good in Star Trek.
Mon Feb 26, 01:16:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
God saving people. Let's see, God saved Noah and his family. God saved Lot from Sodom & Gomorrah. God saved the Israelites. God saved Joseph. I can provide more examples if you'd like.
So, um, "save' matches my intent, not "salvation". That's your intent. Talk about trying to have a meaningful discussion...
God makes you happy sometimes. Well that's really good. Your admission is duly noted. :)
Thu Mar 01, 08:42:00 AM 2007 
 jake3988 said...
Anonymous said...
God saving people. Let's see, God saved Noah and his family. God saved Lot from Sodom & Gomorrah. God saved the Israelites. God saved Joseph. I can provide more examples if you'd like.

God saved noah - Killed everyone else on the planet. Including billions of animals. And then had sacrifices of millions more. Bad choice.
God saved Lot - Killed everyone else in Sodom. Though, Sodom was a bit on the crazy side, they didn't deserve to die. Bad choice.
God saved Israelities. - Killed the slaughter of what, 40 different kings and kingdoms 'Ripping open the babies, leaving no one alive, including the women and children, but keeping the young female virgins for yourself.' Bad bad choice. Almost disgusting.
God saved Joseph - I don't understand what your going for here.
God saved humanity - Yeah, from HIMSELF. He chooses to send people to hell, not someone else!
Mon Mar 12, 10:09:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
The subject was actually about God saving people. Read the posts.
Wed Mar 14, 08:56:00 AM 2007 
 Calvin Lawson said...
"In this instance, "Satan" and "God" are the same."
Christians did not write Chronicles or Samuel, these are Jewish scriptures. To Jews, Satan is a dutiful SERVANT of God, whom he uses to "test" (IE: Frak with) people.
Link to Jewish Encyclopedia:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=270&letter=S&search=satan
So there is no contradiction.
Using Christian scriptures to interpret older Jewish scriptures is best left to those who aren't looking for what the words originally meant.
Also, notice one refers to "Israel and Judah" and the other refers to "Israel". This is also a good indicator of the time difference between the two accounts, and the differing views of God between those periods (one believed God acted directly, the other believing God acted more indirectly, through angels).
Tue Jul 21, 12:34:00 AM 2009 
 Chris Hunt said...
It seems to me that there are two possible explanations of this story:
1) A loving and benevolent God takes against the idea of censuses. He doesn't say anything about it beforehand, but after the event he punishes the man responsible by killing 70,000 other people.
2) A natural disaster coincidentally happens shortly after a census has taken. People assume that the census has angered their made-up deity.
Which is more plausible?
Tue Apr 17, 04:56:00 PM 2012 
 Kristy Deforge said...
Zoroastrianism doesn't exist in the Hebrew scriptures, but it did when it was translated, this is just a perfect example of Zoroastrianisms' influence on the translators of the scriptures.
It is simply a mistranslation, Yehovah provoked David - as an adversary to David - to do the census in both instances, the King James translators just chose to call him "Satan" here .. lol
Wed Feb 26, 03:58:00 PM 2014 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.








Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 22 January 2007An excuse to buy Playboy (for me anyway)
Playing Devil's Advocate:
Blogger Steve Wells has counted the number of people killed in the Bible. God takes the lives of 2,270,365 (not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the many plagues and famines, etc.). Satan is repsonsible for only 10 deaths, those of Job's seven sons and three daughters.
Playboy Magazine, February 2007, Page 21


Posted by Steve Wells at 1/22/2007 07:17:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
7 comments:
 Kilgore Trout said...
I always preferred Hustler myself but you give a good reason to try out the latest edition.
Mon Jan 22, 11:22:00 AM 2007 
 Po8 said...
Always a considerable reason to buy this magazine is the scientific approach to study the perfection of creation's crowning glory, while living amongst mostly mediocre representatives of this royalty of nature (maybe some kind of photoshop-thingy is the reason for this - only God and the retoucher know). ;-)
Tue Jan 23, 01:08:00 AM 2007 
 Suricou Raven said...
I read an interesting article recently about porn moving to HD-DVD... apparently they are having problems with the details showing now. The poor definition of conventional video hides small blemishes, but in HD every spot, every wrinkle, every imperfection is visible.
Already improved video touch-up software is being developed.
Tue Jan 23, 03:16:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
It's not call "Blue"-Ray for nuthin!
Tue Jan 23, 10:34:00 AM 2007 
 BaconEating AtheistJew said...
Congrats.
Tue Jan 23, 09:27:00 PM 2007 
 jake3988 said...
'Always a considerable reason to buy this magazine is the scientific approach to study the perfection of creation's crowning glory,'

Yup. The female form is amazingly stunning in its natural form. Stop hiding from it and shunning it!
Thu Jan 25, 11:28:00 AM 2007 
 Brucker said...
Dude, you've made the big time. When will we be seeing your centerfold spread?
Wed Jun 06, 08:20:00 AM 2007 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.








Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 13 January 2007How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
kill ... I wound ... I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh. -- Deuteronomy 32:39-42
In a previous post, I've listed and counted God's killings in the Bible. But I only included those that said exactly how many were killed by God. I came up with 2,476,633.
But that didn't include some of God's most impressive slaughters. How many did God drown in the flood or burn to death in Sodom and Gomorrah? How many first-born Egyptians did he kill? The Bible doesn't say, so there's no way to know for sure. But it's possible to provide rough estimates in order to get a grand total, and that's what I'm attempting here.
Total with estimates: 25 million.
Here is a complete list of all of God's killings in the Bible.
Much more information about God's killings, with a chapter on each of the 135 killing events, can be found int the book:

Drunk With Blood: God's killings in the Bible
Posted by Steve Wells at 1/13/2007 09:01:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
126 comments:
 Rufus said...
Great information! Thanks.
Sun Jan 14, 08:13:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Nice work. Thanks!
Mon Jan 15, 06:19:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Awesome list!
Where does your estimate for the world population at the flood come from? Just wondering.
Tue Jan 16, 01:53:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
"Awesome list!"
Thanks.
"Where does your estimate for the world population at the flood come from?"
Wikipedia estimates the human population in the third millineum BCE to be around 30 million.
My reasoning for the estimated values (such as it is) can be found by following the "?" links in the table.
Tue Jan 16, 02:10:00 PM 2007 
 jake3988 said...
Nice. Shows that God is a giantically cruel and masochistic entity and that Satan is a mere normal man who never did anything wrong (other than prove God is an insanely jealous prick)

I'm not going to pray to anyone, but if I started praying to Satan, why should you get worried? Satan never killed anyone and Steve just proved that God created evil.
Wed Jan 17, 03:24:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
lol
So angry...
Wed Jan 17, 07:20:00 PM 2007 
 Aaron said...
yea, Christianity tends to paint a horrible picture of who God is. As a follower of Christ, I'm actually glad you and many others are pointing out the fallicies of the religion, "Christianity". Keep on searching out what is good and what is bad in the world, what is true and what is false...
On another note (or as a diclaimer), know that there is something so much bigger, more powerful, and epic about the life I have found. Yea, I do have to look past the annoying, stuck-up dogmaticism of most Christians today, but past their faults isn't a religion, but a way of life. In fact, I'm guessing that you might even be close to finding that way of life...anyways....thanks for not taking life as the happy meal most people want to give you, but as something new and different that you can change... -peace
Sat Jan 20, 10:46:00 AM 2007 
 Roopster said...
Great list. I discovered this while researching data for my blog Daily Bible Readings - 2007. I plan on posting 365 verses that Christians tend to ignore.
Sun Jan 21, 01:26:00 PM 2007 
 Wes said...
You forgot to include Jesus in the list of people God killed.
Also, I Thessalonians includes an almost certainly interpolated passage in Chapter 2 in which the Jewish War with the Romans is attributed to retribution for the Jews killing Jesus (since Paul died before the war, he couldn't possibly have written the passage). I don't know the casualties from the Jewish War, but whatever they are, anyone who believes in Biblical inerrancy would have to attribute them to God.
And let's not forget all the death and mayhem in the Book of Revelation. It claims a third of the world will be killed--which would be about 2 billion people if it happens in the near future.
Mon Jan 29, 01:18:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
God killed Jesus? Chapter and verse, please.
Which verses in 1 Thessalonians 2 talk about the Jewish war with the Romans?
Do you take Revelation to be literal or symbolical?
Mon Jan 29, 08:38:00 PM 2007 
 Unbeliever said...
I guess Richard Dawkins's assessment of the OT God was right on the money!
Thanks for that - I was planning to add up all those God killed myself, now I needn't go to the trouble. Looks like it was a good bit of work, considering just how murderaous the bastard was. I'm glad, too, that you didn't neglect Ananias and Saphira!
Sat Feb 03, 10:59:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
God killed Jesus?
1 John 4:10
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Mon Feb 05, 07:33:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Who's that comment for?
Mon Feb 05, 01:50:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Apparently no one...
Sun Feb 11, 12:08:00 PM 2007 
 lynn's daughter said...
Let us not also forget all the soldiers that, according to the reverend Fred Phelps, god has killed in retaliation for our tolderance of homosexuality. Nice blog! I hope you won't mind if I link to it.
Wed Feb 14, 12:29:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Phelps probably isn't the go-to guy when it comes to this kind of stuff :) What a wacko.
Thu Feb 15, 06:46:00 AM 2007 
 CrownRightsPatriot said...
This post is a bit silly. You realize that every single individual of mankind who has ever died has been killed by God? For all things are of Him, through Him, and to Him (Romans 11:36). This includes all death (I Samuel 2:6).
If the Bible is truly the inspired Word of God, it makes perfect sense that there's so much killing in the Bible. Why? Simple reason: People die.
Sun Feb 18, 09:56:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
This sounds like an atheist site, and I would be a little bit careful if I were you. Do you know that if you count everyone that has been killed for a religion, the religion "Atheism" is the one with most blood on it's hands? In 2001, atheist have been killing 31 689 000 christians. Then you have to count everyone else belonging to other religions, killed by atheists, and I think I can tell you that atheists have killed a lot more then you say God have done. Have you counted the people Jesus rose from the dead (in minus?)
And the numbers used here, is not exacly accurate, and just guessings
Wed Feb 21, 09:18:00 AM 2007 
 adsims2001 said...
To the Anon who said that atheism has killed more than Christianity or God, I'd like to see your research for that. How can you say that his numbers are estimates if he cited every source? Your estimate has no citation or research to back it up--plus, atheism isn't a religion, it's a belief. If you want to debate over who has killed more, the site
http://debate.fgsfds.org
is a great place to support your beliefs.
Wed Feb 21, 02:53:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Many of the numbers listed aren't exact, regardless of whether or not sources are cited. See all those numbers followed by question marks? Those are estimates.
Sat Feb 24, 04:42:00 PM 2007 
 tortugo23 said...
What about Judas? or was that too round about of a snuf, not direct enough? He was after all fulfilling prophecy, enabling Jesus to be sacrificed by God, he then repents and somehow dies, depending on which account you decide to believe.
Mon Feb 26, 09:47:00 PM 2007 
 Yehowah said...
Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief in just one idea. How many have people who don't believe in fairies or Santa Claus killed? Pillock.
Mon Mar 05, 12:31:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
"I Thessalonians includes an almost certainly interpolated passage in Chapter 2 in which the Jewish War with the Romans is attributed to retribution for the Jews killing Jesus (since Paul died before the war, he couldn't possibly have written the passage)."
Wes, your a little mistaken here. Paul was not referring to any war. He was talking about the banishment of Jews from Roman provinces in 49 A.D. He was alive and well.
Wed Mar 14, 09:06:00 AM 2007 
 sillbilly said...
Nice!
Wed Mar 21, 02:49:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
an atheist would not waste time calculating the murderous rampage of a god s/he did not believe existed.
Wed Mar 21, 03:49:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Haha :)
But how many did satan/lucifer/The evil one kill ?
Wed Mar 21, 04:50:00 PM 2007 
 @lfondo said...
I have the same question... you show how many people god killed, but didn't named those who where killed by satan... Does anybody have a list??
;-)
Mon Apr 09, 12:25:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Here you go, @lfondo: Who has killed more: Satan or God?
Tue Apr 10, 03:28:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
no doubt god is:
the number one mass murder in the history of the world jeohvah eloim
yhwh who cares is a mass murder and ispire many murders along all history yhwh have the hands full of blood disgrace guilty
mass murder guilty
injustice guilty
cynical guilty and the list continues amanzing
Tue Apr 24, 02:39:00 PM 2007 
 Arturs said...
This list would be simply ridiculous, if it wasn't so miserable that people turn away themselves from God because of such speculations.
First a lot of the numbers are mere speculation. Moreover why write down into God's list the numbers of people who fell in wars. If God gave some nation into hands of another, that means He determined the victory, but all the slaughtering was done by people themselves. In that way you could say that God 'killed' almost every victim of every war in the history.
But what is most important is that GOD DOES NOT 'KILL' ANYBODY, life is given by God, it's completely His property and He can take it back at any time and so shall He take mine and yours and everybody's if He wills to.
Sun Apr 29, 01:11:00 AM 2007 
 Ryan said...
Guys, the New Testament stated that we are all predestinated before the world was even created. (sorry I cant recall the exact verse)
This is all just one sick game;
It means that he has all of these planned out from day 0! Yes, including the death of non-believers, christians, and even Judas - poor guy, he didn't even have a choice... :(
Of course, if you feel that I cannot be credited for not making clear references, please disregard this comment.
Tue May 01, 02:37:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Arturs - great point.
Ryan - The verse you're looking for is Romans 8:29. The question that begs to be asked however is, is every single believer lumped into the "predestinated" role or is this reserved for people like Moses or Paul or John the Baptist, who were all in some way "firstborn among many brethren" specifically called and chosen to fill a specific role? One more point to consider also: "Predestinate" also means "appoint beforehand". This would seem to support the latter point listed above.
Tue May 08, 09:41:00 PM 2007 
 Reaper said...
nice number crunching there but what we need is an estimate of people that have been killed by god or in god's name.....good luck with trying to figure that number out it must be monstrous :)
Fri May 25, 09:51:00 AM 2007 
 tegf4 said...
I can not believe you all your so blinded. You none believer waste time trying to calculate all the people God or Satan killed. Well guess what people; this guy does not know the answer either, he is total off.
From the bible’s point of view God did not kill nobody, SIN did. God’s rule is, you SIN you DIE. That is that, you can like it or you can die. God can not do evil, he disoplin evil with death and that is not a bad thing. When you consider that he also made a way for you avoid DEATH.
I am a sinner, so by God’s rule I am a dead man walking. So who killed me? I did. Who made a way for me to avoid death? God did, thru Jesus the only sacrifice aloud by God to have eternal life.
If you really think about, fools, people killed them selves by breaking God’s rules. Think about this; God killed every one that every lived Why because of their SIN! That was the curse by God. Genesis 3:19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. So get back to the bible and read before you make stupid commits.
So then who is the blame for your death?
God? No, he made the rules.
Satan? No, he just temps people to sin.
You? Yes!! You are the one to blame. That is, free will, God gave us, so you choose to SIN you pay the punishment, you die.
Now you non believers read the Bible in the first place you can see this.
If God killed people then he needs a savior not us.
You non believers that got caught up in this guys counting should be ashamed of your self’s.
CrownRightsPatriot Your post is close to the answer. But the reason is not that Simple reason: People die. It is that every ones dies because of SIN. There are two deaths, the body and a spirit. Every one will die the body. The second death is if the sinners will not repented and except Jesus then they will have an ever lasting life away form God. Witch will be in HELL where there is darkness, fire and brimstone, mashing of teeth and the worms never dies.
Arturs You are close to but dig deeper. God wants us to live for him to do his will for ever and for us to rebel against him is SIN for he is the one that gave us life in the first place.
Wed Jul 04, 06:03:00 PM 2007 
 dwisor717 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mon Jul 09, 03:01:00 PM 2007 
 dwisor717 said...
So what happened to "God" being eternally forgiving then? Stop trying to force your ignorance on others.
Mon Jul 09, 03:03:00 PM 2007 
 that weasel said...
To all of the Christians complaining about the "estimated" numbers let me just say this.
The world population as estimated by scientist (30,000,000) is minuscule compared to the 9,000,000,000 estimated by biblical scholars.
Sun Jul 15, 01:23:00 PM 2007 
 that weasel said...
I forgot to specify that those were the estimates for the world population at 2400BCE...
Sun Jul 15, 01:25:00 PM 2007 
 A said...
PRAISE GOD and His Mighty Name
Joel 2:12 Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning.
Joe 2:13 And rend your heart, and not your garments and turn unto the LORD your God for he is gracious and merciful, Slow
Anger, and of Great Kindness,repenteth him of the evil.
Fri Jul 27, 01:36:00 PM 2007 
 A said...
PRAISE GOD and His Mighty Name
Joel 2:12 Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning.
Joe 2:13 And rend your heart, and not your garments and turn unto the LORD your God for he is gracious and merciful, Slow
Anger, and of Great Kindness,repenteth him of the evil.
Fri Jul 27, 01:37:00 PM 2007 
 alyceclover said...
The Holy Books were carefully guarded and common people only had Holy people's words for the history recorded in them. If Chrisitians have seen ancient Hebrew or Arab script and can read it, they could determine what was written and what the words actually meant. Orthodox Jews will not say G-D's name for fear of being stoned to death for "blasememe".
What that has to do with this is the nitpicker comments: "God" ordered the killings or, as recorded caused deaths to happen.
Yes, the New Testament tells us God knows the number of hair on our heads and knows our hearts and what we will do before we do it.
Basically, he wrote the script already knowing most of us are doomed for eternal hellfire. Sadistic and cruel comes to mind. Those holy books tell us he created "man in our image" or it was a team project. Looking at "man" around you will give you a good idea of who that God is.
I like Buddha much better.
Tue Aug 07, 08:36:00 PM 2007 
 Robert said...
I cannot believe how disgusting the bible is. It is my experience that all religions are bad, but christianity has got to take the cake.
The best way to make someone an Atheist is to have them read the bible.
Peace, love, and cooperation. I wish the best for all of you, and I hope for a world of Atheism.
Wed Aug 08, 10:06:00 PM 2007 
 luis.h said...
God killed few people when our focus comes to the evil from the humans over the earth God killed so few people.
Almight GOD praise the Lord
Thu Aug 30, 01:15:00 PM 2007 
 butlimous said...
Thanks for the nice post!
Free PS3
Tue Sep 04, 10:12:00 AM 2007 
 Airelon said...
Hopefully in the near future, he'll destroy about 6,000,000,000 more.
Mon Sep 10, 09:33:00 AM 2007 
 Tristan said...
It's not that much to complain about people! The bible is an interesting piece of work, plenty of nice violent stuff and some very hypocritical proverbs, but at the end of the day, a person's belif decides this. Anyways, you could get arround the whole complaints about the book by noting that this was written by MEN and has been TRANSLATED which is one of the reasons the bible can't make up it's mind.
Tue Sep 11, 03:40:00 AM 2007 
 Fergus said...
As I have spent time on this site, I have found myself asking, "How am I contributing to the pain in the world by my own lack of love?" I believe that if we are genuine in our desire to spread love and life in this world that has so much hate and death, then there is no better place to begin than the self-awareness that we, by our attitudes and actions, can be part of what contributes to its brokenness, as well as its healing. A person I saw speaking on a video said, "If you were able to show on a screen before this crowd the 10 worst things I have ever thought or done, I would not volunteer to be in the room when you did!" We each have the potential to be at times part of what's wrong with our world. This awareness moves me to examine seriously my thoughts and deeds in each given situation to see if they are contributing to the problems in this world - to hate and death - or their solution - love and life. I should say that I am not assuming that any who have posted comments here are not doing this. I thought I'd add this comment, though, as I haven't seen this point in any of the comments made so far.
Sun Dec 09, 12:27:00 AM 2007 
 Uncle Johnny said...
God made us and everything else in this universe. We are His. He and only He may sit in judgement and determine the longevity of our brief lives on this planet (prior to the judgement to come by Him).
I think the regimes taking life, for no reason, should really consider whos power they are usurping and why. For they will be judged by Him. Whether or not you believe, He is your God and you will kneel before Him.
Some additional reading:
http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Atheism.pdf
Fri Dec 14, 03:55:00 PM 2007 
 Erik said...
Who died because of Satan?
Thanks,
Erik
Sat Dec 29, 06:00:00 AM 2007 
 Uncle Johnny said...
Satan does not have the ability to take life. God made it. He created humans and gave us free will. We can make a choice to love or hate..kill or let live. It is a blessing to have choice. You have the free will to listen to satan's queues or live by the word that He revealed to us in the Bible. Let's not forget that He also became flesh and dwelt among us. In essence, to follow His example.
The article I sited was with respect to atheism. Those without think that what you do in this life has no consequence. The Bible is clear. The things you do in this short life will be revisited. You will be called to account. If you put your faith in Jesus, then He is in your corner when that day comes. If not, you will kneel before him.
You see, whether you believe or not, you will be held accountable. And since you know of Him, you have no excuse.
Happy New Year my brother. God bless you and yours.
Mon Dec 31, 06:30:00 PM 2007 
 Erik said...
Hi!
Great list. I'm really curious about the people Satan killed according to the bible. Could you inform me?
Erik

Amsterdam
Tue Jan 01, 08:29:00 AM 2008 
 mountain king said...
Where does the estimate of 500 thousand in Ex.12:29-30 come from regarding the firstborns?
Fri Jan 04, 10:54:00 AM 2008 
 Mommykicksbutt said...
Does anyone have any stats on how many people have been murdered by:
1) Xtians against non-xtians
2) Muslims against non-Muslims
3) Jews against non-Jews
4) Xtians against xtians
5) Muslims against Muslims
6) Jew against Jew
7) Non-believers/ atheists/ agnostics against believers (of any and all of the above faiths).
It is my belief that xtians are responsible for more kills in the name of their god and any other group.
Let's set the time frame from 4004 BCE to 1900 CE.
Any help will be great appreciated!
Mon Jan 14, 03:14:00 PM 2008 
 JackTR21 said...
i think god has the high score
Thu Jan 24, 12:20:00 PM 2008 
 me said...
SORRY for the hars words. WAKE UP
All you retarded, brainwashed, mass-hypnotized, nincompoop so called christians.
You say GOD sacrificed his only beloved SON for us. So we can go to him.
Let's see; If any one, for any reason would kill their own child,...IT IS CALLED MURDER.
Only a selfish, self-centered goomba (idiot) can think of that by a death of living a being his sins will be forgiven and go to Heaven? Do I really want to go to a Murderer and sitting by his throne with his dead son where everything is gold?
This sounds more EVIL and DEAD and COLD then ICE.
You all really think that the only way to get away from your own guilt and stupid mistakes of your self pitied life is by believing in a gruesome death of Jesus? Believing in a MURDERER as God?
You are all sick puppies,
PS: Religions were MAN MADE, and always invented by some smart or evil smack to gain power over the poor and un-educated. Remember....every war they BURN...WHAT???? Not the BIBLE but the BOOKS. The reason so they can keep you all STUPID, UNEDUCATED while they enjoy life. But with the BIBLE in hand they can keep you in control, in guilt, in shame, in poverty. They linger the never possible gold, fame and glory with God in Heaven in your mind.
Religions create nothing more, but HATRED. Every war every fight and all killings in men’s history were in the name of their God. BILLIONS OF PEOPLE and animals PERISHED from the face of the earth, without any chance to have a full life because they were killed in wars and hatred in the name of God’s LOVE.
GOD CREATED us you say. God created us to his own image and he created the first couple Adam & Eve. They had two children Cain and Abel. Didn’t one brother kill the other?
IT MAKES SENSE TO ME. WE HAVE A MURDERER WHO CREATED US TO HIS IMAGE AND HIS LIKING AND THAT IS WHY starts right off the beginning,... and it will go on till there is ONLY ONE....THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE....and that is your GOD.
Sad.... very, very sad
Whoever started this BLOG...GREAT JOB, GREAT INFORMATIONS!
RicochetZwack
Tue Jan 29, 07:59:00 PM 2008 
 Brian said...
To those who are wondering how many people satan killed.
I'm pretty sure I heard somewhere that it was, like, 10 people.
Yeah. It was Job's family. In fact, he killed them as part of a bet with god. :P
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html
Sat Feb 02, 06:23:00 PM 2008 
 Uncle Johnny said...
Good luck! Unsubscribing. All of the Bible half quotes taken out of context is simply disingenuous.
I'll see those of you who put your faith in Jesus in heaven. We'll probably have different stuff to talk about...like, I wonder if those haters and denyers of that "How many has God killed" weblog made it.
Mon Feb 04, 12:29:00 PM 2008 
 Mavaddat said...
You have a typo.
God tells Joshua to stoned to death Achan (and his family) for taking the accursed thing.
Should read:
God tells Joshua to stone Achan (and his family) to death for taking the accursed thing.
Fri Feb 22, 02:49:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Thanks, mavaddat. I've fixed it.
Fri Feb 22, 03:56:00 PM 2008 
 RiZeN said...
If you want to believe in a fairy tale, at least pick one that makes sense. One that gives you a GOAL perhaps. Try Taoism, you at least get some advice on how to be happy and grow your spirit. Better then just being told what not to do, and forced to worship the thing that created you.
I prefer rather to to consider that we are all a PART of god.
Christianity serves its purpose quite well, instilling fear into the hearts of the weak minded.
Consider this... If you lived in many other parts of the world, you would not be christian yourself. You are christian because you were raised by christians, or were told it was true during a weak point in your life. Scientology does the same thing.
Sad Really.
THIMK! =P
Sun Feb 24, 05:17:00 AM 2008 
 RiZeN said...
BTW Great List! I've always been curious of this.
Also, to anyone who seriously questions the validity of these ESTIMATES.... get real. It could never be exact. Unless, of course, god stood trial in some grand court of the universe. Now THAT I'd like to see.
Sun Feb 24, 05:19:00 AM 2008 
 TLC Tugger said...
I especially love when the big guy deliberately hardens the hearts of people so they can be killed for sport.
And all those cities full of people who just happened to be in the path of the rampaging chosen people? What the hell did they do wrong?
Obviously these stories were written by Man to justify political conquests and a sense of entitlement.
It's too bad bible thumpers don't see how much their god HATES innocent infants and the unborn, who figure prominetly in the total killed.
And go ahead, say "He's God. Everthing is His to do with as He will." You just proved that he's no example of how to live in peace.
EVOLVE to atheism for world peace.
Tue Mar 11, 03:31:00 PM 2008 
 Øyvind said...
Fantastic and very detailed list. Great work. The final proof that the christian god is a psychopath.
Sat Apr 05, 07:54:00 PM 2008 
 Shuff... said...
Man, if none of you believe in the christian god, it sure seems like you talk about Him quite a bit.
I believe every religion should be respected. Not only do CHRISTIANS (mind you, not their GOD) kill humans, but Muslims kill Muslims, Atheists kill Atheists, and vice versa until suddenly we realize that in fact we're just a bunch of confused humans who kill eachother. Not because of God's ignorance but because of our own ignorance.
And sadly all we can do is sit and argue about whose god killed more people, and how stupid christianity is. If you want to make a difference according to what you personally believe in, you should probably start by loving every person equally, and not furthering the christians hatred of you by trying to prove a stupid and rather mean statistic.
Does that get anyone anywhere?
No.
We all have our own gods, no matter what they encompass. Somebody's god could be money.
How many people has the Money God killed? Probably too many to count.
and et cetera.
So before you judge something like the bible, just because it is a popular sacred book, think about what kind of life we're all living.
We're just humans searching for a meaning.
Maybe you should think about that.
Mon Apr 21, 05:33:00 PM 2008 
 nnn said...
How many has atheists killed?
only in the 20th century
atheist Stalin killed - 50,000,000 people
atheist\buddhist\daosist Mao of china killed - 40,000,000 people
hitler inspired by buddhism and aryan vedic gods killed 60,000,000 people
atheis\buddhist Pol Pot\Khmer Rouge of Cambodia in short time killed millions of people
the list can be hugeeeeee
and what about mongolo-turkic nomadics tribes of asia and their shamanic god thengry ? entire populations were exterminated
what about zeus and jupiter the biggest nations\cultures\history killers ?
what about the cannibal gods of aztecs ?
"the time is gone, the song is over"
Tue Apr 29, 02:28:00 AM 2008 
 kroy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wed May 21, 04:14:00 AM 2008 
 kroy said...
reply to.... "nnn said..."
How many has atheists killed?
hitler inspired by buddhism and aryan vedic gods?????????? etc....
hahahahaahaaa
1.hitler born as CHRISTIAN(in childhood must have listened wht God will do if u wont worship Him, Hitler too did same.Hitler must have listened God's story 'why He don't like worshiping other gods.. Bible reason for that God created world 6000 years back in 6 days etc....' so now Hitler also trying to tell lies as God told to make Him ruler. I am sure Hitler never know anything about Buddhism/Vedas but he tried to clime thm(As same as God told He created earth before 6000 years(Lie)).
2.Stalin even went for church Father training too
3.mao lost himself due to china's slavery for hundreds of years and became like that(i am not sure,i think so)
Wed May 21, 04:16:00 AM 2008 
 kroy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wed May 21, 04:41:00 AM 2008 
 kroy said...
why u r thinking against Buddha/Vedas they never did any harm to u or to Christianity. eventhough Christians attacked those people with modern weapons which they never know before and made thm slaves. still thy don't blame Christians. they respect all human beings.
Bible told u to hate other thn Christians. Bible told u others r fools, idiots.. Bible stories told u how Christians killed others as word of God..
finally u at least want to blame others for no reason.. and u want to wait for God to come again and start killings again...
eventhough u call some power to come on earth and kill all other people .. Buddha/Vedas tell u "who ever u r 'save Dharma it will save u'".. if u wont save truth, one day ur lie ITSELF make u pay. Truth will simply come to earth again whn all lies die by thmself, Truth has no death..
Wed May 21, 04:42:00 AM 2008 
 JJ said...
first off
the jews used god as a justification to killing everyone in the land to make living space for themselves just like a million other races and poeple have done.
second
God has not shown himself or proved himself nether have his followers so how can he expect anyone to belive in him based on 'faith'??? i am suppost to change my lifestyle and give up all my 'wicked ways' just because some guy said i should??? If god is real and really expects me to do just that he is not just.
Third
the poeple who wrote the bible believers in it and it all comes from there view point. If hitler wrote a book about world war 2 would you just belive in it?? or would you look at other view points and soures to find the truth? i dont know how anyone can just read the bible and take it for truth and i like how god dosent kill anyone know a days even though he have poeple just as evil if not more so.
Sat Jun 28, 05:55:00 AM 2008 
 Reason said...
My question is "why waste all that time trying to calculate how many people God killed? If God condemned all of mankind to death because of adam's sin, then God has killed every person that has died since the creation and will until the end..if there is one.
Sun Jul 27, 02:13:00 PM 2008 
 John1965 said...
God's reasoning throughout the bible, especially the Old Testament, is "Love me, Fear me, obey me unquestioningly...or die."
I kinda think there have been others with this viewpoint...Hitler, Mugabe, Idi Amin...I could go on.
How can anyone believe in such an obvious psycopathic homicidal maniac?
Sun Aug 24, 01:26:00 AM 2008 
 Camel said...
God created all and therefore owns all including us. He created life and has the right to take it away. He who created all knows best how it works and therefore is the benchmark for all right and wrong in His creation. Can man create from nothing. If so then we should regard our opinion as well. Until that time our opinion holds no authority and no objectivity.
Mon Sep 15, 09:06:00 PM 2008 
 starcorner27 said...
personally i think its all a bunch of garbage created to make people follow laws or else suffer the wrath of "god" i agree with the people that say he's no different from many other dictators that say love me fear me obey me unquestioningly or die. i've also found that people that are mentally unstable tend to believe this nonsense.
Tue Sep 16, 06:15:00 PM 2008 
 Austin said...
Also if you read in the Apocryphal texts you will find God warranting more killings, at least to the opinions of those who wrote it.
Mon Oct 13, 03:27:00 AM 2008 
 Jonathan said...
It appears that you guys are not taking a scholarly approach. First, you need to understand God's laws in order to define what is right or wrong according to Him. Else, you should find some other objective "truth" (which you believe to be infallible) and use that to judge Him with. Though this would be like judging boxing with football rules. "KO!" "Foul!" Second, all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. Most, if not all, of these killings were direct executions of His law. You might argue that some of these people were innocent because they didn't know the law, but if you read some of the messages from the prophets, you will find that, according to the Bible, they didn't solely prophesy to Israel, but they prophesied to other nations. Many can agree that God directly or indirectly (you might be able to add to your list by showing how God used his people and angels to kill also, using the reasoning like Hitler killing so many Jews even though it was his men that actually did it)killed more than any man, other than maybe Adam's cause of ALL death on this planet. You cannot come to conclusions about any book without understanding it in totality. Also, you cannot judge a leader by what his followers do unless he ordered them to do it. Finally you cannot define sin without having a god. Sin is different than breaking the law. Laws are subjective and most religions have had to break laws so that they didn't break their Laws. It is all about seeking out objective truth. (Note, I wrote this really rapidly so wasn't able to correct all the mistakes. I'm currently writing a study on bearing arms so that I can show my pacifist Christian friends. Frankly, this is how I came across this blog. I'll probably not be able to get back here, so if you want to email me, my email is: mailbox1871 at gmail dot com.)
Thu Nov 27, 08:12:00 AM 2008 
 pentha said...
Aww, look at those butthurt Christians in this thread, trying to defend the actions of their murderous psychopath dad in the sky.
PS1: There is no god/devil/heaven/hell.
PS2: When in doubt, blame Satan.
Wed Dec 17, 06:11:00 AM 2008 
 Wes Hunter said...
It requires a great deal of faith to believe in something so much greater than yourself. It is easy to dismiss the creator as myth. I take comfort in my personal belief that a life lived in good conscience will be all that is asked by my God. Believe or not, that is a good life to live.
Remember, darkness is only the absence of light.
Wed Dec 24, 08:23:00 AM 2008 
 lyesmith said...
hmm, Ethiopia, Assyria, Nineveh??
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=zephaniah%202:10-2:15;&version=9;
Tue Jan 06, 01:40:00 AM 2009 
 jbblaxland said...
Delusions (like god in the bible) do not commit crimes. The delusional do. Unfortunately, they are mostly christian.
Wed Jan 21, 07:48:00 PM 2009 
 Sandro said...
Hi! Well done!!
I'm gonna post this on my blog too, so i'm trying to translating in italian.
I can't find any results about the number of Amalekites (1000) killed by Joshua. How did you find that number? Thanx!
Sat Feb 14, 04:11:00 AM 2009 
 Steve Wells said...
Sandro,
I generally used 1000 for a standard biblical massacre. It seems a little small in this case, but I try to keep estimates on the conservative side.
Sat Feb 14, 08:06:00 AM 2009 
 fff said...
I'am sorry, have we any information how much Chuck Norris killed? I want to compare...
Thu Apr 16, 04:03:00 AM 2009 
 lunar-amaranth said...
I don't get it. The two common answers that Christians have to this kind of research are:
1. God gave us life, and therefore he has the right to take it away.
2. Because everybody sins and everybody eventually dies, any atrocity committed in the meantime was only hastening the inevitable, and therefore justified.
Could the little infant in his Egyptian mother's arms possibly know anything about the "Law", or slavery, or that the Pharaoh happened to be pissing God off...and could therefore deserve to die along with the other firstborn for the sin of being born Egyptian?
But no, God created life, and so God can just take it away any time he pleases, for whatever reason he pleases.
Give me a break, folks. When Christians give answers like this, is it really any wonder that the rest of us are sitting here biting back disgust and wondering what is WRONG with you?
You who claim to be the bearers of hope and good news in the world, how can your answer to seemingly God-sanctioned killing be "oh well, we all die eventually, so why get so worked up about it?" That is not a message of hope. That is the excuse of tyrants.
Do not turn your nose up at people who create lists like this...perhaps they, like most decent people, do not like it when people are killed, and question anyone who tried to tell them that killing is okay.
Sun Apr 26, 08:02:00 AM 2009 
 A Piper said...
The thing that I have trouble comprehending is the prevalent tendency of concluding Atheism is a natural counter to the realization that the God of history is limited by the minds of the authors to being a projection of their own inner struggles.
We live in a Universe of Universes and there is nothing in the Bible to prepare us for the Life that is surely "out there.' But because the Bible and other religions developed during the infancy of our evolutionary awareness, describe a creator constructed by the projections of their own limitations, that doesn't therefore "prove" that we don't live in a created reality.
It proves that our understanding of our Creator must evolve as our understanding of reality does. It proves that any dogma at some point in time becomes limited and inaccurate due to the needs of the maintainers of the dogma, It does not prove that a Creator (the primary function of God in most religions) doesn't exist and reality and Life are solely chance occurrences.
I do think Atheism has a point in that if religious types didn't have a G-D or Satan to excuse the crappy stuff we've done in HIS name (testosterone projection!) we might all have acted more responsibly - but maybe not....
In my life, and my experience, there are Creative forces all around us that we can tap into and explore. Awareness is a gift of the Creator we are just learning to appreciate.
Loving You
Piper
Wed May 06, 05:53:00 AM 2009 
 Jeremy said...
what about all the people that die everyday in Israel, Palistine, Iraq/other places where fundamentalists kill each other?
Wed Jun 17, 01:29:00 AM 2009 
 coolcat216 said...
Well, I think a question that would make all this seem irrelevant is: How many of these people did God give life to?
God gave us all life, & He has just as much a right to take it away.
Mon Aug 03, 04:15:00 AM 2009 
 coolcat216 said...
lunar-amaranth
Yes, I know my previous answer is probably just what you were expecting, but you have to realize that even though the baby in the Egyptian mother's arms didn't have a clue, he wasn't killed to be punished. Maybe as a punishment for those who didn't follow God's law, but not the baby. As as for the baby, he went to heaven.
It's important to remember that God has purposes for all the things He does, and also that things have changed now that there's a New Testament. God didn't want to carry things out the way He was forever. He planned for sin & punishment to run a new course, which is as it stands today. Where there are more than second chances, and a new kind of forgiveness & salvation.
Mon Aug 03, 04:25:00 AM 2009 
 melody said...
Why do so many people think that God's job is to clean up the mess we make of things (or to stop problems we create). God gave us free-will and with it we have to accept responsibility for our actions - and not look to God as a way of avoiding consequences.Why did you choose your life? You can blame only yourself.
You are God and you chose it.
Tue Sep 08, 06:13:00 PM 2009 
 N♥A said...
@ pentha - LOL
Hmmm, Christianity is so confusing..
Buddhism is much better.
Thu Sep 10, 06:51:00 AM 2009 
 Christopher John said...
If it was never yours to begin with, what makes you think you have the right to complain when it is taken away...
hmm.. I'm not sure i agree with what i just said. but it is a thought.
i kinda' like the "old testament" argument. but I believe in taking the entire Bible literal. i regret that I have not yet read the entire book, so perhaps my opinion is invalid. I know only this: God is Love, and I love God. entirely, illogically, and unethically. a better argument against God is not, why has he killed so many, but perhaps why has we let so many live, rather, this is a matter of who has been spared. should every evil man be permitted to live?
Who, or what defines evil?
Thu Oct 22, 01:18:00 PM 2009 
 Lord Floppington said...
Seems that if you don't believe in God, none of the killings can be attributed to him. So we can't place blame on God.
And if you do believe in God, part of God's nature is that we can't know or comprehend the reasons God may have for doing things. So, once again, we have no standing to blame God, or, at least we have no way of knowing that God didn't kill for good reasons.
On top of that, we don't really have to look to God for big kill numbers. Mao almost certainly killed at least 30 million of his own people, and Stalin probably got close to that number himself.
Sat Nov 21, 10:10:00 PM 2009 
 Smoley said...
This list is not complete!
The Bible says in Hebrews 9:27 "And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"
God has pronounced the death penalty on every person that has ever lived. Look around you! Has anyone survived longer than a few generations? No! God has killed them all.
I only wish to clarify the fact that all men die by the commandment of God.
So what if He offers a new life of happiness and joy.
So what if He Himself was sacrificed at the hands of mankind at the cross.
So what if he has already paid the price for this "sin". Let's stick it to Him. Let's make Him die again!
The day is coming and will soon be here, when you can tell Him of your ignorance of His gruesome death at the hands of man as a reconciliation for our suffering.
It is a wicked thing to deny that God died and rose again to reconcile the world unto Himself and make things right.
It is a wicked thing to hold God accountable for acts that He has already paid for.

2 Corinthians 5:18  And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19  To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20  Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Sun Nov 29, 02:58:00 PM 2009 
 Jesse said...
Everybody that was killed deserved every last bit of it. This world was filled of people with dirty things, and it still is! God has his ways, and you just have to trust him, and this whole thing was taken out of context, you guys need to realize what they did, and why they deserved it! GOD IS AWESOME! AND HE WILL REIGN FOREVER AND EVER! :)
Mon Feb 15, 06:13:00 AM 2010 
 Robert said...
Jesse, if Jesus came back you would kill him again. Religion is the curse of a civilized world - tell me what is awesome about God all I have experienced is how God has created mayhem, misery, death, destruction, untold suffering and the devastation of humanity. I went to chapel every morning but after seeing how Christians behave I became an Atheist. The list is only biblical the death that Christians are responsible for outside the bible is even greater. Perhaps one you out there may have this list too?
Thu Mar 11, 09:33:00 AM 2010 
 Rick Fisk said...
How does one credibly claim to suspend belief in the bible and then use it without any suspension of belief?
Just askin'...
Sun Mar 14, 11:05:00 AM 2010 
 Rick Fisk said...
I do want to also say that I am surprised the bible makes it ok to kill babies since they are going to heaven. Maybe that will finally stop the abortion argument once and for all.
Sun Mar 14, 11:08:00 AM 2010 
 Dirk said...
Thank you for the list to put history of humanity in perspective! Wow, we're good, huh?
Current religious writings appear to contain some truths that have been corrupted by estranged ideology of humans; as anyone can see, they contain contradictory and illogical ideas.
Faith, as a cornerstone of religions, dictates by definition with its meaning a "deep seated belief in the absence of knowledge". This is a fundamentally flawed approach to gain wisdom, truth, knowledge, harmony... ie, everything religions stand for.
Let's evolve and drop religions for the sake of humanity. Future generations will thank us for sparing them these troubles we have.
Satan ~10, God(s) ~30 million.
Wed May 12, 06:43:00 AM 2010 
 dancerbeauty15 said...
You all may find it interesting that God was the last one who wanted these people dead. God loves His creation so much that He sent His son to this wretched earth to save us from eternal death. I believe that God had to do this because He is just and He can't stand sin.
Thankfully, He has sent His son to provide a way out of our misery that we ourselves made. When I look at this earth, I see so many who are dead and have no life. I believe we accept this death from Satan and if we die in our sin we will have to face the second death that the Bible talks about. But God provided a way out of this death and it is open to all who really believe. God brings life, Satan brings temptation, we bring sin.
Christianity starts with faith. I had to start with faith, but what's interesting, is that when I read the Bible more and studied science, history, logic and philosophy, I saw that the Bible is TRUE!!! It amazed me afterward, because I started with faith and not evidence. At the base, is faith, but once you believe your eyes are opened and you can see the truth that was right under your nose the whole time. The Bible says that whoever believes in his heart and confesses with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead, will be SAVED! The Bible also says that God does not want ANYONE to perish, but all to come to a knowledge of Him and His salvation.
I believe these people sealed their own fate when they sinned, and God even warned them that the penalty for sin was death. But look, all of us have fallen. We each are in need of grace. God is just, but He also is good, compassionate, and He is love.
Sun Jun 20, 07:37:00 PM 2010 
 Robken said...
If I did believe in a God it wouldn't be a God that killed his son or wanted others to kill their sons and daughters. Numbers are not really what matter here, what matters is love and compassion and an a tolerance for all things, and I see very little this in any religious organization. If everything is already ordained, and that we were just put down on Earth and told "the rest is up to you", then what is the purpose of praying? If God is ALMIGHTY why the devil. Ok, I get it! the Devil is us, or we become the devil and/or hell is what we make it. Well, I'm sorry I prefer enlightenment of the SELF. If I had to choose a spiritual system it would be, without question, Buddhism. Buddhism shows you the way, without telling you the way, it doesn't say you will go to hell for not believing in me and spend eternity in some kind of inferno. Killing children in Africa with this worm that gets into the head is totally unnecessary or a million other examples of death, destruction, misery and total depravity. No, you are your own God and you must sort yourSELF out, all other God are vanity. Christianity from day one has been corrupt, vengeful, powermad, hypocritical, and intolerant. Popes had anyone that came in their way, or where Atheist, or any other reason that they didn't like, assassinated or burnt at the stake as a heretic. I'm sorry, but Christianity is responsible for spilling so much blood that it will never be forgiven - Religion is the Devil. Lastly, Christians always bring up that others to killed millions and that is the trap they fall into every time they utter such nonsense - reason: Christians are not meant to behave like the devil, but the devil is.
Tue Jun 22, 12:59:00 PM 2010 
 mbosely said...
According to the bible GOD created everything, and GOD knows everything. According to the Bible god created all the angels of heaven, including lucifer. So, if GOD knows everything (before it even happens) then surely GOD knew that Lucifer, according to the bible, would defy him, rebel, and fall with 1/3rd of all of the angels. And according to the bible that he would be EVIL. So basically GOD created evil.
So, why did god create the angel Lucifer in such a way that he would fail and take 1/3rd of all the angels with him? This is simple really. GOD needed lucifer.
Why? Because without the ultimate evil, the ultimate good couldn't exist. With no contrast everything would just be "normal". We would have nothing to compare GODS greatness to.
The same can be said about why GOD placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden when he KNEW man would fail and eat from it anyway.
How many people, if they had the power, would seriously create something that they knew would turn into this horrible evil monster (as the bible depicts satan)? I know I wouldn't. I'm sure plenty of sicko's would. Hence GOD.
I don't know, but this seriously doesn't add up to me. And if it is true, there is no way GOD can be good.
Interesting article though.
Fri Jun 25, 05:14:00 AM 2010 
 mbosely said...
According to the bible GOD created everything, and GOD knows everything. According to the Bible god created all the angels of heaven, including lucifer. So, if GOD knows everything (before it even happens) then surely GOD knew that Lucifer, according to the bible, would defy him, rebel, and fall with 1/3rd of all of the angels. And according to the bible that he would be EVIL. So basically GOD created evil.
So, why did god create the angel Lucifer in such a way that he would fail and take 1/3rd of all the angels with him? This is simple really. GOD needed lucifer.
Why? Because without the ultimate evil, the ultimate good couldn't exist. With no contrast everything would just be "normal". We would have nothing to compare GODS greatness to.
The same can be said about why GOD placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden when he KNEW man would fail and eat from it anyway.
How many people, if they had the power, would seriously create something that they knew would turn into this horrible evil monster (as the bible depicts satan)? I know I wouldn't. I'm sure plenty of sicko's would. Hence GOD.
I don't know, but this seriously doesn't add up to me. And if it is true, there is no way GOD can be good.
Interesting article though.
Fri Jun 25, 05:14:00 AM 2010 
 esca8652 said...
There's many people who die in the Bible from wrongdoings and even the innocent (babies). When I look at today all the people who have done wrongdoings I see few that die from God's wrath. It's very tough for me to believe that all that is in the Bible can be justified. I believe that you don't have to be a Rocket Scientist to know what's wrong and right. Not to mention The Bible speaks God's word. But honestly does it sound like God's word?? I picture God speaking uncomprehendible wisdom and creativity, because God is insanely amazing. Creativity is lacking immensely also, very very very peculiar looking at the amazing creations that he has weilded. Even if God did create the Bible, he stooped it down many levels, I would go as far as to say too many, as like I said the word of God, sounds similar to that of a human. Also another huge issue is that creation began roughly 6000 years ago, from 2 people, that would mean everyone is related, tough to believe. Even tougher is that we went from 2 people 6000 years ago to over 6.85 billion people within that short of a time span, I've done the math that's close to 900,000 people being born everyday until present day. That is scientifically impossible, due to the gestation period of humans. And some might say back in the day it was a sped up process, but I don't think that's God's "style", God is immensely patient, why would he speed it up. Unfortunately I haven't stumble upon any scripture that tells me the gestation period of humans. Also I read that back when Adam and Eve were, it is understood that incest was ok in order to fulfil God's wish for us to multiply. Fast-forward further on into the Bible, and now he says it is a sin to have sex with your sister. That is two things; a double standard which isn't just, and a major contradiction in that we came from Adam and Eve and both we're all related and so in all technicality, we have to have sex with our sister to reproduce and multiply. There's some science that can give us some insight into this matter; our DNA is all similar, yes, but our DNA is also similar to all humans and animal alike. With that aside, the DNA of 2 related people consistenly looks strikingly similar, and the physical appearance of those two people support that science. So you take 2 people who are completely unrelated and there is a much greater difference between the two of them, and again the difference in physical appearance supports this theory. You can do this experiment for years and years and the consistence of these findings are going to be undeniably that of a coincidence. I have other major issues but I think I've said enough.
P.S. I know my grammar is terrible. I'm typing as I'm thinking of it. I did not attempt to use proper punctuation and sentence configuration.
Sun Jun 27, 02:00:00 PM 2010 
 esca8652 said...
There's many people who die in the Bible from wrongdoings and even the innocent (babies). When I look at today all the people who have done wrongdoings I see few that die from God's wrath. It's very tough for me to believe that all that is in the Bible can be justified. I believe that you don't have to be a Rocket Scientist to know what's wrong and right. Not to mention The Bible speaks God's word. But honestly does it sound like God's word?? I picture God speaking uncomprehendible wisdom and creativity, because God is insanely amazing. Creativity is lacking immensely also, very very very peculiar looking at the amazing creations that he has weilded. Even if God did create the Bible, he stooped it down many levels, I would go as far as to say too many, as like I said the word of God, sounds similar to that of a human. Also another huge issue is that creation began roughly 6000 years ago, from 2 people, that would mean everyone is related, tough to believe. Even tougher is that we went from 2 people 6000 years ago to over 6.85 billion people within that short of a time span, I've done the math that's close to 900,000 people being born everyday until present day. That is scientifically impossible, due to the gestation period of humans. And some might say back in the day it was a sped up process, but I don't think that's God's "style", God is immensely patient, why would he speed it up. Unfortunately I haven't stumble upon any scripture that tells me the gestation period of humans. Also I read that back when Adam and Eve were, it is understood that incest was ok in order to fulfil God's wish for us to multiply. Fast-forward further on into the Bible, and now he says it is a sin to have sex with your sister. That is two things; a double standard which isn't just, and a major contradiction in that we came from Adam and Eve and both we're all related and so in all technicality, we have to have sex with our sister to reproduce and multiply. There's some science that can give us some insight into this matter; our DNA is all similar, yes, but our DNA is also similar to all humans and animal alike. With that aside, the DNA of 2 related people consistenly looks strikingly similar, and the physical appearance of those two people support that science. So you take 2 people who are completely unrelated and there is a much greater difference between the two of them, and again the difference in physical appearance supports this theory. You can do this experiment for years and years and the consistence of these findings are going to be undeniably that of a coincidence. I have other major issues but I think I've said enough.
P.S. I know my grammar is terrible. I'm typing as I'm thinking of it. I did not attempt to use proper punctuation and sentence configuration.
Sun Jun 27, 02:01:00 PM 2010 
 William said...
I've been following your site for a little over a year now and I just now got around to reading over some of your older posts.
I don't really like commenting, but after reading this post I had to. That is some great information, you had to have put a lot of effort into making this list.
You definitely got a rise out of a few people here haha. Once again a love the blog keep it up!
-william
Sun Jul 04, 05:00:00 PM 2010 
 dancerbeauty15 said...
I've been reading people's questions, and it's GREAT that they want to know the truth!!!!!! So if you're interested in the truth, read Mere Christianity, and it will explain all the questions that I've read. It's amazing and CS Lewis is very wise.
Thu Jul 22, 04:39:00 PM 2010 
 David said...
If you take got and the angels out of the whole babylon story see how it changes.
1. an angry mob was after lot for some reason.
2. He created a distraction and fled. The town get destroyed at the same time. He probably lite his house on fire. In those days it was a major problem because one fire could burn the whole town down.
3. his wife looked back to he killed her.
4. then he had sex with both of his daughters.
5. then he blamed it all on god and if any one dares question him he'll probably burn their town to the ground. I mean god will do it.
-David
Wed Aug 04, 07:10:00 PM 2010 
 flo said...
I'm interested not only in the number of people god killed in the bible, but how many were killed in his name total, how many people have lost their lives in the name of Christianity? Since around 315b.c when Christians were allowed to practice. I have been unable to find an exact number or even a rough estimate.
Sun Sep 05, 12:29:00 PM 2010 
 shamanicman said...
This train of commentary is very entertaining, but has anyone really asked the simple question, "Where is the proof?" I mean really.. If an new theory or fact is proposed to the world at large the scrutiny it undergoes is immense. Not so for faith. That is taboo and to question the word of God is heresy. Hmmmm. Does that sound familiar? Does the inquisition come to mind to any one besides me? Let's grow up as a species. Come on, we are so much better than this diatribe on the proof of substance as it relates to the tooth fairy, santa claus and his holiness. Give me a break.
Sat Oct 09, 05:40:00 PM 2010 
 JP Morgan Chase said...
With the Egyptian protest this is a good blog and i'mma read it, that's my question as well how many Egyptians were killed because of God, the Christian God?
Sun Feb 20, 10:48:00 AM 2011 
 Moondoggie said...
Completely absurd post. First, to count the Bible as a factual account, would mean you have to believe what the Bible says is true, which most Atheist do not, so you cannot use those numbers to fill up the "God kiled" tank. Also is the fact that according to the numbers, Atheism has killed far more people than Christianity or religion in general.
http://www.revelife.com/729742727/religion-does-not-cause-war-contrary-to-popular-belief/
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
Mon Sep 12, 05:38:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
Moondoggy,
Completely absurd post. First, to count the Bible as a factual account, would mean you have to believe what the Bible says is true, which most Atheist do not, so you cannot use those numbers to fill up the "God kiled" tank.
You're right, Moondoggie. I don't believe that any of these killings actually happened. There was no world-wide flood of Noah, no fiery serpents, no prophet-eating lions, no children-killing bears, no divinely fashioned hemorrhoids, no rotting body part messages, no giants for God to kill. Samson didn’t kill thirty men for their clothes, David didn’t buy a wife with 200 Philistine foreskins, and Jehu didn’t murder entire families for God. God is, in fact, entirely innocent of all of the killings on the list, insofar as an imaginary being can be innocent or guilty of anything.
You see, Moondoggie, it's not my beliefs that I am laughing at. It's yours.
Mon Sep 12, 07:54:00 AM 2011 
 A Piper said...
By my understanding of The Creator - "God" is responsible for all Death. Why weren't all things created eternal and free from pain? Wouldn't that have been possible for the All Mighty? So it seems to me the question is moot - God has killed all Life, and Created all Life in a dynamic circle of energetic progression. Stop judging and dig the ride... Do what you can to make it better, for I do feel we are all called to Create - Heaven here on Earth....
Loving You
Mon Sep 12, 09:04:00 AM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
A Piper,
God has killed all Life, and Created all Life in a dynamic circle of energetic progression. Stop judging and dig the ride.
Oooooh. A dynamic circle of energetic progression. I can did that!
So when God burns people to death, it's OK. It's just an energetic cosmic progression. Celebrate it.
Mon Sep 12, 09:13:00 AM 2011 
 Necronima said...
HAHHA! YOU KILLED YOURSELF which we all know you did not do christianity is a false religion , and your fake JESUS/GOD does not exist this is why people like you live your life in a nut shell..god says your just a dead man walking -.- really did he says this ? did you hear it come out of his mouth no you just believe what you are told and ignore reality look back on the bloody history of christianity not only the bible if you want more information on it go to youtube and search for Royallove23 and zeustruth's pages
Mon Jan 02, 09:00:00 PM 2012 
 Prayer said...
Obviously you are not a true laborer of the word of God. Some people tend to ignore Figures of Speech, Idioms and Orientalisms, and take many things in the word literally, when they shouldn't. In the Old Testament there are many apparent contradictions that revolve around the general theme of God killing or hurting someone. The flood of Noah, the Tower of Babel, the Sodom and Gomorrah incident and the plagues upon Egypt all fall into this category and there are many others. These incidents seem to contradict what we know from the New Testament about our Heavenly Father.
To understand these records and verses one must understand idioms used in the Bible. An idiom is a usage of words in a culture that have a meaning other than their strict dictionary definitions. For example, in American vernacular if someone says, "Mr. Jones kicked the bucket last week," that is an idiomatic way of saying, "Mr. Jones died last week." In the Old Testament, God uses an idiom in which a verb is used in a permissive sense. What is written as the Lord "smote Uzzah" was actually the Lord "allowed Uzzah to be smitten." God set up His laws and man can break himself on them if he so desires. God also set up the law of gravity, but only a fool would think that God killed a man who jumped off a ten-story building. The man killed himself by violating God's law of gravity. So the true picture in the Scriptures is that the adversary steals, kills, and destroys. Man allows this to happen as he attempts to break God's laws.
Fri Jan 20, 05:54:00 AM 2012 
 alysdexia said...
Prayer, some of these deaths were by god in the first hand/person.
Fri Jan 27, 09:27:00 PM 2012 
 Chocolat said...
Are you an atheist? If so, you don't believe in God, in which case God never killed any of those people because he doesn't exist, in your opinion, and for an atheist the bible is just a book of myths or stories. So, according to an atheist's worldview, PEOPLE are actually the immoral and cruel ones who killed all those other people. Oh, and the others were offed by natural disasters. Using the argument that God is cruel/immoral to disprove his existance is odd to me. If he's cruel and immoral, then he exists. Maybe you're an agnostic and not an atheist?
Sun Apr 08, 07:54:00 AM 2012 
 TrevorT said...
i picked up this book and started readin it cause i broke my arm and have nothing else to do. anyway who is the protaganist? i hear x-ians saying god is benevolent, but lucifer gave us freethought and freewill, and morality. and there are 2million confirmed kills for god, and he only cured 10 lepors (if you believe jesus is god) and a few "miraculous healings", whereas the free thought we god from satan allow science and medical knowlege saving millions all the time.
Mon May 21, 05:26:00 PM 2012 
 Adam Acosta said...
Why not just go to gotquestions.org Ask them questions and they'll answer it honestly and if you have a question to their answer, just ask a follow-up question. I mean it's easier than to take in all the different answers on this thread and trying to put them in one. Peace.
Mon Jul 09, 01:49:00 PM 2012 
 Adam Acosta said...
Why not just go to gotquestions.org Ask them questions and they'll answer it with honesty and if you got a question to their answer just ask a follow-up question. I mean it's easier than to take all the different answers on this thread and trying to put them into one. Just my two cents, peace.
Mon Jul 09, 01:52:00 PM 2012 
 Chockimon said...
People need to think beyond the Bible when it comes to creation. There are many possibilities. According to Gnostic texts, God simply created Adam and entrapped us here to study the spark that is our soul. The soul matrix is more evolved/complex than both God or Satan and comes from and is part of the God most high.
On the other hand, we are all basically just AI (Order & Chaos) living inside a simulation, governed by the laws of quantum mechanics and seeking knowledge and our quest for the ultimate answer to our purpose/existence and it's all just an illusion/delusion. Alpha & Omega.
Mon Aug 06, 04:37:00 PM 2012 
 Nuffsaid said...
What a whole lot of bullshit you researched here my man.
Seriously you spend your time wasting it on reseaching about how many wicked people got killed by God. See it this way, if i create something..lets say a model airplane, and for some reason its not flying as i like it to fly, and no matter how hard and how much time i spend on it i just can't get it to fly properly. So i end up trashing it and burn it. That way i got rid of the thing that was going to make me so proud of my handywork, but it ended up making me so angry and so disappointed that i had to get rid of it.
Now those of you that are against God in all aspects of life, just think of yourself as a model aircraft with a screwed up wing :)
Wed Dec 12, 06:21:00 AM 2012 
 Chirstisreal said...
Ok so you are trying to get rid of GOD! that isn't cool but why should I worry about it you can't
get rid of GOD! He is everlasting
to everlasting you tell me how the world is made and don't tell me the
big bang therory! oh and about the
killing that GOD did GOD is a just GOD and his pacince runs out sometimes and he does get angery
but He has rightous anger and I end with this verse.



Proverbs 30:6- Do not add to His words,Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
Wed Feb 13, 08:23:00 PM 2013 
 A. Alexander said...
God kills every living creature twice:first by some predator,if it survives he(it) kills it by aging.
Your blames are too modest!
Thu Feb 21, 06:48:00 AM 2013 
 whidbeydc said...
I find it laughable when Xtions state "But atheist ahve killed more the God." As if that gives justification and makes it alright. What they fail to grasp is that nobody kills in the name of atheism, anymore then someone would kill in the name of "not believing in Santa Claus-ism"
And the usual lame excuse they give is just that. Any religion that allows no accountability by giving a perverted child molesting sadistic murder of innocent children a free ride to heaven by accepting Christ, while sending millions of good people to hell for not being born in the right part of the country is pure evil.
Tue Mar 05, 09:26:00 PM 2013 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.








Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 12 January 2007God's uncounted killings revisited (with estimates for the number of victims)
It's impossible to know how many people God killed in the Bible.
Sometimes the Bible provides a number, sometimes it doesn't. In previous posts, I left out the un-numbered victims from the total, and just provided a list. But I'm frequently asked for a grand total, however inexact it might be. So here, once again, is the list of God's uncounted killings, with rough estimates of the number of victims. In my next post, I'll use these to get an estimate of the total death toll.
God drowns everyone on earth.
30,000,000
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth. Genesis 7:23, Brick Testament
God supposedly drowned the entire human population (except for Noah and his family) in a flood, somewhere around 2400 BCE. Wikipedia estimates the human population in the third millineum BCE to be around 30 million.

God rains fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, killing everyone.
1000
the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven. Genesis 19:24, BT
No one knows what the population of Sodom and Gomorrah might have been at the time they were supposedly destroyed by God, or even if they ever existed at all. But Accuracy in Genesis says it was 600 to 1200. And they ought to know. So I just made it an even thousand.

The Seventh Plague: Hail
30,000
And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast. Exodus 9:25, BT
Wikipedia says the Egyptian population to be 3 - 5 million at the time the Exodus supposedly happened. So if maybe 1% of the Egyptians were in the field at the time, that would mean that about 30 - 50 thousand would have been killed by God's hailstorm. I used 30,000.

God kills all the firstborn Egyptian children.
1,000,000
At midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon. Exodus 12:29, BT
According to Exodus 12:37 there were 600,000 Hebrew men that left Egypt. So the total number of Israelites must have been several million, when women and children are included. If there were several million Israelite slaves, there must have been many more Egyptians. Let's say there were twice as many. That would make 6 million Egyptians. If one-sixth of them were first born sons, a million Egyptians were killed by God (or the angel sent by God to do his dirty work for him).

God drowns Pharaoh's army in the sea.
1000
And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them. Exodus 14:28, BT
Since there's no way of knowing how many were supposed to have drowned, I just picked a number. 1000. I'll be (over)using that number a lot in these estimates.

God and Moses help Joshua kill the Amalekites.
1000
And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. Exodus 17:13, BT
God burned to death an unknown number for complaining.
100
And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them. Numbers 11:1, BT
God sent "a very great plague" for complaining about the food.
10,000
And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague. Numbers 11:33, BT
Since this was a "very great plague," I figure at least 10,000 must have died.

God killed those who murmured with a plague.
100
Those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the LORD. Numbers 14:36-37, BT
How many would die in a regular plague? 100 or so maybe?

Massacre of the Aradites
3000
And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities. Numbers 21:3, BT
Since God "utterly destroyed" several cities, at least a few thousand must have died.

For complaining about the lack of food and water, God sent fiery serpents to bite the people, and many of them died.
100
Numbers 21:6, BT
I figure "many" is maybe 100 or so.

God delivers the Bashanites into Moses' hands and Moses kills everyone "until there was none left alive."
1000
And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people ... So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive. Numbers 21:34-35, BT
The slaughter of the Anakim, the childen of Esau, and the Horim
5000
A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them ... As he did to the children of Esau, which dwelt in Seir, when he destroyed the Horims from before them ... And the Avims ... the Caphtorims ... destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead. -- Deuteronomy 2:21-22
The usual 1000 from each group.

God hardened the king of Heshbon's heart so that the Israelites could massacre his people. (included several cities)
3000
And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: -- Deuteronomy 2:33-34, BT
God delievered the king of Bashan so that the Israelites could massacre his people.
60,000
So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. ... threescore cities ... And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. -- Deuteronomy 3:3-6, BT
60 cities were "utterly destroyed." That ought to be at least 60,000.

Massacre of Jericho
1000
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city [Jericho], both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. -- Joshua 6:21, BT
God slaughters the Amorites and even chases them "along the way" as they try to escape.
1000
And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way ... the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword. -- Joshua 10:10-11
Massacre of 7 cities (Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir
7,000
So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:28-42, BT
The massacre of 7 cities. At least another 7,000 must have died.

God delivers the Hazorites.
1000
The LORD delivered them into the hand of Israel ... and they smote them, until they left them none remaining. -- Joshua 11:8-12, BT
Massacre of the Anakim
1000
Joshua 11:20-21, BT
Massacre of the Canaanites
1000
Judges 4:15, BT
God delivered the Ammonites to Jephthah to slaughter.
1000
The LORD delivered them into [Jephthah's] hands. And he smote them ... with a very great slaughter. -- Judges 11:32-33
God forces the Philistine soldiers to kill each other.
1000
Every man's sword was against his fellow, and there was a very great discomfiture. -- 1 Samuel 14:20
God orders Saul to kill every Amalekite man, women, and child.
10,000
Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. ... And Saul smote the Amalekites ... and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. -- 1 Samuel 15:2-18
If this Bible story is true (which it isn't, of course), how many Amalekites were killed at God's command? I originally gave it the usual 1000 for a standard massacre, but Saul sent 210,000 soldiers to do the killing. He wouldn't send that many soldiers to kill only 1000 civilians, would he? So I've increased it to 10,000.

God delivers the Philistines.
1000
I will deliver the Philistines into thine hand. So David ... smote them with a great slaughter. -- 1 Samuel 23:2-5
God delivers the Philistines to David (again).
1000
And David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up to the Philistines? ... And the LORD said unto David, Go up: for I will doubtless deliver the Philistines into thine hand. ... And David did so, as the LORD had commanded him; and smote the Philistines." -- 2 Samuel 5:19, 25
God sent a three-year famine because of something Saul did.
5000
Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites." -- 2 Samuel 21:1
Baasha killed everyone in the house of Jeroboam "according to the saying of the Lord."
1000
He smote all the house of Jeroboam; he left not to Jeroboam any that breathed, until he had destroyed him, according unto the saying of the LORD. -- 1 Kings 15:29-30
Zimri killed everyone in the house of Baasha "according to the word of the Lord."
1000
He slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall ... according to the word of the LORD. -- 1 Kings 16:11-12
God calls for a seven year famine.
10,000
The LORD hath called for a famine; and it shall also come upon the land seven years. -- 2 Kings 8:1
Jehu shows his zeal for the Lord by murdering "all that remained unto Ahab in Samaria, till he had destroyed him according to the word of the Lord."
100
Come with me, and see my zeal for the LORD. ... And when he came to Samaria, he slew all that remained unto Ahab in Samaria, till he had destroyed him, according to the saying of the LORD, which he spake to Elijah. -- 2 Kings 10:16-17
God delivered the Israelites into the hand of the Chaldeans.
1000
The wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand. -- 2 Chronicles 36:16-17
God and Satan kill Job's 10 children and all of his servants. The Bible doesn't say how many servants Job had, but it does say (Job 1:3) that he had 7000 sheep, 3000 camels, 500 oxen, 500 she-asses, and "a very great household." So he must have had a bunch of servants (slaves). I'll just say 50.
And there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them: And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. Job 1:14-17
Posted by Steve Wells at 1/12/2007 02:55:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
11 comments:
 jake3988 said...
Hehe. Good numbers. Probably undertallied.
And I'm sure some smart-aleck christian will appear and somehow defend God's disturbing masochistic cruel ways.
Why anyone would want to believe in this monster is BEYOND me.
Fri Jan 12, 08:23:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Those crazy monster-believing maochistic-supporting smart-aleck Christians...Burn them all I say!!!!!!!! lol
180 million killed in wars, etc. in the 21st century alone. Those damn wars. Now let's burn mankind!!!!!!!...no....wait, it's God's fault, he allowed us to make guns and he then allowed us to hate people so much we want to kill them.
Sat Jan 13, 11:37:00 AM 2007 
 Keith said...
"180 million killed in wars, etc. in the 21st century alone. Those damn wars."
Two wrongs don't make a right, dude.
Sat Jan 13, 06:06:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Wrong according to whom, "objective" human logic?
Sat Jan 13, 09:00:00 PM 2007 
 Pedro Timóteo said...
anonymous: any other "logic" is fictional.
Steve: great list. :) There's small typo in number 12:
God delivers the Bashanites into Moses' hands and Moses kills everyone "until their was none left alive."
"their" should be "there".
Sun Jan 14, 05:21:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Any other logic is fictional because we own the universe?
Sun Jan 14, 03:07:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Any other logic is fictional because we own the universe?
No, because there's no evidence of any other entity or species capable of logic.
Sun Jan 14, 10:41:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Well that just depends on who you ask :)
Mon Jan 15, 06:20:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
lol
Mon Jan 15, 02:51:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Just noting here, a 7 year famine would kill lots more than a mere 10,000 people. A 7 year famine's death count should be more in tune with the end of humanity.
Tue Jan 30, 04:37:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
The famine wasn't worldwide, it was restricted to Israel.
Tue Jan 30, 10:01:00 PM 2007 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.













Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 11 January 2007The Bible and the Quran agree: Stay away from menstruating women
But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not ... come near to a menstruous woman.... Ezekiel 18:5
They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times.... Quran 2:222
Finally, a topic upon which Muslims, Christians, and Jews can fully agree! Women are unclean when menstruating and men should stay the hell away from them.
Here's what the Bible has to say. (A women who is menstruating is unclean and should be kept away from everyone else for seven days. Whatever she touches or sits on is unclean. Whoever touches a such a women is unclean. Whoever touches her bed is unclean. Whoever touches anything that she sits on is unclean. And anyone who has sex with a menstruating woman is really unclean -- unclean for seven days.)
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. Leviticus 15:19-24
The Bible goes on and on about this, but I think you get the idea. Finally the woman is allowed back into society, when on the eighth day she goes to the priest and sacrifices two pigeons or two doves ("turtles" in the KJV) as a "sin offering" -- "an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness."
But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness. Leviticus 15:28-30
Other passages in the Bible also address menstruation, but this is one of the few topics upon which the Bible speaks consistently and clearly. (Except for the punishment of having sex with a woman during her menses.)
Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. Leviticus 18:19
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. Leviticus 20:18
In other places, the Bible refers to menstruation in ways that show how God sees it.
Let it not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee: for the custom of women is upon me. Genesis 31:34-35
Thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth. Isaiah 30:22
Jerusalem is as a menstrous woman. Lamentations 1:17
They humbled her that was set apart for pollution. Ezekiel 22:10
The Quran says it all in just one verse, but it is in complete agreement with the Bible.
They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. 2:222
Menstruation is a sickness. Menstrating women are unclean. Stay away from them while they are menstruating. And, for God's sake, don't have sex with them!
Posted by Steve Wells at 1/11/2007 06:50:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
14 comments:
 beepbeepitsme said...
Men are only interested in blood if they cause someone else to shed it.
(Ok, I will go and take my HRT tablet now..)
Fri Jan 12, 01:55:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
hey you should find someone who knows arabic to translate that for you. It means youre supposed not to have sex with women when they are menstruating, not literally run away from them:)
Thu Mar 15, 02:40:00 PM 2007 
 isobel said...
your site seems to have few links about the Quran I guess more skeptics than muslims visit:) Could you add this one http://www.answering-christianity.com/jesus_in_islam.htm
cheers!
Thu Mar 15, 02:47:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
"They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you."
'Illness' in this sense does not mean 'illness' literally. It means that the blood is a discomfort and dirty - and indeed, I'm sure most women would agree that their period blood isn't exactly the cleanest thing in the world.
'not go unto them' simply means to not have sex. In other words, men are forbidden to have sex with women until they've finished menstruating. And that's all the line means.
Therefore, only Christianity belittles women in this manner.
I apologize if this should disappoint you, but Islam and Christianity do NOT agree on this topic.
Mon Mar 26, 08:09:00 AM 2007 
 Scott said...
I love all the Muslim Apologists posting here.
The Arabic translation demeans women far worse than the English translation. They don't like to mention that.
GOD, ALLAH, "THE LORD"... NONE of them exist! It's terrifying to see you people trying to defend your vile delusions. More terrifying is the fact that there are BILLIONS of you!
You are all hurting us as a species. NO GOD = LESS SUFFERING!
Get a clue, people!
Wed Jun 27, 02:53:00 PM 2007 
 Ryan said...
no god = Europe or Russia.. If you do your research.. they're both not happy people.. especially Russia.. Think kid.. think..
Tue Nov 13, 05:23:00 PM 2007 
 mary said...
hey ryan, suppose yer a theist hmm? gods promote hostility like homophobia and wars! europe and russia (which is IN europe) are doing better than amerika!
Mon Jan 14, 04:34:00 PM 2008 
 Nex Necis said...
Russia is NOT in Europe. Regardless, it is a religious nation as is most of Europe, so that nulls your point there. Being more clear: Russia=Orthodox and Europe=Lutheran.
Wed Jan 30, 04:03:00 AM 2008 
 Dye said...
Actually primative man has always feared menustrating women.Te Native Americans have stories about the many toothed virgina.So even the the Qur'an and bible lack these stories thier taboos r still based on ancient fears.
Thu Apr 10, 03:30:00 PM 2008 
 salina said...
christains include all the unclean sex acts. while on the other hand ppl in Arab before Islam use to sociallly cut women when they had their menstration so much so that they even refuse to eat foood cooked by them .

when Islam came all the these acts ended . as Islam gave a middle way interm of cleanliness and also interm of protecting anybody 's right .
this is the Islamic Veiw of menstration :-
Men can't have sex with their women during Menses, but they can sleep with them and touch them: "They ask you concerning menstruation. Say: that is an Adha (a harmful thing for a husband to have a sexual intercourse with his wife while she is having her menses), therefore keep away from women during menses and go not unto them till they have purified (from menses and have taken a bath). And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah has ordained for you (go in unto them in any manner as long as it is in their vagina). Truly, Allah loves those who turn unto Him in repentance and loves those who purify themselves (by taking a bath and cleaning and washing thoroughly their private parts, bodies, for their prayers, etc.). (The Noble Quran, 2:222)"
Maimuna (the wife of the Holy Prophet) reported: "The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) contacted and embraced his wives over the waist-wrapper when they were menstruating. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0579)"

thus u can love them , sleep with them , hold them just don't have sex during the time .
Sat Sep 27, 03:58:00 AM 2008 
 truth said...
Anonymous your a liar. because if if you continue to the next verse 2:223 Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand
you can do what you want to your wife...but do somthing God for all first so that when you abuse or approach your wife how you want, you will not be punished for your behaviour towards her. it is the bible that mentions nothing about sex but the quran does. the quran is a directly plagurised from the bible with a few changes here and there and dont forget it
Tue Sep 29, 12:14:00 PM 2009 
 Yasir Niaz Khan said...
There are many accounts of Prophet Muhammad touching his wife during this period. Only intercourse is forbidden:
(Sahih Muslim):
Chapter# 1, Book 3, Number 0577:
‘A’isha reported: When anyone amongst us (amongst the wives of the Holy Prophet) menstruated, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) asked her to tie a waist-wrapper over her (body) and then embraced her.
Book 3, Number 0578:
‘A’isha reported: When anyone amongst us was menstruating the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) asked her to tie waist-wrapper daring the time when the menstrual profusely flowed and then embraced her; and she (‘A’isha) observed: And who amongst you can have control over his desires as the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had over his desires.
Book 3, Number 0579:
Maimuna (the wife of the Holy Prophet) reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) contacted and embraced his wives over the waist-wrapper when they were menstruating.
Book 3, Number 0580:
Kuraibthe freed slave of Ibn Abbas, reported: I heard it from una, the wife of the Apostle of Allah (way peace be upon him): The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used to lie with me when I menstruated, and there was a cloth between me and him.
Book 3, Number 0581:
Umm Salama reported: While I was lying with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) in a bed cover I menstruated, so I slipped away and I took up the clothes (which I wore) in menses. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Have you menstruated? I said: Yes. He called me and I lay down.
Ref: http://www.hadithsahihmuslim.com/prophet/lying-with-one-in-menstruation-above-the-waist-wrappersahih-hadith-muslim.html
Wed Mar 02, 05:48:00 AM 2011 
 snabby said...
Menstrual blood is not unclean, it's the lining of the womb being shed, the womb carries babies, protects them and insulates them from almost all infections. http://www.medicinenet.com/menstruation/article.htm (or just look it up anywhere)
As for the argument about the Quran, how is, menstruation is "a discomfort and dirty" not offensive to women? I'm offended.
Also, it is certainly not harmful for a man to be exposed to his wife's menses. And if he did have sex with her during this time maybe he wouldn't need to take another wife to satisfy him.
And, why would God create women in such a way that is so offensive to Him and men? He is all-powerful, all-knowing, I'm sure He could have figured out a way to make men's wives less gross to them. I also noticed no one offered an interpretation of 2:223 that won't make me ill (and I don't mean in that monthly way)
Thu Sep 08, 06:29:00 PM 2011 
 dianna miller said...
only men consider a women unclean when she is mensturating...God made women this way for the purpose of being fruitful...there is nothing unclean about her during her menses...it is a natural function of womanhood...i notice nothing is said about a virgin's blood being unclean...it seems to me that when a man makes a woman bleed it's okay but when her body performs its natural function the God made her then she is unclean...i'm not saying men and women should have relations during a woman's menses but all this sitting where she sits and lieing where she lies and washing of the clothes and being unclean until the evening only that's a bunch of male oriented foolishness...men are such hypocrites...they don't want anything to do with a menstruating woman but they look forward to bedding virgins...hey you guys virgins bleed they are unclean!!!
Fri Nov 09, 08:45:00 AM 2012 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.








Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 03 January 2007Allah hates pubic hair
I'm not sure why Allah feels this way, but according to Muhammad, he does. Here's what the prophet supposedly said about it.
Five practices are characteristics of the fitrah: circumcision, shaving the pubic hairs, cutting the mustaches short, clipping the nails and plucking the hair of the armpits. (Reported in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)
And although the Quran is silent on pubic hair, it does say that everyone must do whatever Muhammad says.
And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it). And keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is stern in reprisal. Quran 59:7
So Muhammad says you must shave your pubic hair, and the Quran says you must do whatever Muhammad tells you to do. Now that you know, you have no excuse.
Here are detailed instructions on just how to do it.
It's a bit complicated ("...start shaving the pubic hair from beneath the navel, and to start on the right hand side...").
Be sure to read the instructions before starting.
Posted by Steve Wells at 1/03/2007 09:15:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
12 comments:
 beepbeepitsme said...
So now I know who to blame for the brazilian!
Wed Jan 03, 02:41:00 PM 2007 
 sattvicwarrior said...
WIERD!!!!!!!!!!!!. i think mohammad is living proof that allah screwed pigs and ate pork .
its just a feeling. . and had foreskin envy to boot!!!!!!!!!!!!!! not sure. but its just a feeling!!!!!!!!!!
Wed Jan 03, 04:46:00 PM 2007 
 beepbeepitsme said...
The 3 abrahamic religions all have it in for the foreskin..
Wed Jan 03, 06:16:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Heh, foreskin fetishism
1 Samuel 18:25
Saul replied, "Say to David, 'The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.' " Saul's plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines
1 Samuel 18:27
David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full number to the king so that he might become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.
Thu Jan 04, 05:28:00 AM 2007 
 Suricou Raven said...
Ive heard some people suggest that a lot of the really strange religious laws are for the purpose of enforcing segrigation - to keep the faithful from associating with the heathens. The dietary laws, for example, make it extremally difficult for a follower to even share a meal with a non-believer. The pubic shaving just makes the non-believers laugh, and not want to be near the crazy people.
Fri Jan 05, 03:28:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Now, now... it doesn't say that Allah hates pubic hair, just that he wants it shaved. Who knows, maybe Allah loves pubic hair so much he wants to collect all the shavings.
Wed Jan 10, 09:37:00 AM 2007 
 bevot said...
Don't you know Allah and Yahweh are the same god?
Until now I failed to realize that when muslims kill kuffars they're actually liberating them from the burdens of this life. When muslims make dhimmis out of kuffars they're actually liberating them from oppressive freedom. Now I've been shown the truth.
Thu Feb 01, 01:27:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
actually shaving the pubic hair and armpits are all part of hygiene. in Islam cleanliness is of utmost importance. ever realised that the armpit stinks after some time? bad smell is caused by bacteria and by increasing the surface area which is warm and damp (eg hair) more bacteria grow on it. common sense, no?
Mon Feb 26, 01:01:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
kuffar means a person who covers. in context, a person who covers the truth (islam). as long as you try to stop other people from listening to what islam has to say, you are kuffar. ie you cover the truth.
Mon Feb 26, 01:03:00 PM 2007 
 MazHur said...
1. Killing in self defense is what Islam preaches,,,,as I understand from verses quoted by abdullah.
You bevot, what would you say when a kafir kills a muslim?? when a kafir enslaves a muslim?? How does history relate this to crusades?
Pubic hair are dirty,,,removing foreskin is scientifically understood to be hygenic,,,,then what's the problem??
Wed Dec 19, 06:42:00 PM 2007 
 MazHur said...
my friend fa says
I would differ with your assessment. "Hate" is a strong word, and sometimes we give up that which we love most. So you have to be open to the possibility that the requirement to shave reflects love rather than hate. Pubic hair is, after all, His creation. Why would He not love it?
Second, the act of shaving can have communal implications, so there may be a hidden agenda behind this requirement. As you read the solemn instructions, can you not envision a festive environment in which consenting adults would help each other to Do What Has To Be Done with scheduled regularity? Some naughty liquids and intoxicating smoke, and the efficient removal of hair could be slyly subverted, and replaced by licentious cavorting. Enough of this, and you could rapidly accumulate sufficient sins to justify an investment in Haj. And then the cycle starts again! Think of this as an investment program, with a lump-sum withdrawal once a year.
Last but not least, these instructions draw attention to the trivial, thereby allowing you not to focus on the important things in life. If you spend an hour a week on each trivial dictate, you can easily use up all your spare time. This allows others to set the terms under which you live life, and spares you from tough decisions. Follow the rules, and tread the pathway to heaven! What more could one want? Pass the razor, please!
Mon Dec 24, 12:08:00 AM 2007 
 Term Papers said...
I agree to this that: Muhammad says you must shave your pubic hair, and the Quran says you must do whatever Muhammad tells you to do, Now that you know, we have no excuse.

Term papers
Wed Feb 10, 02:08:00 AM 2010 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 27 January 2007King David's amazing census
You just never know what's going to piss off the God of the Bible.
Take King David's censis, for example. The whole thing was God's idea, if you believe Second Samuel, anyway.
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. 2 Samuel 24:1
But if you believe First Chronicles, it wasn't God's idea; it was Satan's.
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. 1 Chronicles 21:1
So what's a Bible-believer to believe here? Did God tell David to "Go, number Israel and Judah"? Or did Satan provoke "David to number Israel"? Or did the Dynamic Duo conspire together to make David do it? They worked together before to torment Job. Maybe they teamed up again to make David have a census. You just never know what those two might do.
But whoever was responsible for the dastardly census (Satan and/or God), it was David that God blamed. And God was really pissed off about it, too. So you might expect God to punish David for the census and he and/or Satan inspired, right?
Well, not exactly. Here's what God did according to 2 Samuel.
For when David was up in the morning, the word of the LORD came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? 2 Samuel 24:11-13
God decided not to punish David for the Divine/Satanic census. No, God liked David too much for that. So he decided to punish the people instead. But the Divine Decider just couldn't decide what punishment would be the most just. So he let David choose from three choices:
Seven years of famine,
Three months of war, or
Three days of pestilence
But David couldn't decide, so God chose option 3 for him, and 70,000 men (no one bothered to count women and children) died.
You can read all about it in 2 Samuel 21.
And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man. So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men. 2 Samuel 24:14-15
But if you believe that story, don't read the 1 Chronicles account. Here's what it says.
And the LORD spake unto Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and tell David, saying, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things: choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me. And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall now into the hand of the LORD; for very great are his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man. So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men. 1 Chronicles 21:8-12
So was option 1 seven or three years of famine? No wonder poor David couldn't decide! God's options as communicated by Gad were not clearly stated.
But at least both storytellers agree on the number of innocent people killed by God for a census that God and/or Satan inspired: 70,000 men (God only knows how many women and children he killed).
Stories like this can only be found in the Bible.
Posted by Steve Wells at 1/27/2007 09:40:00 PM 53 comments   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
22 January 2007An excuse to buy Playboy (for me anyway)
Playing Devil's Advocate:
Blogger Steve Wells has counted the number of people killed in the Bible. God takes the lives of 2,270,365 (not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the many plagues and famines, etc.). Satan is repsonsible for only 10 deaths, those of Job's seven sons and three daughters.
Playboy Magazine, February 2007, Page 21


Posted by Steve Wells at 1/22/2007 07:17:00 AM 7 comments   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
13 January 2007How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
kill ... I wound ... I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh. -- Deuteronomy 32:39-42
In a previous post, I've listed and counted God's killings in the Bible. But I only included those that said exactly how many were killed by God. I came up with 2,476,633.
But that didn't include some of God's most impressive slaughters. How many did God drown in the flood or burn to death in Sodom and Gomorrah? How many first-born Egyptians did he kill? The Bible doesn't say, so there's no way to know for sure. But it's possible to provide rough estimates in order to get a grand total, and that's what I'm attempting here.
Total with estimates: 25 million.
Here is a complete list of all of God's killings in the Bible.
Much more information about God's killings, with a chapter on each of the 135 killing events, can be found int the book:

Drunk With Blood: God's killings in the Bible
Posted by Steve Wells at 1/13/2007 09:01:00 PM 126 comments   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
12 January 2007God's uncounted killings revisited (with estimates for the number of victims)
It's impossible to know how many people God killed in the Bible.
Sometimes the Bible provides a number, sometimes it doesn't. In previous posts, I left out the un-numbered victims from the total, and just provided a list. But I'm frequently asked for a grand total, however inexact it might be. So here, once again, is the list of God's uncounted killings, with rough estimates of the number of victims. In my next post, I'll use these to get an estimate of the total death toll.
God drowns everyone on earth.
30,000,000
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth. Genesis 7:23, Brick Testament
God supposedly drowned the entire human population (except for Noah and his family) in a flood, somewhere around 2400 BCE. Wikipedia estimates the human population in the third millineum BCE to be around 30 million.

God rains fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, killing everyone.
1000
the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven. Genesis 19:24, BT
No one knows what the population of Sodom and Gomorrah might have been at the time they were supposedly destroyed by God, or even if they ever existed at all. But Accuracy in Genesis says it was 600 to 1200. And they ought to know. So I just made it an even thousand.

The Seventh Plague: Hail
30,000
And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast. Exodus 9:25, BT
Wikipedia says the Egyptian population to be 3 - 5 million at the time the Exodus supposedly happened. So if maybe 1% of the Egyptians were in the field at the time, that would mean that about 30 - 50 thousand would have been killed by God's hailstorm. I used 30,000.

God kills all the firstborn Egyptian children.
1,000,000
At midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon. Exodus 12:29, BT
According to Exodus 12:37 there were 600,000 Hebrew men that left Egypt. So the total number of Israelites must have been several million, when women and children are included. If there were several million Israelite slaves, there must have been many more Egyptians. Let's say there were twice as many. That would make 6 million Egyptians. If one-sixth of them were first born sons, a million Egyptians were killed by God (or the angel sent by God to do his dirty work for him).

God drowns Pharaoh's army in the sea.
1000
And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them. Exodus 14:28, BT
Since there's no way of knowing how many were supposed to have drowned, I just picked a number. 1000. I'll be (over)using that number a lot in these estimates.

God and Moses help Joshua kill the Amalekites.
1000
And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. Exodus 17:13, BT
God burned to death an unknown number for complaining.
100
And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them. Numbers 11:1, BT
God sent "a very great plague" for complaining about the food.
10,000
And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague. Numbers 11:33, BT
Since this was a "very great plague," I figure at least 10,000 must have died.

God killed those who murmured with a plague.
100
Those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the LORD. Numbers 14:36-37, BT
How many would die in a regular plague? 100 or so maybe?

Massacre of the Aradites
3000
And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities. Numbers 21:3, BT
Since God "utterly destroyed" several cities, at least a few thousand must have died.

For complaining about the lack of food and water, God sent fiery serpents to bite the people, and many of them died.
100
Numbers 21:6, BT
I figure "many" is maybe 100 or so.

God delivers the Bashanites into Moses' hands and Moses kills everyone "until there was none left alive."
1000
And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people ... So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive. Numbers 21:34-35, BT
The slaughter of the Anakim, the childen of Esau, and the Horim
5000
A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them ... As he did to the children of Esau, which dwelt in Seir, when he destroyed the Horims from before them ... And the Avims ... the Caphtorims ... destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead. -- Deuteronomy 2:21-22
The usual 1000 from each group.

God hardened the king of Heshbon's heart so that the Israelites could massacre his people. (included several cities)
3000
And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: -- Deuteronomy 2:33-34, BT
God delievered the king of Bashan so that the Israelites could massacre his people.
60,000
So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. ... threescore cities ... And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. -- Deuteronomy 3:3-6, BT
60 cities were "utterly destroyed." That ought to be at least 60,000.

Massacre of Jericho
1000
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city [Jericho], both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. -- Joshua 6:21, BT
God slaughters the Amorites and even chases them "along the way" as they try to escape.
1000
And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way ... the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword. -- Joshua 10:10-11
Massacre of 7 cities (Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir
7,000
So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:28-42, BT
The massacre of 7 cities. At least another 7,000 must have died.

God delivers the Hazorites.
1000
The LORD delivered them into the hand of Israel ... and they smote them, until they left them none remaining. -- Joshua 11:8-12, BT
Massacre of the Anakim
1000
Joshua 11:20-21, BT
Massacre of the Canaanites
1000
Judges 4:15, BT
God delivered the Ammonites to Jephthah to slaughter.
1000
The LORD delivered them into [Jephthah's] hands. And he smote them ... with a very great slaughter. -- Judges 11:32-33
God forces the Philistine soldiers to kill each other.
1000
Every man's sword was against his fellow, and there was a very great discomfiture. -- 1 Samuel 14:20
God orders Saul to kill every Amalekite man, women, and child.
10,000
Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. ... And Saul smote the Amalekites ... and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. -- 1 Samuel 15:2-18
If this Bible story is true (which it isn't, of course), how many Amalekites were killed at God's command? I originally gave it the usual 1000 for a standard massacre, but Saul sent 210,000 soldiers to do the killing. He wouldn't send that many soldiers to kill only 1000 civilians, would he? So I've increased it to 10,000.

God delivers the Philistines.
1000
I will deliver the Philistines into thine hand. So David ... smote them with a great slaughter. -- 1 Samuel 23:2-5
God delivers the Philistines to David (again).
1000
And David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up to the Philistines? ... And the LORD said unto David, Go up: for I will doubtless deliver the Philistines into thine hand. ... And David did so, as the LORD had commanded him; and smote the Philistines." -- 2 Samuel 5:19, 25
God sent a three-year famine because of something Saul did.
5000
Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites." -- 2 Samuel 21:1
Baasha killed everyone in the house of Jeroboam "according to the saying of the Lord."
1000
He smote all the house of Jeroboam; he left not to Jeroboam any that breathed, until he had destroyed him, according unto the saying of the LORD. -- 1 Kings 15:29-30
Zimri killed everyone in the house of Baasha "according to the word of the Lord."
1000
He slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall ... according to the word of the LORD. -- 1 Kings 16:11-12
God calls for a seven year famine.
10,000
The LORD hath called for a famine; and it shall also come upon the land seven years. -- 2 Kings 8:1
Jehu shows his zeal for the Lord by murdering "all that remained unto Ahab in Samaria, till he had destroyed him according to the word of the Lord."
100
Come with me, and see my zeal for the LORD. ... And when he came to Samaria, he slew all that remained unto Ahab in Samaria, till he had destroyed him, according to the saying of the LORD, which he spake to Elijah. -- 2 Kings 10:16-17
God delivered the Israelites into the hand of the Chaldeans.
1000
The wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand. -- 2 Chronicles 36:16-17
God and Satan kill Job's 10 children and all of his servants. The Bible doesn't say how many servants Job had, but it does say (Job 1:3) that he had 7000 sheep, 3000 camels, 500 oxen, 500 she-asses, and "a very great household." So he must have had a bunch of servants (slaves). I'll just say 50.
And there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them: And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. Job 1:14-17
Posted by Steve Wells at 1/12/2007 02:55:00 PM 11 comments   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
11 January 2007The Bible and the Quran agree: Stay away from menstruating women
But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not ... come near to a menstruous woman.... Ezekiel 18:5
They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times.... Quran 2:222
Finally, a topic upon which Muslims, Christians, and Jews can fully agree! Women are unclean when menstruating and men should stay the hell away from them.
Here's what the Bible has to say. (A women who is menstruating is unclean and should be kept away from everyone else for seven days. Whatever she touches or sits on is unclean. Whoever touches a such a women is unclean. Whoever touches her bed is unclean. Whoever touches anything that she sits on is unclean. And anyone who has sex with a menstruating woman is really unclean -- unclean for seven days.)
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. Leviticus 15:19-24
The Bible goes on and on about this, but I think you get the idea. Finally the woman is allowed back into society, when on the eighth day she goes to the priest and sacrifices two pigeons or two doves ("turtles" in the KJV) as a "sin offering" -- "an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness."
But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness. Leviticus 15:28-30
Other passages in the Bible also address menstruation, but this is one of the few topics upon which the Bible speaks consistently and clearly. (Except for the punishment of having sex with a woman during her menses.)
Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. Leviticus 18:19
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. Leviticus 20:18
In other places, the Bible refers to menstruation in ways that show how God sees it.
Let it not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee: for the custom of women is upon me. Genesis 31:34-35
Thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth. Isaiah 30:22
Jerusalem is as a menstrous woman. Lamentations 1:17
They humbled her that was set apart for pollution. Ezekiel 22:10
The Quran says it all in just one verse, but it is in complete agreement with the Bible.
They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. 2:222
Menstruation is a sickness. Menstrating women are unclean. Stay away from them while they are menstruating. And, for God's sake, don't have sex with them!
Posted by Steve Wells at 1/11/2007 06:50:00 PM 14 comments   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
03 January 2007Allah hates pubic hair
I'm not sure why Allah feels this way, but according to Muhammad, he does. Here's what the prophet supposedly said about it.
Five practices are characteristics of the fitrah: circumcision, shaving the pubic hairs, cutting the mustaches short, clipping the nails and plucking the hair of the armpits. (Reported in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)
And although the Quran is silent on pubic hair, it does say that everyone must do whatever Muhammad says.
And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it). And keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is stern in reprisal. Quran 59:7
So Muhammad says you must shave your pubic hair, and the Quran says you must do whatever Muhammad tells you to do. Now that you know, you have no excuse.
Here are detailed instructions on just how to do it.
It's a bit complicated ("...start shaving the pubic hair from beneath the navel, and to start on the right hand side...").
Be sure to read the instructions before starting.
Posted by Steve Wells at 1/03/2007 09:15:00 AM 12 comments   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts   All Comments


 Atom   All Comments
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 28 February 2007Islamic Teachings: Cruelty From The Qur'an (reloaded)

Nick's video on the Quran is up again at YouTube.
Some things are never out of context.
Posted by Steve Wells at 2/28/2007 03:14:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
4 comments:
 Anonymous said...
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/
Ghazala Khan was the victim of an “honor killing” in the Danish town of Slagelse. In a landmark legal decision, most of her extended family was convicted of murdering her, in addition to the young man who pulled the trigger.
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/
Two Gaza women murdered. But not by Israel, so who cares?
At approximately 20:30 on Sunday, 25 February 2007, the body of Khalil Sufian El-Mathloum (16-year old resident of Sabra Quarter in Gaza City) was brought to Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. The boy was killed by a bullet to the chest which was accidentally fired from a firearm mishandled by one of his friends in Remal Quarter in the city.
At approximately 19:30 on the same day, Mohammad Abdel Rahman Ali (6) from Zaitoon Quarter in Gaza City was injured by a bullet in the right thigh. The boy was walking with his father; and was injured when a bullet was accidentally fired from a firearm mishandled by a friend of the boy’s father. He was taken to Shifa Hospital for treatment, where the injury was listed as moderate.
At approximately 13:00 on the same day, Basel Fathi Dawoud, a 24-year old resident of Beit Lahia in the north of the Gaza Strip, was seriously injured by a bullet in the head. The bullet was accidentally fired by a friend of the victim who mishandled his weapon.
Thu Mar 01, 05:55:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Just commenting on your description, actually, I have noticed that very often when you point out a passage in scripture, be it Christian or Muslim or whatever, that the religious folk don't want to hear they always use the "you're using it out of context" excuse.
Many a time I've challenged them to explain to me just how it's out of context, and often they can't come up with a satisfactory answer mostly just repeating their intiial "out of context" statement.
One guy however tried to tell me that you had to look at violent and unsavory passages in the context of the "entire bible" which of course is apparently completely good no matter what it says inside. I'd venture to guess many Muslims would say the same about the Qu'ran, as all the Abrahamic religions seem to share the same basic mindset.
Mon Mar 05, 12:43:00 PM 2007 
 Jason Macker said...
I think it should be noted that it is not the Qur'an itself that's being quoted (except for the words around quotes), but rather a paraphrase.
Thu Mar 22, 02:52:00 PM 2007 
 Asana Bodhitharta said...
Islam means peace which means anyone who is being peaceful is being Islamic and yet Nick is trying be disruptive. It seems that Nick has the anger problem and also has no insight into the conception of the whole.
Sun Dec 16, 11:36:00 AM 2007 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.









Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 20 February 2007Cruelty from the Bible: Genesis-Leviticus

Posted by Steve Wells at 2/20/2007 10:13:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
2 comments:
 Pandadeist said...
Hey! I really appreciate you putting my video up here! Thanks!
Wed Feb 21, 07:24:00 PM 2007 
 jake3988 said...
Great video. I find that passage at the end of Exodus absolutely hilarious.
If an ox 'pushes' a manservant, whatever the heck that means, The servant has to pay the master 30 sheckles of silver.
God really doesn't make any sense!
Mon Mar 12, 09:43:00 PM 2007 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.








Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 20 February 2007Mitt Romney's Jesus: Father, Son, and Satan's older brother
 Oh my heck! Mitt Romney's going to do it. (Run for president, that is.)
I hope reporters will ask, and Mitt will answer, questions about his religious views. Like what does he think about Jesus?
Is Jesus both the Father and the Son, as it so clearly says in the Book of Mormon?
God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son -- The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son -- And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. Mosiah 15:1-3
Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? ... Yea, he is the very Eternal Father. Alma 11:38-39
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth. Helaman 14:12
Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. Ether 3:14
For behold, I [Jesus] am the Father. Ether 4:12
So Mitt's Jesus is his own father. And he is also, according to the Book of Abraham, Satan's older brother.
(The Books of Abraham and Moses are not part of the Book of Mormon. They're in the Pearl of Great Price, which is included in Mormon Scripture.)
Since the quotes from the Pearl of Great Price are a bit hard to understand, I'll let the LDS church explain it all for us.
Our Father said, "Whom shall I send?" (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, "Here am I, send me" (Abraham 3:27).
...
Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, "Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor" (Moses 4:1).
...
After hearing both sons speak, Heavenly Father said, "I will send the first" (Abraham 3:27). LDS.org
So there you have it. Mitt's Jesus, who used to be called Jehovah, is the Father (or ex-Father) and the Son, as well as the older brother of Satan. He is brother and father to us all -- which makes him, I guess, since he is his own father, our very own grandpa.
I hope brother Romney will be asked about that during the campain.
Posted by Steve Wells at 2/20/2007 01:15:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
12 comments:
 Zach said...
I am not sure what Jesus, the Father, and Satan have to do with anything in the 2008 election. The point would be that he is at least committed to a faith ( shows some line of morals ), and hopefully Mitt is willing to keep politics and religion separate. So far he has done a good job, but the ignorant individuals who want to keep the spotlight on it are truly beating a dead horse and getting no where with it. Seriously, are you going to make him change religions to appease the mass?
I hope the media allows room for important questions that really matter to the state of America, as opposed to questions such as was Satan the brother of Jesus or not.
America is founded on religious freedom, that is what makes our country unique. Having a Mormon President would show to the world that we are committed to that freedom, and that we accept all denominations and people.
Concerning Mitt and Mormonism, I respect the fact that he comes from such an obscure religion and willing to stand for it and not deny his membership. That shows a lot of character, and with the way World politics are going, we as Americans may be alone in our policies and views, and we better be ready to stand united and firm in our choices.
In regards to your post, out of a matter of curiosity, if God created everything that exists, then where did Satan come from? Just curious of other views.
Tue Feb 20, 07:23:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Zach said..."The point would be that he is at least committed to a faith ( shows some line of morals )" ---
Come on. "Faith" has nothing to do with morals. Someone may have faith that one of the gods will heal his child. But that doesn't make him a moral person for refusing medical treatment for that child.
And willingness to stand for any religion regardless of it's obscurity has nothing to do with character. Character would be for him to admitt that, "yes I happen to be brought up Mormon but that it doesn't define me anymore than if I happen to be brought up Muslim.
Thu Feb 22, 10:52:00 AM 2007 
 Green Child said...
Zach said:
...hopefully Mitt is willing to keep politics and religion separate. So far he has done a good job, but the ignorant individuals who want to keep the spotlight on it are truly beating a dead horse and getting no where with it. Seriously, are you going to make him change religions to appease the mass?

Oh, keep his religion seperate like when he tried to get "plural marriage" legalized in Utah, or when he had no objection to "elders" having 9 year old girls get "married" ???
I'd apologize, but I'm not sorry I'm a woman who believes in self actualization and self determination. while I exist because of a man, I don't exist exclusively for a man.
Because I believe in myself as an individual and a woman, I can't justify voting for a man who believes that women only exist to provide men with sons so that said men can become gods in the hereafter (supposing there is a hereafter.)
Sat Mar 03, 06:59:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Ah no one will ask that because no one knows anything about Mormonism. Except you and Mormons appparently.
However isn't it a rather popular notion across many Christian sects that Jesus IS God sorta kinda sometimes?
Mon Mar 05, 12:54:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
The point would be that he is at least committed to a faith ( shows some line of morals)
If you believe that these two are necessarily connected, then I've got some real-estate on Jupiter I'd like to sell you.
America is founded on religious freedom, that is what makes our country unique
But an atheist politician can still not divulge his or her non-belief without risking their careers. (At least on higher levels.) So the freedom isn't complete and religious or non-religious orientation does matter in politics.
Sun Mar 18, 11:03:00 AM 2007 
 Brucker said...
I gotta tell you, if Romney gets some serious consideration, it could get very interesting. I know a lot of Christians are going to feel uncomfortable with the prospect of a Mormon in the White House, despite the fact that Mormons share most of the same moral values with Christians, if not theological ones. I wouldn't personally rule out voting for a candidate just for being a Mormon, but I wonder what the "religious right" will think?
Thu Apr 05, 07:44:00 AM 2007 
 Brucker said...
By the way, it sounds like the first commenter mistook you for a Christian based on your post. Do you find that as funny as I do when people think I'm an atheist based on my posts?
Thu Apr 05, 07:47:00 AM 2007 
 mary said...
zach, why have an lsd cultist as prez? would you accept a jw prez?
Sat Jun 02, 05:35:00 PM 2007 
 Brucker said...
First of all, mary, it's "LDS", not "LSD". Big difference. I've personally tried one of the two; see if you can guess which one, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised!
Anyway, I often wonder how people think about these issues in a variety of areas. If a political candidate shares your political views, do her religious views really matter? If you're a believer in evolution, would you feel nervous having a doctor who was a creationist?
Maybe it matters only for particular denominations for some people? My current doctor is a Muslim, and I have no problem with that, but I realized when I was looking for a doctor a few years back that I wouldn't feel comfortable having a doctor who was a Scientologist.
Anyway, From what I'm hearing in the media, Romney's current religious affiliation sems to be the same religion that 90% of all politicians adhere to: the Gospel of Saying Whatever Will Get Me into Office.
Wed Jun 06, 06:32:00 PM 2007 
 hci_steve said...
You need to look at the big picture and not quibble about religious doctrine that has no relevance to being president. The big picture is which person will do the most good for the country -- and in my opinion Mitt Romney is that guy. First he is brilliant; second he solves very tough problems that others can't solve; third he has sound core values; fourth he is a great communitor -- like Regan. Romney is the best person to be president so lets not get bogged down in minor details and focus on the big picture.
Wed Jul 18, 08:45:00 AM 2007 
 hci_steve said...
Green child said:
... Oh, keep his religion seperate like when he tried to get "plural marriage" legalized in Utah, or when he had no objection to "elders" having 9 year old girls get "married" ???
... I don't exist exclusively for a man."
I think you have Mitt confused with someone else -- he has never advocated these things and Utah and Mitt's Mormon church would never even consider legalizing poligamy. There are some small fringe groups that want this but they are not associated in any way with Mitt or and are not part of his religion.
Wed Jul 18, 08:52:00 AM 2007 
 PeterDV said...
zach said he was pleased Mitt derived his morals from his faith - well I'd be a little concerned about politicians who derive their morals from the bible, or Mormon scriptures without further reference - it's the way it condones rape, incest, genocide etc that worries me.
Peter
Thu Jan 10, 02:58:00 AM 2008 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 28 February 2007Islamic Teachings: Cruelty From The Qur'an (reloaded)

Nick's video on the Quran is up again at YouTube.
Some things are never out of context.
Posted by Steve Wells at 2/28/2007 03:14:00 PM 4 comments   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
25 February 2007A duck with four legs: "It shall be an abomination unto you"

"Stumpy the four-legged duckling is basking in the spotlight after being unveiled to the world. The bird, now just eight days old, has suffered a rare genetic mutation which has left it with two legs behind the two he runs about on."
Okay, Stumpy is kind of cute. But he's an abomination to God and to all true Bible-believers. It's one of the few things that the Bible is clear about.

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Leviticus 11:20
Posted by Steve Wells at 2/25/2007 12:14:00 PM 130 comments   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
20 February 2007Cruelty from the Bible: Genesis-Leviticus

Posted by Steve Wells at 2/20/2007 10:13:00 PM 2 comments   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
Mitt Romney's Jesus: Father, Son, and Satan's older brother
 Oh my heck! Mitt Romney's going to do it. (Run for president, that is.)
I hope reporters will ask, and Mitt will answer, questions about his religious views. Like what does he think about Jesus?
Is Jesus both the Father and the Son, as it so clearly says in the Book of Mormon?
God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son -- The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son -- And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. Mosiah 15:1-3
Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? ... Yea, he is the very Eternal Father. Alma 11:38-39
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth. Helaman 14:12
Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. Ether 3:14
For behold, I [Jesus] am the Father. Ether 4:12
So Mitt's Jesus is his own father. And he is also, according to the Book of Abraham, Satan's older brother.
(The Books of Abraham and Moses are not part of the Book of Mormon. They're in the Pearl of Great Price, which is included in Mormon Scripture.)
Since the quotes from the Pearl of Great Price are a bit hard to understand, I'll let the LDS church explain it all for us.
Our Father said, "Whom shall I send?" (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, "Here am I, send me" (Abraham 3:27).
...
Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, "Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor" (Moses 4:1).
...
After hearing both sons speak, Heavenly Father said, "I will send the first" (Abraham 3:27). LDS.org
So there you have it. Mitt's Jesus, who used to be called Jehovah, is the Father (or ex-Father) and the Son, as well as the older brother of Satan. He is brother and father to us all -- which makes him, I guess, since he is his own father, our very own grandpa.
I hope brother Romney will be asked about that during the campain.
Posted by Steve Wells at 2/20/2007 01:15:00 PM 12 comments   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts   All Comments


 Atom   All Comments
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 28 March 2007The Best Book in the Bible (Revisted)
In my last post, I tried to find the best book in the Bible by summing up the number of good things (that I could find) in each book. When goodness is measured in that way, Proverbs is the winner, with 56 good passages.
But Proverbs is, as Bible books go, a fairly big book. So I repeated the analysis using as the measure of goodness the number of good things per 100 verses. With this metric, Ecclesiastes (17.12) is by far the best book in the Bible. (The next best, James, has less than half as many, 8.33.)
There's still a problem, though (as Jason Macker pointed out), with this measure of goodness. A book might have a few good things to say, but have twice as many cruel and intolerant ideas. How can the amount of bad stuff be accounted for in the goodness metric?
Well, here's the way I did it. As before, I totalled the number of good things in each book, but I subtracted the number of bad things. That way, I come up the book's "net goodness." (I totalled cruelty, injustice, intolerance, family values, women, and homosexuality to get the number of bad things, since the verses marked with these categories are all morally objectionable.)
Here's how it looks with this metric. Book  Net Goodness (good - bad) 
Ecclesiastes  36 
Proverbs  7 
Jonah  0 
James  0 
3 John  0 
Philippians  -1 
Philemon  -1 
Galatians  -2 
Song of Solomon  -3 
1 Thessalonians  -3 
Colossians  -4 
2 John  -4 
Nehemiah  -5 
Haggai  -5 
1 John  -5 
Jude  -5 
Joel  -6 
Ruth  -7 
Ezra  -7 
Habakkuk  -7 
Titus  -7 
1 Peter  -7 
Daniel  -8 
Ephesians  -8 
Obadiah  -9 
2 Thessalonians  -11 
2 Timothy  -12 
Nahum  -13 
2 Peter  -13 
Malachi  -14 
2 Corinthians  -14 
1 Timothy  -14 
Hebrews  -14 
Esther  -20 
Romans  -25 
Job  -26 
Lamentations  -26 
Zephaniah  -28 
Mark  -28 
1 Chronicles  -29 
Micah  -31 
John  -31 
1 Corinthians  -32 
Zechariah  -37 
Acts  -42 
Amos  -50 
Luke  -50 
2 Chronicles  -52 
Hosea  -54 
Joshua  -69 
1 Kings  -75 
2 Kings  -82 
2 Samuel  -84 
Matthew  -86 
Isaiah  -90 
Revelation  -90 
Judges  -104 
1 Samuel  -104 
Numbers  -109 
Leviticus  -116 
Exodus  -144 
Psalms  -145 
Ezekiel  -145 
Genesis  -164 
Deuteronomy  -222 
Jeremiah  -247 


So using this metric, Ecclessiates is the best book, with a net goodness of 36. The next best is Proverbs with 7.
What is surprising (to me anyway) is that these are the only two good books in the Bible. The other 64 are either neutral, with a net goodness of zero (Jonah, James, and 3 John), or bad (net goodness < 0).
But, as before, these values do not take into account the size of the book. To account for size, I found the net number of good verses per 100 verses. Here is the result, ranked from best to worst. Book  Net good per 100 verses 
Ecclesiastes  16.22 
Proverbs  0.77 
Jonah  0.00 
James  0.00 
3 John  0.00 
Philippians  -0.96 
Nehemiah  -1.23 
Galatians  -1.34 
Daniel  -2.24 
Job  -2.43 
Ezra  -2.50 
Song of Solomon  -2.56 
1 Chronicles  -3.08 
1 Thessalonians  -3.37 
John  -3.53 
Philemon  -4.00 
Mark  -4.13 
Acts  -4.17 
Colossians  -4.21 
Luke  -4.34 
Hebrews  -4.62 
1 John  -4.76 
Ephesians  -5.16 
2 Corinthians  -5.45 
Romans  -5.77 
Psalms  -5.89 
2 Chronicles  -6.33 
1 Peter  -6.67 
Isaiah  -6.97 
1 Corinthians  -7.32 
Matthew  -8.03 
Joel  -8.22 
Ruth  -8.24 
Numbers  -8.46 
1 Kings  -9.19 
Joshua  -10.49 
Genesis  -10.70 
Ezekiel  -11.39 
2 Kings  -11.40 
Exodus  -11.87 
Esther  -11.98 
2 Samuel  -12.09 
1 Timothy  -12.39 
Habakkuk  -12.50 
1 Samuel  -12.84 
Haggai  -13.16 
Leviticus  -13.50 
2 Timothy  -14.46 
Titus  -15.22 
Judges  -16.83 
Lamentations  -16.88 
Zechariah  -17.54 
Jeremiah  -18.11 
Jude  -20.00 
2 Peter  -21.31 
Revelation  -22.28 
Deuteronomy  -23.15 
2 Thessalonians  -23.40 
Malachi  -25.45 
Hosea  -27.41 
Nahum  -27.66 
Micah  -29.52 
2 John  -30.77 
Amos  -34.25 
Obadiah  -42.86 
Zephaniah  -52.83 


Once again, Ecclesiastes is the best, with over 16 net good things per 100 verses. The only other good book, as judged by this metric, is Proverbs, with less than one net good thing per 100 verses. All the other books in the Bible (including all the New Testament) are either no good or just plain bad.
(The overall average for the Bible is 9.02 net bad things / 100 verses.
See here for more "good stuff" analysis.)
Posted by Steve Wells at 3/28/2007 09:42:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
28 comments:
 John P said...
Admittedly, a subjective approach, but hey, you gotta start somewhere.
Thanks
Thu Mar 29, 05:41:00 AM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
It's funny, most of the so-called "bad" books are those which contain prophecies and warnings about the repercussions of the wicked behaviour of the Israelites (Jeremiah, Zephaniah, Obadiah, Amos, Micah, Nahum, Hosea, Malachi, Jeremiah, etc.).
If you read a book warning about the consequences of breaking the law and going to jail, would you consider the book to be "bad"?
So I'd like to know how you counted verses which contain warnings - are they "good" or "bad"? 2 John is a good example, a book which has been relegated to the bottom five of the badest of the bad. There are only 13 verses in this book, the first 6 and last 2 are undoubtably "good", which gives us a 61% goodness factor. We're now left with five verses in question. These verses contain warnings about deceivers entering the world and the repercussions of transgressing. Since when are warnings "bad"?
Similarly, the book of Zephaniah is a prophecy concerning the sinful nation of Israel. Obadiah is a vision concerning Israel's foes. Amos was a book written when the land of Israel was in a state of upheaval and wickedness - the writings of this book reflect this. In Micah's time, the nation of Israel was failing miserably - this writings of this book reflect this as well.
So my point is, if a book is written to address an evil or warn about an impending punishment, the book itself can't be considered "bad" since it was written specifically to address the problems of the time.
Thu Mar 29, 08:03:00 AM 2007 
 Andrew said...
I am unsure why all messages about women and family values are considered bad what about verses containing both women and famly values such as
Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Col 3:19
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her Eph 5:28
However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Eph 5:33
Etc. Etc. etc.
Were those counted amoung negatives because boy that sounds positive to me!
Fri Mar 30, 12:21:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Andrew,
No the verses that you mention (Colossians 3:19, Ephesians 5:28, and 5:33) are all included in the "good stuff". (Although Ephesians 5:28 was unmarked until your post. I have since added it to the "good stuff". Thanks.)
Fri Mar 30, 06:20:00 PM 2007 
 quentin george said...
Shouldn't you divide the net good by the combined good + bad verses rather than the entire work?
Otherwise aren't ponderous things like "He lodged in Bethany" and endless genealogies skewing the "net good per 100 verses"?
Fri Apr 06, 04:55:00 PM 2007 
 Elmer Gantry said...
I do not believe this suggestion is mere sophistry, but I believe that you study should replace "good" or "bad" with "positive" or"negative".
Sun Apr 08, 06:46:00 AM 2007 
 tina said...
Re: Anonymous said...
You sure do spend a lot of time quoting scripture from the OLD TESTAMENT. Perhaps in your studies you will find that Christians are no longer under the Law of the Old Testament. Please move on with your life and get a job.
I don't know the bible that well, but could you tell me if anyone goes by the old testament anymore at all?
Also, I don't remember reading in this bloggers post that he needed a job...?
The old testament maybe paved the way for the new testament....?
Sun Apr 15, 07:10:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Bingo.
The OT paved the for the NT.
No one goes by the OT because it's null and void.
Mon Apr 16, 07:22:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
"The OT paved the for the NT.
No one goes by the OT because it's null and void."
--Jason
Typical Christian Sophistry
Of course, fundies who espouse such nonsense have probably never cracked Matthew 5.
To wit:
5:18 [Jesus said], Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Might help to have your shit straight before you go around telling people things that just aren't true. Of course, if that were the case, I'm sure Steve's website would be redundant.
--Bynoceros
Tue Apr 17, 10:05:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Matthew 5:18 has been cracked and touched on numerous times on this site already. In summary: Christ fulfilled the old law (see vs. 17).
Although since you have your stuff straight, I'd love to hear where you read that animal sacrifices as a means of forgiveness was still valid and required after Christ's death. I'd also like to understand how you think Christ was a "high priest" when the old law stated priests could only come from the tribe of Levi.
Then there's the whole issue of Galatians 3:24, among others: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."
But I obviously don't have this straight.
Over to you.
Tue Apr 17, 08:48:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
now do the same with the quran
Wed Apr 18, 04:35:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Where did I say Christ was a high priest? Reading is fun-da-men-tal.
Second, yes, animal sacrifice was still practiced during the time of Christ and continued after his death. It only stopped with the destruction of the Temple.
And, since Paul is preaching to a non-Jewish audience, of course he's going to say that Jewish law doesn't apply to gentiles. Talk about a bridge too far. Read the book of Acts sometime to see what Jesus' disciples thought of that idea, btw.
Finally, and this is what is most important, the fact that I can find verses supporting the idea that OT law was and is still in force to this day and you can find verses saying the opposite is a contradiction. Christ contradicts himself in nearly the same breath in Luke.
The reality is, Jesus was a devout Jew whose only quarrel with Jewish law was its emphasis of words over deeds. Almost exclusively, it was a hagiographer of his who op-eded his way along in attempting to convince 'pagan' audiences of the man's divinity.
--Bynoceros
Wed Apr 18, 06:42:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
I didn't say you said Christ was a high priest. I'm asking you to show me how it was possible for Christ to be a high priest without coming from the line of Levi as the old law expressely states.
I'm not enquiring about the rituals of the Jews post-Jesus. My question was where does the Bible say that animal sacrifices were still valid and required after the death of Jesus. See, the whole concept of Christ offering himself as a 'sacrifice to end all sacrifices' was unnecessary if sacrifices were still required afterwards by God. Hence Mat 26:2 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." The shedding of Jesus' blood ushered in the new testament. It was only done once. Seems pretty straightforward.
Consider also that the new law didn't require mandatory circumcision, it didn't require animal sacrifices as a means to forgive sins, it brought in baptism (a completely foreign concept in the OT), it offered salvation to non-Jews, tithing was no longer required and the people didn't need to go through a human priest to approach God.
Wed Apr 18, 07:28:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Jason, let me see if I understand this. Are you still maintaining as you stated earlier that the old testament is null and void? If so does that mean that the 10 commandments are null and void?
Or are you saying that parts are null and void and parts are still valid?
Thu Apr 19, 02:20:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Christ repeated nine of the ten commandments in Matthew 5 and also added addendums. Because he was the one who ushered in the new law, I would suggest that in terms of the 'letter of the law', whichever laws Christ said still applied were/are therefore included in the new law.
So, the 'thou shalt not kill' law is still in effect in addition to the 'new' spirit of this law (Mat 5:21-22). Keeping the year of jubilee on the other hand, isn't (Lev. 25).
Thu Apr 19, 06:44:00 PM 2007 
 Ryan said...
Mat 5:3 - Blessed are the poor in spirit...
what the hell? Which repetition of the OT laws is this?
Plus, in the OT god tells the people "Thou shalt not kill", and then goes around flooding the world. What's up with that?
And this is just plain ridiculous:
Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:12)
It's like saying: Kill those who kill.
Tue May 01, 01:27:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Matthew 5:3. Who said this was a repetition of an OT law?
The flood occured before the "thou shall not kill" commandment :) Regardless, God isn't bound by His own laws and we shouldn't require Him to be as such. Romans 9:20 "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’".
Kill those who kill is the old "eye for an eye" law. Very common in the OT times. In the OT, it was sinner who was killed. In the NT, it's the sin that is killed.
(BTW, kill those who kill isn't an OT Bible-only principal :) )
Wed May 02, 07:53:00 AM 2007 
 Ryan said...
"Matthew 5:3. Who said this was a repetition of an OT law?"
- Didn't you say that 9 out of the 10 OT laws were repeated in Matthew 5?
"Regardless, God isn't bound by His own laws and we shouldn't require Him to be as such."
- Why not? Is it because he created the divine laws? If so, then why should men abide by their own man-made laws? If a police doesn't abide by the same rules, who's to say that the police is trustworthy? If god doesn't abide by his own rules, who's to say that god is just? :) Maybe god is communist, or maybe even fascist?

“Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’".
- That seems like a perfectly reasonable question to ask, considering that the creation has absolutely no understanding of both itself and its creator. We have neither seen god nor Jesus, and we don't even know if the Bible is true or not. It can't be true just because it says it's true. We need more evidence than THAT. How do we even know that we were created in his image?

"Kill those who kill is the old "eye for an eye" law. Very common in the OT times. In the OT, it was sinner who was killed. In the NT, it's the sin that is killed."
- That I can't disagree with.
Thu May 03, 11:32:00 PM 2007 
 Ryan said...
Another thing that I don't understand is the time gap in between various things.
I'm assuming that Christ had died 2007 years ago. And that the New Testament was giving birth sometime in between 45 AD to 140 AD. By theory, shouldn't every Christian know about the NT, since they were supposedly selected by god to pass on his words? Then what of the Puritans and various sects of Catholicism, who interprets the bible word by word, even going as far as mass murdering "sinners" in the name of their god, yet fails to abide by Jesus's words to "love thy neighbours" and forgive? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the 1600-1700s filled with Fire and Brimstone sermons that focused on King James' translation of the OT?
Not trying to be rhetorical here, but I really don't understand this.
It seems to me that god played a big joke on them with the time gap in between the OT and the NT. People went on crusades and witch trials, killed hundreds of thousands, all to defend their god, yet this all took place after god said: "you know what, love everyone and don't kill them." Is it because god forgot to give them NTs? Or is it because they interpreted the NT wrong? If so, isn't god being a little unfair to forsake them simply because they didn't interpret it correctly? (Of course I'm assuming that those who kill and don't repent will go to hell.) If god is just, shouldn't he have stopped the people who blindly follows the OT? If god is loving, shouldn't he have told his sons that what they did is bad? Even though they shouldn't have killed, but they thought it was really the will of god. They were being bad kids, but it really wasn't their fault, because after all, they did believe in him. You can't blame the unknowing.
And lastly, I can't seem to find the bible verse that says "thou shalt not kill". I would appreciate it if someone can tell me what verse it is. Thanks.
Fri May 04, 12:02:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
I did say 9 out of the 10 commandments were repeated in Matthew 5. Still not sure what your hangup is with verse 3...?
God isn't bound by the laws He enacts because God isn't mortal, a sinner or in need of salvation. Pretty straightforward, no?
Christ didn't die 2007 years ago. That's around the time he was born. Close enough though.
I'm not sure what you're saying about Puritans, etc...? It seems as though you're confusing man's actions with God-directed actions. There is no excuse for a Christian to kill non-Christians and if/when they do so, it's the individual who is at fault, not God. A basic understanding of the NT clearly shows the practice of non-resistance and non-violence. If a Christians does decided to defend his God by killing people, why is the finger pointed at God? Man has complete freewill and he pays the consequences for his actions.
(There's that "going to hell" bit again)
"Thou shalt not kill" is Exodus 20:13.
Fri May 04, 08:14:00 AM 2007 
 Ryan said...
"I'm not sure what you're saying about Puritans, etc...?"
- Thanks for the information regarding other questions. I'm trying to say that even though men chose out of their own will to resort to violence, they are doing it out of a GOOD will, and in this case it's for god. Yet I can't understand why a loving father would watch his child follow him in the right direction but in the wrong way. He should at least, you know, tell them: "hey don't do that, that's not the right way to do it." You know what I'm saying?
Fri May 04, 08:53:00 PM 2007 
 Jason Macker said...
Wow, I'm flattered that you used my comment.
As a utlitarian, I find it natural to weigh the "good" vs the "bad". But again, as a utilitarian, I find the difficulty in evaluation good and bad to be ever increasing. In the current analysis, you counted every good and bad verse as one "unit". Is that a fair premise? Is saying "Kill every firstborn Egyptian" just as bad as "He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power"? Or on the other side, is Leviticus 19:17 just as good as 1 Peter 3:15? I think that you are the first person to ever analyze the Bible (and the Quran) like this, and I applaud you for blazing such a path.
Sincerely,
Jason Macker
Sun May 06, 08:05:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Ryan,
I would say that God has already told people/Puritans/Christians Who Kill that what they're doing isn't the right way to do things. For example, in the NT, the concept of separating oneself from the world in the sense of not getting caught up in all of its drama is taught over and over again. The idea of non-agression is also preached, many times in fact. So it would seem, at least to me, that the rules have already been laid out. God has already said, "What you're doing is wrong" but if man decides to ignore God's rules and do what HE thinks is right, then he isn't even really going in the right direction.
It's kind of like this: Rom 1:21-22,25 "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator..."
Tue May 08, 09:26:00 PM 2007 
 geetha said...
chanced on ur website thro autstinatheist.blogspot.
amazing work.
but how did u have the patience to go thro pages after pages of literature u don't particularly subscribe to.
me from india.
wish i had the time and patience to point such contradictions / negative thoughts in the religious literature of india.
anyway carry on the good work
geetha
Thu Jul 12, 11:19:00 PM 2007 
 Andrew said...
The original post was genius! But you should explain to us how a physics professor justifies creation when this (humble) physics teacher can prove that the universe is really old with the speed of light and a little trigonometry.
Fri Aug 03, 01:49:00 PM 2007 
 VoxMoose said...
Fun analysis!
Another good measure would be to simply report the gross numbers of individual good and bad tags as well as the percent of individual good and bad tags (normalized to "the number of things to say" rather than the size of the book).
For example, you might have a long boring book with 10000 verses but with only 7 total things to say but they are all good (based on your tags). This would receive a +7 on your net goodness scale and a +0.07 on your normalized per 100 verses scale. But perhaps it is useful knowing that of all the things it actually had to say (regardless of total book length) all of them were good.
In contrast, perhaps there is a small book 100 verses long but is, for some crazy reason, packed with 1000 good things and 1002 bad things (not likely, but possible I suppose). It would receive a -2 on your net goodness scale and a -0.02 on your normalized scale; but it sill had a lot to say either way. This could be useful to ponder.
The current analysis you posted (which is still quite interesting) hides this kind of information.
Sun Apr 20, 10:20:00 AM 2008 
 Jamal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sun Jan 26, 05:20:00 PM 2014 
 Steve Wells said...
Jamal,
Here is the verse that I considered "bad" in my analysis:
"I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found." Ecclesiastes 7:28
The Preacher could find a few good men (maybe one in a thousand or so), but not a single good woman.
The meaning of this verse is a bit clearer in other translations. Here, for example, is 7:28 in the NIV: "Though I have searched repeatedly, I have not found what I was looking for. Only one out of a thousand men is virtuous, but not one woman!"
Mon Jan 27, 08:44:00 AM 2014 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 17 March 2007Drew's Inspirational readings from The Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 3:12

2 Nephi 3:12
Posted by Steve Wells at 3/17/2007 10:10:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
3 comments:
 Christopher Trottier said...
I think the Book of Zelph is much more inspirational.
Sat Mar 17, 03:40:00 PM 2007 
 Ryan said...
lol fruits? who the hell cares
Tue May 01, 01:30:00 AM 2007 
 Leo said...
I love what you're doing but...It is not pronounced Nef-y it is Nee-f-eye
If you pronounce things wrong it gives a sense of half assedness. Otherwise
Sat Sep 19, 11:02:00 PM 2009 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 25 February 2007A duck with four legs: "It shall be an abomination unto you"

"Stumpy the four-legged duckling is basking in the spotlight after being unveiled to the world. The bird, now just eight days old, has suffered a rare genetic mutation which has left it with two legs behind the two he runs about on."
Okay, Stumpy is kind of cute. But he's an abomination to God and to all true Bible-believers. It's one of the few things that the Bible is clear about.

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Leviticus 11:20
Posted by Steve Wells at 2/25/2007 12:14:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
130 comments:
 William said...
Hmm..I'm wondering if Levi also meant the Duckbill Platypus... I mean, I'm sure they wouldn't know the difference between fowl and mammals.
Sun Feb 25, 11:48:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Double-check your reference. Lev 11:20 isn't talking about ducks.
Mon Feb 26, 07:46:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Anon, what is Lev 11:20 talking about then?
Mon Feb 26, 01:25:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Every translation except the KJV reads something like this: "All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you."
And when you read verses 21-24, it's easy to see the subject of verse 20 isn't a fuzzy, yellow mutated animal.
But he sure is cute!
Mon Feb 26, 03:04:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Another example of the bible's stunning clarity.
Mon Feb 26, 03:12:00 PM 2007 
 jason said...
No, it's just another example of man's bias getting in the way of properly researching a topic before commenting on it.
This isn't difficult stuff. Look at the verse, look at the definition of the word in a concordance. What else do you want???
Mon Feb 26, 04:43:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
"Look at the verse, look at the definition of the word in a concordance."
Okay, Jason. That sounds like fun.
Here's the verse:
"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Leviticus 11:20
And here's the definition of the word in the concordance:
"`owph: 1) flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds" Blue Letter Bible
"What else do you want???"
Mon Feb 26, 06:21:00 PM 2007 
 jason said...
That's really good, Steve. See how easy that was? Now, what's the Hebrew definition of the word "creep"? Now match this definition up with the kind of animal (which you've already listed) that most logically fits this description. And what do we have...?
Next, to really cement things, read verses 21 and 22. Is there a link between these two verses and verse 20? Which kind of animal is being talked about in these verses?
Mon Feb 26, 07:36:00 PM 2007 
 Dave said...
Jason, in prior conversations you said the bible was crystal clear and that all someone had to do was use a concordance. This is precisely what Steve did. Is the concordance now wrong, along with the King James Version? You keep talking about the following verses which “clearly” refer to insects (even though there is a blantant error that insects have four legs!) You fail to mention that verses 13-19 which lead up to the verse in question clearly refer to birds. And verse 20 is more logically tied to the previous verses than the following, because verse 21 starts with “Yet” which is commonly used as a break in the train of thought. Crystal clear? Baloney.
Mon Feb 26, 08:26:00 PM 2007 
 beepbeepitsme said...
Tsk tsk, did someone not play by the rules?
You're supposed to have FAITH. (Which is why catholics are not encouraged to read the bible - reading it is bound to turn you into an agnostic or an atheist.)
Tue Feb 27, 05:05:00 AM 2007 
 jason said...
Come on Dave, be intellectually honest here. Looking at a single word to find the answer to a problem isn't always the route to go. Sometimes (gasp) you might even need to look at two or three words.
Verse 13 - 19 is talking about birds. We both agree with that. But as for "yet" being commonly used as a break in thought...Huh??? Verse 21 joins itself with verse 20 with the word "yet" or "however". In other words, the structure of the section on insects (vs. 20-24 reads: "You're not allowed to eat these however you are allowed to eat these and even these. But everything else is off limits."
In verses 20, 21 and 23, "flying" and "creep" are exactly the same Hebrew words. This wouldn't make sense if both verses are talking about a completely different type of animal. Finally, consider also that the word "creep" is never used in conjunction with birds. For example, Genesis 1:26, 6:7, 6:20, 7:14, 7:21, 7:23, 8:17, 8:19, treat fowls and creeping things as two distinct types of animals.
What a bizarre post...
Tue Feb 27, 07:42:00 AM 2007 
 Dave said...
You know what, Jason, you are right. When you go to the original text, analyze the root Hebrew word, and look at the surrounding verses, you can very reasonably come to the conclusion that the biblical god definitely does not want you to eat four-legged insects. With your help I am really pleased to have finally figured out The Truth. Thank you.
Tue Feb 27, 08:53:00 AM 2007 
 jason said...
Does Leviticus 11:20 refer to four-legged ducks? This, after all, is the topic of the post.
Tue Feb 27, 10:33:00 AM 2007 
 Dave said...
Jason, let’s ALL be intellectually honest here. Steve isn’t being serious with his post about the 4 legged duck. They don’t normally exist. I’m not being serious about 4 legged insects. They don’t normally exist either. Steve is using the cute picture of a genetically defective duckling as a method to point out the absurdity of the picky details in Leviticus. God really caring whether we eat shrimp or not? Ridiculous.
Since you seem to revel in it, let’s get nit-picky about words here. How about we all concede that you are right about the verse in question referring to insects, not ducks. Great. Jason:1, Everyone Else:0. Now explain using your irrefutable logic, why the insects are referred to in the verse as having four legs. (Refresher: There is a scientific theory that insects have 6 legs.) In my concordance, the word “four” is represented by the word “arba”, which means, well, four. Unlike the “creepy” word we’ve analyzed to death and is abused by the KJV and concordances, “arba” has but a single meaning: four.
Seems like one of two things can be the case. Either the bible, even in its original Hebrew form, is, gasp, in error, or, well, I can’t think of another option. I’m sure you can enlighten us once again.
Tue Feb 27, 01:00:00 PM 2007 
 jason said...
Then you have my apologies, I mistakingly took this statement to be serious: "...he's an abomination to God and to all true Bible-believers. It's one of the few things that the Bible is clear about. "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Leviticus 11:20"
This isn't a contest, Dave :) It isn't me against everyone else. A statement was made about a verse and I believe this statement was wrong. I attempted to point out why it was wrong. There is no "winner" or "loser". It's a friendly discussion and everyone is going to take from it what they want.
And why are you hung up on the "abuses" in the concordance and KJV? A single English word can have multiple meanings - why is it so wrong if Hebrew words are no different?
I take from your tone that I've somehow upset you. Why I don't know.
I'll leave you with this: Whoever it is you think wrote Leviticus, do you believe this person had access to six-legged insects?
Tue Feb 27, 02:56:00 PM 2007 
 Dave said...
Well, Steve said that statement, not me, so I don’t know if he was really serious or not. I assumed that his tongue was planted in his cheek. And we all know what “assume” does!
I know it’s not a contest, I was simply trying to settle the insect vs. bird issue, and give you tangible credit.
I’m “hung up” on the concordance/KJV thing because you have previously made the statement that anyone can easily interpret the bible correctly by using it and a concordance. We now have established that a concordance can be misleading too, and the verse must be analyzed in context using every meaning of the root words. This analysis is a good thing, and I will be doing that much more now.
You haven’t upset me in the least bit. I wouldn’t return here to become upset, I come to engage in friendly discussion as you have. I just tend to have a sarcastic tone in my writing that is oft interpreted as anger. Relax.
Your last question has me a bit puzzled. You asked “Whoever it is you think wrote Leviticus, do you believe this person had access to six-legged insects? Of course he would. And every insect he would run across would have 6 legs, not 4. The puzzling part is what difference would it make whether or not he had access to them? The words the author wrote would be coming direct from God anyway, right? Inerrant Word of God and all that. Jason, I respect your interpretation of the Bible, and I seriously would like to know how you rationalize this apparent error.
Wed Feb 28, 07:51:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Didn't you say Steve was serious...? I'm confused. Steve, where are you???? :)
I don't want credit because the answer's are all there for everyone to see. It's not "my" solution. I didn't come up with it. But thanks anyway.
I don't know how the concordance can be misleading. If you find a dictionary misleading then, maybe yes, I can see where you're coming from. But...
My point about six-legged insects is if the author of Leviticus saw nothing but six-legged insects, why would he have written four? If it was by direction of God, and we're reading the verse correctly, then the Bible isn't inspired and God doesn't exist which takes us back to the original question. Do you see what I'm saying? There's no rational way to explain why anyone, God-inspired or not, would write "four" instead of "six" if "four" didn't exist. There must be something else going on here. Would you agree?
Wed Feb 28, 10:20:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Extinct 4 legged insects.
Wed Feb 28, 01:20:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
"Didn't you say Steve was serious...?"
Oh, I was serious, Jason. But I was also mistaken.
God does, if you believe the Bible, consider all sorts of four-legged, flying, creeping things to be abominations. Including Stumpy. And you should, too, if you believe in the Bible (and you do, don’t you, Jason?).
But God isn’t much of a biologist and he doesn’t give a damn about taxonomy. To him, if you’ve seen one flying, creeping thing, you’ve pretty much seen them all. Bats are birds, insects have four legs (and many appear to unless you look closely and actually count them, which God never does), and every species is classified into one of only two kingdoms: clean things and abominations. Forget about phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, or species. It’s either clean or unclean to God. Their burning sacrificial flesh either stinks or smells sweet to the ignorant creator or them all.
So poor Stumpy probably is an abomination to God. He’s just another damned four-legged, flying, creeping thing. God doesn’t know or care whether he’s a bird or an insect. He couldn’t care less and he couldn’t tell the two apart.
But I was wrong when I said, “It's one of the few things that the Bible is clear about.” The Bible isn’t clear about Stumpy. Leviticus 11:20 may, as you suggest, be referring to insects, not birds. But, to God, it’s a distinction without a difference. Stumpy is a four-legged, flying, creeping thing, and that’s all God needs to know to key him out to the kingdom Abominatia.
Wed Feb 28, 03:56:00 PM 2007 
 jason said...
Hey Steve, welcome to the conversation. A friendly suggestion would be to go back through the posts because we already went through the whole four-legged duck abomination thing.
You'll be pleased to know that no Christian thinks four-legged creatures are an abomination because we're not bound by the old law.
Wed Feb 28, 04:45:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
"... we already went through the whole four-legged duck abomination thing."
What did you conclude, Jason? Which animals did God declare to be abominations in Lev.11:20?
"You'll be pleased to know that no Christian thinks four-legged creatures are an abomination because we're not bound by the old law."
So you disagree with the God of the Old Testament, then, eh Jason? You poor thing. Read Deuteronomy 28:15-68 to see what God has planned for you.
Wed Feb 28, 05:29:00 PM 2007 
 jason said...
Well Steve, it would appear that the animals mentioned in Lev. 11:20 were flying, creeping animals. It would also seem that after some analysis these flying, creeping things aren't birds. It appears they are more along the lines of the sorts of animals listed in verse 22.
Now where did you get that funny word "disagree" from? Did I say that? tsk tsk Deut. 28. Yes, phew, very powerful words indeed. God really made it clear to the Israelites, didn't He.
Hm, I wonder, do you think Christians today are bound by the old law?
Wed Feb 28, 07:10:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
"… it would appear that the animals mentioned in Lev. 11:20 were flying, creeping animals. It would also seem that after some analysis these flying, creeping things aren't birds. It appears they are more along the lines of the sorts of animals listed in verse 22."
Oh, you mean "flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet"?
Do you have a name for these animals, Jason? I don’t know of any four-legged flying creeping things with legs above their feet. Are there any such animals? If so, what would they be called today?
(It would appear that you find it difficult to answer this question. It would also seem that after some analysis you are not willing to say what animals God is calling abominations in verse 20. It appears you are trying to use many words to say as little as possible.)
"Now where did you get that funny word "disagree" from? Did I say that? tsk tsk"
Well, yes, I think you did. God said this in Leviticus 11:20:
"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."
You disagreed with God by saying, "no Christian thinks four-legged creatures are an abomination."
God says these animals (whatever the hell they might be) are abominations. You say they are not. That’s a disagreement. Tsk tsk
"Hm, I wonder, do you think Christians today are bound by the old law?"
No, I don’t think anyone is bound by any of the laws in the Old Testament. I recommend that everyone stay the hell away from that cruel, nasty book.
But Jesus disagreed with me (and you).
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19-20
Wed Feb 28, 11:17:00 PM 2007 
 jason said...
Oh Steve, you’ve done such a masterful job at turning this around. ☺ This isn’t about me having to explain what Lev. 11:20 is talking about. This is all about your four-legged duck statement.
Once again, is Leviticus 11:20 actually talking about four-legged ducks and are four-legged ducks actually an abomination to 21st century Christians? Yes or no.
Thu Mar 01, 08:35:00 AM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
Steve, you don't believe the Bible was written solely for people living in the 21st century, do you? Because Jesus' words in Matthew 5 were directed as his disciples, not us. Once Christ died, the law was fulfilled and a new one implemented (read Hebrews 7). This is why Christians today don't, for example, offer animal sacrifices. This is also the reason why Christians today don't view four-legged flying creeping things to be an abomination. We're no longer bound by the old law. Not sure how many other ways it can be explained...?
Thu Mar 01, 06:04:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
So you also agree that the bible is useless book with an outdated way of thinking and morals.
That's why we should all forget about it.
Mon Mar 05, 03:19:00 AM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
lol No, I don't agree.
Mon Mar 05, 06:04:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Lol. The passage is indeed probably about bugs, but it's funny to apply it when shit like this happens.
Oh poor freak duckie.
Mon Mar 05, 12:50:00 PM 2007 
 Dave said...
Whenever someone brings up how hideous the old testament is, a typical Christian will parrot “But because of Jesus it no longer applies”. So what? What the hell difference does that make? So its okay to worship a god that USED TO savor the smell of burning flesh? It’s okay to worship a god that USED TO effortlessly kill millions of innocent people, including babies? It’s okay to worship a god that USED TO condone slavery, humiliate women, and condemn his own creations as abominations? It’s okay to worship a god that USED TO command a man to slaughter his own child?
Isn’t the biblical god the same now as was and always shall be? Is the biblical god somehow politically correct now because he slaughtered HIS own son?
And Jason, you expect us to worship this beast?
Mon Mar 05, 01:15:00 PM 2007 
 Au-seti said...
Quack!
wow um, I'm not exactly sure how this post was taken over from a somewhat funny commentary on a cute picture of a four legged duck, to a fight about what god REALLY meant to say, to well.... whatever the heck just happened in the last few posts.
but I suppose that the human mind works in mysterious ways
Mon Mar 05, 07:03:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
If Bible critics would stop with the old "What a horrible book...", Christians wouldn't have to parrot the "Because of Jesus..." line. :) It's a two-way street. And then when someone makes a point like "Four legged animals must be an abomination to Christians", Christians must state the obvious rebuttal: The old law is no longer applicable.
And Dave, rest assured, I expect nothing from you.
Mon Mar 05, 07:07:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Fuck you Jason
Tue Mar 06, 03:07:00 AM 2007 
 Dave said...
Um, Jason, I just wanted to quickly post and assure you that the FU response was not me! I love you, man!
Tue Mar 06, 05:47:00 AM 2007 
 Dave said...
I should clarify... that's an agape kind of love you know. And that doesn't mean I LIKE you. :-) Hey, how about those other 8 questions you ignored?
Tue Mar 06, 12:57:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
You also have a few questions you left unanswered yourself.
For me, I'm waiting to hear Steve's answers to my questions before a different topic is opened. Is Leviticus 11:20 actually talking about four-legged ducks and are four-legged ducks actually an abomination to 21st century Christians? This being the original subject of the post.
Tue Mar 06, 04:10:00 PM 2007 
 Dave said...
Jason, I think I’ve answered all the non-rhetorical questions asked of me. Your questions are for Steve, so I will bow out and bring up my hijack questions on my own blog.
And Steve, I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank you. Your Skeptic’s Annotated Bible is awesome. It has been a major resource for me that has come in mighty handy during my de-conversion process. You are therefore entitled to take some credit for my spiritual peace as an ex-Christian! I love you, man!
Wed Mar 07, 07:10:00 AM 2007 
 jason said...
The question about WHY the author of Leviticus would have written about four-legged insects wasn't rhetorical.
Wed Mar 07, 08:56:00 AM 2007 
 gary said...
It's sad to see that no one here has said something against the idiotic and immature comment by Anonymous.
Pathetic.
Anonymous, what did Jason do to piss you off? Talk about ducks???? You're an absolute moron.
Wed Mar 07, 09:00:00 AM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
Of course he's a moron. He talks tough but hides behind "anonymous". Real smooth. There are obviously some self-confidence issues he or she is trying to overcome...
Wed Mar 07, 10:03:00 AM 2007 
 Dave said...
Jason, I'm sorry, I thought I had answered the question of why authors of Leviticus would say four legged insects... I think they were simply sloppy. Kind of like rounding pi to 3. Four, six, eight legs, who cares? They're just bugs. Either that or the term "on all fours" has a more generic meaning that isn't related directly to the value of 4. One thing I do NOT believe is that there were ever 4 legged insects as mentionioned by one of our Anonymouses. Why do you think they wrote that?
Wed Mar 07, 11:30:00 AM 2007 
 jason said...
No worries.
I only ask the question because if the author did truly and literally mean four legs, then the Bible isn't inspired because such an animal doesn't exist. But that still leaves the question as to why someone would make such a glaring and silly mistake in the first place. The Jews today don't seem to have big problem with this verse and since they know the OT inside and out better then anyone, maybe this is saying something...?
Personally speaking of course, I'm apt to side with your comment about "on all fours" being a generic statement. And as with you, I also don't believe there were ever four-legged insects :)
Anyhow, this would be my explanation to Lev 11:20: There are several verses, translated in English, implying that insects have four legs. In reality, the Hebrew word sherets, translated as "insect" (or "creeping" in some Bibles), is not nearly as specific as it seems. For example, in Genesis, sherets refers to swarming sea creatures, in the flood account (Genesis 7) sherets refers to rodents, and in Leviticus, sherets refers to crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles. It would seem that the term sherets was never intended as a specific biological classification system, so to say that it specifically refers to "insects" is deceptive.
Were the writers of the Bible unaware that insects have six legs? This statement would seem rather silly, but as is apparent in this collection of posts, some actually make this claim... However, one of the verses seems to clearly indicate that these "four-legged" insects have six legs:
'Yet these you may eat among all the [sherets] which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth." (Leviticus 11:21)
The key part of the verse is the phrase "above their feet jointed legs." The Hebrew uses two different words to describe the "feet" (regel) and "legs" (kera). What the verse says is that these insects walk on four "feet" (their anterior four short legs), with an additional two "legs" that are used for jumping. Therefore, all six appendages are described.
Finally, the Jewish Encylopedia says this about "sherets": ("shereẓ," Gen. vii. 21; Lev. v. 2; xi. 10, 29; Deut. xiv. 19) applies only to animals that swarm, whether terrestrial, such as the weasel, mouse, lizard (Lev. v. 29); aquatic (Lev. xi. 10; Gen. i. 2; compare Ex. vii. 28 [A.V. viii. 3]); or even winged (Lev. xi. 20-23). The fundamental connotation of the verb and noun is undoubtedly the incalculably prolific multitudes of little animals which always appear in troops or swarms. The R. V. therefore gives the translation "breed abundantly" (Gen. viii. 17, ix. 7; compare Ex. i. 7).
Thoughts?
Wed Mar 07, 03:36:00 PM 2007 
 beepbeepitsme said...
Anyway, the bible says it is ok to eat locusts, so after that revelation, I will prefer to eat 4 legged ducks instead.
Thu Mar 08, 09:33:00 PM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
Not only are bugs are much higher in protein (40 to 50% as compared to 20% for beef) than steak, they pound for pound provide more usable "meat" than traditional sources such as beef and poultry. North Americans eat shrimp, lobster, frog legs, snails...what makes a grasshopper so repulsive? Africa, China, the Middle East and Australia have no qualms about eating insects...maybe we're the ones that are missing out :)
Fri Mar 09, 05:51:00 AM 2007 
 GAD said...
seems like there is an assumption that science was used in the Bible? The fact that the categories appear very loose implies that the knowledge used was based on simple observations and common tribal belief(s) e.g "a rabbit chewing it's cud". The Bible isn't precise because it is simply the reflection of human understanding of the world at the time it was written. This clearly (at least for me) shows that the Bible was written by men and not "a" God.
Every argument such as the one this thread is about is basically the same, finding passages in the Bible that only make sense in the context of being written by men and not a God. For me the Bible makes perfect sense if it was written by men, it makes no sense whatsoever if it was written by a God.............
Finally, it seems funny to me to say you need to go back to the Hebrew and use a concordance to distill the meaning Vs using the KJV of the Bible. 99.999% of Christians are Christian based solely on the KJV or similar modern translation of the Bible. Most probably don't even know there is a Hebrew test, or any issue with translation.............. I find that very funny.
my $0.02 on the subject
GAD
Fri Mar 09, 09:39:00 AM 2007 
 space said...
If I may...
Gad, do you think those 99% of Christians believe Paul wrote his letters in English? If they aren't aware of a Hebrew or Greek text, what language would you say they believe his letters were written in?
Secondly, looking at a concordance to find the original definition of a word is a logical, proper step in coming to an understanding of what was originally meant. You don't see people today criticizing a historical linguist for looking into the history of a language, or people laughing at an etymologist for studying the source of a word and how it's meaning has changed over time, or even a Websters dictionary for listing the original Latin or Greek words our English derives from. These are all 'allowed' by society, but when it comes to unlocking the meaning of Scripture, this manner of research is scoffed at. I have no answers when trying to figure out why.
There aren't too many Christians out there who would claim the modern day translations of the Bible were divinely inspired. We speak English. The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew. The Bible is an incredibly cohesive book and in those spots where some questions might arise, like the Leviticus discussion or the exchange earlier about Satan (which was left noticeably unresolved by the athiest team), a concordance is a most logical source of information.
Whether or not people want to verify their translation by using a concordance is completely up to them. It's not a fair statement saying most people don't know there is a Hebrew text because mass ignorance isn't grounds for refuting the Bible.
In all fairness to the original poster and to the critics of the post, this conversation has gone way off course. A sound argument has been made showing that a four-legged duck isn't included in Leviticus 11:20. There have been many immature attempts to change the topic and attack the critics, (why anyone would feel the need to curse in a forum such as this is uncomprehensible), but this has all been done in poor taste. Personal opinion has no bearing on the outcome of an argument, so criticizing the use of a concordance or original Hebrew words or Christianity serves no purpose. If you want to properly argue the facts, then offer some facts in return.
Fri Mar 09, 11:27:00 AM 2007 
 GAD said...
You flew right past most of my points.
"Gad, do you think those 99% of Christians believe Paul wrote his letters in English? If they aren't aware of a Hebrew or Greek text, what language would you say they believe his letters were written in?"
>> do a scientifically vaild survey and the results will favor my
opinion.
"Secondly, looking at a concordance to find the original definition of a word is a logical, proper step in coming to an understanding of what was originally meant."
>> Yes, agreed. But doing so with the Bible is the (rare) exception not the rule.
" You don't see people today criticizing a historical linguist for looking into the history of a language, or people laughing at an etymologist for studying the source of a word and how it's meaning has changed over time, or even a Websters dictionary for listing the original Latin or Greek words our English derives from."
>> Agreed.
These are all 'allowed' by society, but when it comes to unlocking the meaning of Scripture, this manner of research is scoffed at. I have no answers when trying to figure out why.
>> I'm not scoffing. My point is that nearly all Christians perceive the modern Bible as the definitive meaning of Scripture. They could care less about looking for any deeper meaning.
>> I also find it humorous that the Divine word of God has to be decrypted and interpreted to have meaning. What a God send for the Church.
"There aren't too many Christians out there who would claim the modern day translations of the Bible were divinely inspired."
>> One of us is in for a shock. Obviously I don't think it's me.

"We speak English. The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew. The Bible is an incredibly cohesive"
>> Only in the context of it being written by comparatively ignorant men. In any other context it is incoherent.............
" book and in those spots where some questions might arise, like the Leviticus discussion or the exchange earlier about Satan (which was left noticeably unresolved by the athiest team), a concordance is a most logical source of information."
>> Yes. But, again almost no ones cares, unless they absolutely have to.

"Whether or not people want to verify their translation by using a concordance is completely up to them."
>> yes, and they have chosen "or not".
"It's not a fair statement saying most people don't know there is a Hebrew text because mass ignorance isn't grounds for refuting the Bible."
>> that doesn't make it, not a fact. further mass ignorance may not grounds for refuting "points" of the Bible, but it is certainly is for the "Religions" based on the Bible!
"In all fairness to the original poster and to the critics of the post, this conversation has gone way off course. A sound argument has been made showing that a four-legged duck isn't included in Leviticus 11:20."
>> OK...........?
"There have been many immature attempts to change the topic and attack the critics, (why anyone would feel the need to curse in a forum such as this is uncomprehensible), but this has all been done in poor taste."
>> a common tactic, but one never used so well as it has been by the Religious.

"Personal opinion has no bearing on the outcome of an argument,
>>?? When talking about God there is nothing but "Personal opinion"
" so criticizing the use of a concordance or original Hebrew words or Christianity serves no purpose. If you want to properly argue the facts, then offer some facts in return."
>> as stated above, this was not my point. Your criticizing about criticizing the wrong thing.........
Fri Mar 09, 02:15:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
Do a scientifically valid survey. Sure, let me get right on that! No offense, but your opinion still counts for nothing unless you’ve already done one of these surveys yourself? You still didn’t answer the question: do you think those 99% of Christians believe Paul wrote his letters in English?
Do you know why most Christians don’t use concordances? Because they’re taught to believe that their priest or pope or whatever is the sole authority of the Bible and it’s only through him can the Bible be explained and taught. It’s the whole “the minority have the majority of power” concept… It’s a sad state of affairs. This is why so many Christians have it wrong. Purgatory, infant sprinkling, Lucifer, and the list goes on. If it weren’t for the strict control of church leaders, people would have no problem realizing these things aren’t taught in the Bible.
When talking about God, you believe it’s personal opinion. When a Christian talks about God, it’s fact. Until the end of time, this will always be the stalemate between the two groups.
Sat Mar 10, 07:49:00 AM 2007 
 GAD said...
The 99% refers to how many people believe what they believe based solely on modern translations of the bible. In this context they simply read and believe the passage in question (even though it doesn't make sense) without ever thinking there might be something sensible underneath it.
I believe that a survey would show at least as many people would say that Paul's letters were written in English as answered that Joan of Arch was Noah's wife, 80% was it?
Your next statement,
"Do you know why most Christians don’t use concordances? Because they’re taught to believe that their priest or pope or whatever is the sole authority of the Bible and it’s only through him can the Bible be explained and taught. It’s the whole “the minority have the majority of power” concept… It’s a sad state of affairs. This is why so many Christians have it wrong. Purgatory, infant sprinkling, Lucifer, and the list goes on. If it weren’t for the strict control of church leaders, people would have no problem realizing these things aren’t taught in the Bible."
is the EXACT argument I made that you have been going on about as being so wrong! See, you really agree me, you just don't want to admit it for some "personal" reason.
What you believe, maybe a million are so Christians believe out of 2 billion, so you are stating that 99.9995% have it all wrong because they don't look any deeper and just go with what the church says. Which is even more then what I said. So I happily accept your argument as it strengthens my position even further.

Lastly you state,
"When talking about God, you believe it’s personal opinion. When a Christian talks about God, it’s fact. Until the end of time, this will always be the stalemate between the two groups"
NO, it is not fact! It is FAITH! The fact that Christians believe it is fact, is in fact a fact that proves that they are delusional and dangerous to the health of humanity!
Sat Mar 10, 11:49:00 AM 2007 
 space said...
I completely agree, Christians are lazy people. They would prefer to be spoon-fed salvation instead of uncovering the truth for themselves.
Regarding Paul’s letters being written in English, we’re looking for a survey of Christians, not a mixed group of everyone and their mailman. Big difference.
If you made the exact argument as me then I obviously missed it. Once again, I completely agree in the same way I agree that the vast majority of Christians have it wrong. They’re being fed wrong information by religious institutions who have too much to lose if they admit to doctrinal mistakes made centuries and centuries ago.
Christians can find fact in things like archaeology and prophecy. This is their “fact” for the existence of God. It is what it is. They’re not any more dangerous to society than an atheist. Relax. Stop scaremongering.
Sat Mar 10, 12:49:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
Lazy is only part of it. As the word of god the bible is incoherent, killing babies, rules for raping your slave girls etc... Nearly everyone who reads it finds it impossible to reconcile with the idea of a good and loving god. It takes the church to magically turn horror into a beautiful thing that can be packaged and market it to the masses.
As the saying goes, the fastest way to atheism is to read the bible.
archaeology proves god in the same sense that geology (volcano's) proves Scientology. bible prophecy proves god about as much as calling a psychic hotline ( 1-900-take-my-$$-and-lie-to-me)proves there are psychics.
"scaremongering". Religion is the most powerful force on earth. It can literally dictate the course of humanity. History shows that left to it self it only leads to destruction.
You want to see what scares me, check at the below link. Please don't try and tell this is just some small isolated group. These types of things are going on in religions the world over in one degree or another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVgRpRoD4A0&mode=related&search=
Sat Mar 10, 03:26:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
This is an old argument and one that doesn't really say anything. You assume that Christians think God is nothing but love and you assume incorrectly. God is harsh in His judgments, God gets angry, God punishes, etc. etc. This is what the Bible says about God and anyone who says otherwise has a dusty Bible. I do think it's interesting though that critics only point to the OT to prove their point of an evil God...There's another more relevant section of Scripture, you know :)
You're a critic of prophecy as well, I see. This is the 'stalemate' I was talking about. :)
Left to itself history shows religion leads to destruction? Hm. Do you have scientific proof of this? I always thought the fastest way to destruction was to vote in another power-hungry American president. They seem to accomplish more death and destruction then a Christian ever could.
Still no comments from the masses about the latest four-legged duck post, I see :)
Sat Mar 10, 07:23:00 PM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
Yah, when's this thing going to get wrapped up? Any admissions from the pro-duck-in-leviticus crowd?
Sat Mar 10, 08:46:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
"God is harsh in His judgments, God gets angry, God punishes, etc. etc. This is what the Bible says about God and anyone who says otherwise has a dusty Bible."
>> Fantastic we agree on yet another major point of the bible! Are you sure not not an Atheist? :)
" You assume that Christians think God is nothing but love and you assume incorrectly"
>> I don't think so. Christians with your view are so few, that, well not to be mean or anything, are insignificant. When I assume "Christians think God is nothing but love" I assume correctly for 99.9995% of those who call them self Christians.
>> again not to be mean, but don't hurt your self patting your own back. You and the tiny few who believe as you, are only one in 30,000+ sects that say they have it right, so the odds are 1 in 30,000+ that you know more then the others and 29,999+ to 1 that you don't. Better then the lottery, but not so good to bet your soul on...........
"I do think it's interesting though that critics only point to the OT to prove their point of an evil God...There's another more relevant section of Scripture, you know :)"
>> it is the foundation, when it falls, the whole things falls. Let us also not forget that the Jews, gods chosen people, say that Christians hijacked their god and that the new testament isn't worth the paper it's written on.
>> Query, do you believe that the Quran and the book of Mormon are the word of god? careful, it's a trick question, if you say no then the Jewish case against the new testament is even stronger.
"Left to itself history shows religion leads to destruction? Hm. Do you have scientific proof of this?"
>> Read a history book...........
"I always thought the fastest way to destruction was to vote in another power-hungry American president."
>> All the American presidents have been Christian. George Bush, being a shining example!
Sat Mar 10, 11:06:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
I have to agree with your points about God getting angry, etc. because the Bible tells us quite plainly that God gets angry. And now I expect you to agree with me in saying that God is also loving and merciful and patient, because the Bible says this about God also.
I don't understand, "patting myself on my back"...? I haven't said I "have it right" only that the majority of Christians have it wrong. Even you would be able to make this statement when looking at the bizarre and unfounded doctrines out there. I mean, purgatory? Come on...
Do you think you've managed to destroy the foundation of the Bible because you've pointed out those times when God's anger is manifested? I suppose it's easier to attack and angry God then a merciful God... :) That's rather narrow minded, don't you think?
The Jews were prophesied as being a nation who would reject Jesus and the NT. Interesting eh?
The book of Mormon isn't inspired (and there are dozens of reasons why), same with the Q'uran.
Read a history book? I thought you wanted scientific surveys? All the American presidents may have been Christian but any history book (...) will tell you that none of them have fought for the sake of Christianity. They fight for oil, land, slaves, democracy, blah blah blah. And thus, my point.
You have trouble agreeing with me, don't you :)
Sun Mar 11, 11:31:00 AM 2007 
 GAD said...
"And now I expect you to agree with me in saying that God is also loving and merciful and patient, because the Bible says this about God also."
>> Yes, in the same sense that drug lords who do the most horrific things also give to the poor and build schools shows that they are loving and merciful and patient.
>> isn't it funny how the deeper your love is and the greater your mercy, the more horrific your acts have to be to prove it........ usually with the tag line "for the future of our children"........
>> with this kind of reasoning Hitler was a great man and justified in killing the Jews as long as he did it out of love for the children of Germany and the greater future of mankind.
"The Jews were prophesied as being a nation who would reject Jesus and the NT. Interesting eh?"
>> about as interesting as me predicting there will be wars and suffering in the future, but also great hope and joy. Or telling you that I predicted last weeks lottery numbers...... Of course the magic that allowed me to know the lottery number in advance, also prevents me from using the info or telling anyone else until after the fact, otherwise I lose the power. Which I apparently value more then $390 million dollars!
The book of Mormon isn't inspired (and there are dozens of reasons why), same with the Q'uran.
>> Sorry, that's little more then the Congressman calling the Senator corrupt. You can no more prove that the book of Mormon or the Quran is not inspired then you can prove that the bible is.........
>> what is a fight "for the sake of Christianity"? The saluter of Midian, the dark ages, the inquisition, the crusades?
"You have trouble agreeing with me, don't you"
>> I have no trouble agreeing with reasonable things, just unreasonable ones.
>> Space, your interesting to talk too because your views are not main stream, but in the end it's all the same. You have taken a different path, but you have arrived at the exact same destination as everyone you say has it wrong. You claim erroneously just as they do that whats in the bible is proof of god. It hardly matters if you read it in Hebrew or the KJV, in either case it is a faith statement, not a truth statement.
>> If the bible were proof of god, then it would be silly to not believe god exists. You seem to believe just like all the bad Christians that anyone who reads the bible and still says god is not real, are liars. Which is just bull! And all the funnier since almost none of them have ever read the dam thing! I have 5, have read it cover to cover twice, plus a large library of related historical books. The more you know the more you can see that the whole thing is nothing more then the mind of man.
>> If the earth stands still for a day and a voice heard the world over says, I the lord have done this so that you may know my power,then I'll believe! until then don't complain when you want to stone someone to death based on some bible verse, and I say thats crap! If god exists, he can provide infinitely better proof then the bible, which isn't good for anything except causing human conflict and suffering.........
Sun Mar 11, 04:11:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
I’m glad to see you found it in your heart to agree with me about something.
Okay, moving on.
The book of Mormon was written by a man supposedly inspired by God, correct? Every letter and word was given to him by God directly, correct? And yet there are numerous spelling mistakes and grammar errors in the text. How can this be? Around 15% of the BofM is copied directly from the KJV, including translation errors, even though it’s said the BofM was written 1200-2000 years before the KJV existed. Thirdly, there have been almost 4000 textual changes to the BofM since it was first published in 1830. The original Hebrew and Greek Biblical texts have remain unchanged since the earliest known copy.
The Quran was written long after the Bible, many of its stories and verses are carbon copies from what’s in the Bible, and the book contains no specific prophecies which have ever come true. But I’m sure you’ll have problems with all of this ☺
My original point regarding the President of the US is that him and his predecessors have done more to push the world to the brink of destruction (and keep it there) then Christianity ever has. Whether or not these Presidents were Christian is irrelevant because they weren’t making wars and killing their enemies and invading countries in the name of their religion.
I’ve arrived at the exact same destination as everyone else? Oh, I don’t think so. You have it backwards: I started off where everyone else has, and that is by believing the Bible is the inspired word of God. After that is when I go off down my own path, as have a few others here.
I admit, you do a wonderful job of putting words in my mouth. Where have I said everyone’s a liar if they don’t believe God? Quote me or keep these kinds of statements to yourself.
You say you’ve read the Bible cover to cover twice… tell me, why you think I would ever feel the need to stone someone to death?
Sun Mar 11, 06:11:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
You are correct, I'm not moved by your evidence on the BofM or the Quran. They are basically the same arguments that are made against the new testament. And there is certainly not one provable prophecy in the new testament that's not either an educated guess or more likely written after the fact. Can you prove one prophecy that wasn't?
I agree that our Presidents leave a lot to be desired. But you seem to imply that they alone are driving the world to the brink of destruction? If not them, then it would be someone else driven by the power of their god(s).
"I started off where everyone else has, and that is by believing the Bible is the inspired word of God. After that is when I go off down my own path, as have a few others here."
The end result is the same, they say 2+2=5 and you say 2+3-1=5...
Tell me, if a person really truly loves god, does it matter to god if that person hasn't read and studied the Hebrew and believes that a four legged duck is an abomination? In fact if you really truly love god and have it all wrong, but believe you are doing gods will, does he hold it against you? Or is this one of those magical things where if you really truly love god it's impossible to get it wrong......
"I admit, you do a wonderful job of putting words in my mouth."
Thanks! It's my pleasure!
"Where have I said everyone’s a liar if they don’t believe God?"
Well that was more of a categorical statement, not specifically an individuals statement. It's along the lines of, gods spirit is in all of us and when you hear his word you will know it is truth. The key part is that when you hear gods would "you will know it as truth". This has to be so, if it can be faked or can't be understood as truth, then the whole god complex falls to the ground.
So either I've never heard the word of god, or, I have and I know it, yet deny it. Would that not make me a liar?
"Quote me or keep these kinds of statements to yourself."
That wouldn't be nearly as interesting........ We both know where this is going, theres no KO at there end of this match. This is all about the journey not the destination. So enjoy ride, maybe we'll learn something, well really you more then me since I mostly know it all already :)
"why you think I would ever feel the need to stone someone to death?"
That is a good question! Why would I? I know why I think that main stream Christians feel the need. Is your belief that the new testament/covenant makes the old null and void, even to the point that no old law shall ever be resurrected?
Mon Mar 12, 12:44:00 AM 2007 
 space said...
Perhaps if you directed me to your blog, we could continue the discussion there. This really isn't the place to do it.
Mon Mar 12, 06:10:00 AM 2007 
 GAD said...
Well I really just wanted to join a party not throw my own. But maybe it'll be fun.
Heres the like.
http://theisttastelikechicken.blogspot.com/
I don't know if I set it up correctly, we'll just have to try it and see.
Mon Mar 12, 05:09:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Well this was another fun, unresolved topic. What's next, thalidomide babies in Deuteronomy?
Tue Mar 13, 09:25:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason said: "I'm waiting to hear Steve's answers to my questions before a different topic is opened."
Sorry, Jason, for not responding before this, but I've been away for two weeks and just returned last night.
"Is Leviticus 11:20 actually talking about four-legged ducks and are four-legged ducks actually an abomination to 21st century Christians?"
Well, let's read the verse one more time. (You can't read this one too many times.)
"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."
The meaning of the verse seems clear enough: all four-legged, flying, creeping things are (or at least should be) an abomination to all (1st or 21st century) Bible-believers
Leviticus 11:20 is supposed to be a direct quote from God. He declared all four-legged, flying, creeping things to be abominations. He didn't say that they should be abominations only to the Hebrews of a few thousand years ago. He said (if you believe the Bible, which is always a bad idea) that they were to be an abomination to you (the "you" here is whoever is foolish enough to believe the words of the Bible).
So yes, Jason, 21st century Bible-believing Christians should consider all four-legged, flying, creeping things to be abominations.
But what about Stumpy, you ask? Would the Bible-God consider Stumpy to be a four-legged, flying, creeping thing with legs above his feet? Yes, I think he would. He's the type. But that's just my opinion. It's hard to imagine the thoughts of an imaginary being, especially one that communicates his thoughts so poorly.
So I leave it to you Bible-believers to figure out. Pray about it. Ask the Holy Spirit to explain what he, or his divine sibling, had in mind when he said that "all fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination to you." Clearly it was important to God (he seemed totally obsessed with abominable critters); it should be equally important to you.
Wed Mar 14, 04:38:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
...Seems like all the earlier posts looking at the Hebrew definition for "fowls" and "creep" was a rather pointless exercise. :) You've completely ignored them.
Secondly, in light of your belief that Christians are still under the old law & covenant, there is no doubt that Jesus' death and resurrection ushered in a new covenant (2 Cor. 3:6, Mat 26:28, Heb 7:22, Heb 8:6-10, Heb 9:15-20, Heb 12:24). As has been stated on this site numerous times, the implementation of the new covenant is precisely why Christians are never once told to offer animal sacrifices as a means of forgiveness, keep the Sabbath, get circumcised, keep the ancient Jewish feasts, tithe, maintain the Aaronic priesthood, and so on and so forth.
What will it take to help you understand?
Wed Mar 14, 07:46:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason said: "..Seems like all the earlier posts looking at the Hebrew definition for "fowls" and "creep" was a rather pointless exercise. :) You've completely ignored them."
Oh, I read them, Jason. I was just wasn't convinced by them.
It would help if you'd explain which animals God was referring to in Lev.11:20. Were they the same "flying creeping things, which have four feet" that God declared abominations in verse 23?
"... there is no doubt that Jesus' death and resurrection ushered in a new covenant (2 Cor. 3:6, Mat 26:28, Heb 7:22, Heb 8:6-10, Heb 9:15-20, Heb 12:24)."
No doubt, eh Jason? God never qualified any of his commandments. They were "an everlasting covenant," binding for "a thousand generations," until "heaven and earth pass" away. Here's what the Bible-God had to say about it:
"Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations." Deuteronomy 7:9
"But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee ...
The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart ...
Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her ...
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters ...
The tender and delicate woman among you ... her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them ...
If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book..." Deuteronomy 28:15-68
"Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ... an everlasting covenant. 1 Chronicles 16:15
And here's what Jesus said:
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19-20
"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17
You can ignore them if you like and follow Paul's teachings instead. Paul disagreed with both the Old Testament's God and the New Testament's Jesus. But that is not my problem; it's yours.
Wed Mar 14, 09:02:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Of course you weren’t convinced by those definitions. It would have tarnished your reputation as a Bible critic had you agree with me. ☺
The animals being referred to are explained in verse 22: locusts, bald locust, the beetle and the grasshopper. There's definitely no sign of ducks…
Covenants
Just what was the old covenant? What laws are we talking about here? First, the core of the old covenant is the Ten Commandments (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13). As part of the old covenant, the people at Mt. Sinai also agreed to obey all the laws in Exodus 20, 21, 22 and 23. These additional laws became part of the covenant God made with Israel, and the covenant was then ratified with blood (Exodus 24:6-8).
This is the covenant that has been declared obsolete. It has no legal authority. Further, we cannot assume that any part of the contract is valid when the entire contract has been declared obsolete. We cannot assume that any particular group of laws must remain together.
What about the covenant with Abraham? This covenant was based on faith (Romans 7:6-7), and we are heirs of his promise (verse 29). The law was added to that covenant because of the transgressions of the Israelites (verse 19), but the law cannot alter the Abrahamic promises that we inherit.
Okay, on to your verses:
Deut 7:9. God keeps His promises and keeps His mercy with them that love Him. I don’t see any problems here...?
Deut 28:15-68. This is God outlining the punishments for the Israelites not following His commandments. Again, I’m not sure what the relevance of this is…?
1 Chronicles 16:16. God’s covenant is explained in verse 18. He promised Abraham and Isaac (and Jacob) that He would “give them the land of Canaan”. The promises made to Abraham are touched on above.
As for Matthew 5:19, this has already been examined on this site. “…till all be fulfilled” is the key in this verse. The old law couldn’t pass away until Christ had died and been risen. "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." Hebrews 9:16
Hebrews 7:22: “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.”
Hebrews 8:7: “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.”
Hebrews 8:8: “…Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:”
Hebrews 9:15: “And for this cause he [Jesus] is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”
Hebrews 12:24: “And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant…”
Paul’s teachings and the teaching of the rest of the apostles were in complete agreement with Christ and those things laid out in the OT. Jesus’ death signified the ending of the old law (not the promises made to Abraham, David, etc.) and an ushering in of a new law. This is why Christ told his disciples in Matthew 28 to go out and baptize people. This commandment to baptize would have been wrong to give (baptism was a foreign concept in the OT) if Christ believed the old law was still, and would still be in effect. Christ understood that a new law was implemented, as did Paul, and the disciples. The Jews were having a lot of trouble accepting Christ as savior, which is why so much time is spent explaining to them why the old law was null and void (sounds familiar! ☺).
Thu Mar 15, 08:19:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thu Mar 15, 08:19:00 AM 2007 
 space said...
Come on Steve, it's not good enough to say you're not convinced. The original statement in the original post is yours. The onus isn't on anyone to convince you, it's quite the opposite. It's up to you to defend your statement in light of the valid criticism that's come up and convince others what you originally said was true by offering something other then underhanded attempts to discredit individuals.
Thu Mar 15, 10:10:00 AM 2007 
 beepbeepitsme said...
RE: "Australia have no qualms about eating insects...maybe we're the ones that are missing out :)"
People in Australia eat insects? Not in my suburb they don't. Some traditional aborigines might eat witchety grubs, but these are not insects.

Anyway, a duck with four legs looks tasty. Let it grow up a bit, and serve it Duck AL'Orange.
BTW, how many legs does a duck need to have for it to be classified as a miracle? I figure 4 wouldn't be enough as many other animals have 4 lesgs. I figure that it would need 6 at least.
Then we could all pretend that it is an insect and a god given delicacy. Perhaps we would rename it the "Locust Duck" - so it fits in with the Holy Book of Babble.
Fri Mar 16, 06:21:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
It's well know that Australian Aborigines eat moths, grubs and bees. Moths and bees are instects, correct?
Fri Mar 16, 08:09:00 AM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason said: "The animals being referred to are explained in verse 22: locusts, bald locust, the beetle and the grasshopper."
So God's four-legged, flying, creeping abominations are locusts, beetles and the grasshoppers? You seem pretty sure about that, Jason. Have you read the verse?
"Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind." Lev.11:22
But 11:20 says this:
"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."
Why would God call locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers abominations in verse 20 and then say we can eat them in verse 22?
Is it okay to eat things that are abominations?
Fri Mar 16, 03:50:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Space said: "... it's not good enough to say you're not convinced. The original statement in the original post is yours. The onus isn't on anyone to convince you, it's quite the opposite."
There's no onus on me, space. I'm not interested in convincing anyone of anything. But I do think that the Old Testament God, if he existed, would consider Stumpy an abomination. He (Stumpy, that is) is a four-legged flying thing and God thinks all four-legged flying things (except locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers) are abominations. You should, too, if you believe in the God of the Bible.
Do you consider any four-legged, flying things to be abominations, space? Or do you just ignore God on this one?
Fri Mar 16, 04:02:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason said: "Deut 7:9. God keeps His promises and keeps His mercy with them that love Him. I don’t see any problems here...?"
No problem here? Read it again, Jason. (You did read it, didn't you?)
"... God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."
God loves those that "keep his commandments to a thousand generations." How many generations have passed since this verse was written? A couple hundred, at most. I'd say you still have another 10 or 15 thousand years in the deal.
Jason said: "Deut 28:15-68. This is God outlining the punishments for the Israelites not following His commandments. Again, I’m not sure what the relevance of this is…?"
No it isn't, Jason, and I bet even you can see the relevance. Read it again.
"... if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee." God will give you hemorrhoids, madness, and blindness. He'll have another man have sex with your wife. And then he'll force you to eat your own children. He will do all these things to you "If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book."
God says clearly and directly that he will force you to eat your own children if you don't "do all the words of this law that are written in this book" -- but Jason doesn't see the relevance to this.
Jason said: "1 Chronicles 16:16. God’s covenant is explained in verse 18. He promised Abraham and Isaac (and Jacob) that He would “give them the land of Canaan”. The promises made to Abraham are touched on above."
Once again let's read the verse.
"Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ... an everlasting covenant." 1 Chronicles 16:15
God said be "mindful always of his covenant" for "a thousand generations" as "an everlasting covenant." But Jason tells us that we can ignore all this because it referred only to Abraham and Jacob.
Jason said: "As for Matthew 5:19, this has already been examined on this site. '…till all be fulfilled' is the key in this verse."
Let's read the verse again.
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:18-19
Jesus said that the law would be binding on everyone "till heaven and earth pass" away. That "is the key in this verse." I don't know about heaven, but the earth is still here. Therefore (if you believe Matthew's Jesus) the law is still binding on all.
But then Jason and Paul know better than God and Jesus.
Fri Mar 16, 05:51:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Whoa, a triple header. Nice work.
Lev. 11:20 is a statement. Verse 21 contains a qualifier ("yet") as does verse 22 ("even"). Verse 23 concludes ("But all other"). In modern day English, this kind of exchange might go something like this:
"You're not allowed to eat anything in fridge, except for the bread and the tuna, but nothing else."
Deut. 7:9 - Steve, you're like a nagging parent. Yes I read the verse. Anyhow, you're putting the emphasis in the wrong place in this verse. For example, this is how the NKJV reads "Therefore know that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments;" Every other translation reads something similar.
Deut 28:15-68. I've read it and re-read it and it still says the same thing: God was warning the Israelities about what would happen if they broke the law. Am I an Israelite, Steve? Do you think these warnings are really for Christians: "The Lord will scatter these among all the people..." or "the Lord will bring you into Egypt again with ships"? Sounds awfully OT Israel- and nation-specific, does it not?
But then I guess when one ignores the verses in the NT talking about the implementation about the new covenant, these kind of misunderstandings naturally arise. You didn't read any of the verses I provided, did you. Or the little bit about the Abrahamic covenant. It's a two-way street here, Steve. Help me out a little.
1 Chronicles 16:15. lol No, no no. Verses 16-21 talk quite openly about the promises God gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their generations. If you're interested in doing further research about this particular covenant, check out Genesis 15:18, Genesis 17:2, Genesis 26:3 and Genesis 28:13-14.
Matthew 5:18-19. Christ is saying that it's impossible for the law to be changed until all is fulfilled (i.e. his death). Luke puts an interesting spin on it: Luke 16:17 "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
By the way, is there any reason why you're writing like you're speaking to a crowd? "Jason says..."
Fri Mar 16, 08:44:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
So you don't like my "Jason said" posts, eh Jason. Sorry about that, but I don't know how else to respond to the things you say without quoting what you say. So here I go again.
Jason said: "Lev. 11:20 is a statement. Verse 21 contains a qualifier ('yet') as does verse 22 ('even'). Verse 23 concludes ('But all other'). In modern day English, this kind of exchange might go something like this:
'You're not allowed to eat anything in fridge, except for the bread and the tuna, but nothing else.'"
Are you saying that locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers are the abominations of Lev.11:20? Or was God telling us that some other animals are abominations. If you don't know, that's fine. Just say so.
Fri Mar 16, 09:45:00 PM 2007 
 beepbeepitsme said...
RE: "It's well know that Australian Aborigines eat moths, grubs and bees. Moths and bees are instects, correct?"
It is?
I haven't heard of them eating moths. They do suck the honey sack off the native honey ants, but they don't eat the ant itself, as far as I am aware. And I have never heard of them eating bees. They do collect honey from the hives of the native australian honey bee.
They do eat some types of grubs. (What are commonly called "witchety grubs.")
Sat Mar 17, 06:26:00 AM 2007 
 beepbeepitsme said...
No animal is an abomination if you use enough BBQ sauce and cook it long enough.
Are crocodiles off the menu in the Babble? What about snakes?
Sat Mar 17, 06:29:00 AM 2007 
 beepbeepitsme said...
There you go. let's argue about all the different translations.
NASB: All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
GWT: "Every swarming, winged insect that walks across the ground like a four-legged animal is disgusting to you.
KJV: All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
ASV: All winged creeping things that go upon all fours are an abomination unto you.
BBE: Every winged four-footed thing which goes on the earth is disgusting to you;
DBY: Every winged crawling thing that goeth upon all four shall be an abomination unto you.
JPS: All winged swarming things that go upon all fours are a detestable thing unto you.
WBS: All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination to you.
WEB: "'All flying insects that walk on all fours are an abomination to you.
YLT: Every teeming creature which is flying, which is going on four -- an abomination it is to you.
Sat Mar 17, 06:33:00 AM 2007 
 beepbeepitsme said...
The King James version applies:
22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
That duck is a flying creeping thing. It fits the description. That's the problem with the Babble, science it ain't.
Sat Mar 17, 06:36:00 AM 2007 
 GAD said...
"That's the problem with the Babble, science it ain't."
That's why it doesn't make sense from a scientific POV. But if you think about it from the POV of men, not god, writing it, I'm sure it made sense to them in the context of the time.
The writers may have been more ignorant of the world in which they lived in then we are today, but they weren't stupid. I'm sure this made sense to them and those who heard it at the time.
The fact that the bible writers could read, write, conceive and communicate complex theories about the world around them made the elite of their day. And some might say elite even today over the 2 billion Christians who have the available knowledge to know better.
The bible is babble only from the POV of it being from "a" god.
Sat Mar 17, 11:21:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
I was only curious about why you're writing like you're talking to a crowd. Don't be so defensive :)
Anyhow. Doesn't Leviticus 11:22 say which animals the Israelites were allowed to eat? I'm not sure where you're going with this...am I missing something?
Sat Mar 17, 12:20:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
I don't understand your answers Jason.
Your first answer was clear enough: "The animals being referred to are explained in verse 22: locusts, bald locust, the beetle and the grasshopper."
But then when I pointed out that God seemed to be saying in verse 22 that locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers were not included in the list of abominable four-legged, flying creeping things, you changed your mind (it had something to do with what you can eat in the fridge or something).
So I'm not sure what you think about it anymore. Do you know which animals God said we must consider abominations in Lev.11:20? Here's the verse again. (I think the Bible-god and I like this verse more than you do Jason.)
"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Leviticus 11:20
And my question again is this. What are the four-legged, flying, creeping things that God says should be abominations to us? You seem quite sure that God didn't have Stumpy in mind here. But he must have had something in mind? Do you have any idea what that was?
Sat Mar 17, 01:01:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
"The old law is no longer applicable."
Using a hypothetical scenario here:
If a neo-nazi were to claim that he had come into contact with Adolph Hitler in the afterlife, who had "mellowed out" on the whole "jew-thing" and made some adjustments to nazi beliefs, but still wanted this person to continue preaching about the benefits of neo-nazism, would this then be "ok"? Given that it comes from the same being, just with some liberal adjustments.
Sat Mar 17, 03:25:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Ah yes, I see where I made my mistake. Humble apologies. But then, you already knew the answers to your own questions, didn't you. :) Low blow!
The locusts, etc. are the animals which are acceptable to eat.
As for which insects/creeping things the Israelities weren't allowed to eat, I don't know much about Middle Eastern insects but I would say whatever's common in the area and which exclude locust, grasshoppers and beetles.
Sat Mar 17, 06:45:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
That hypothetical scenario isn't hypothetical, it's preschool talk except with big words.
Sat Mar 17, 07:28:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
You're not interested in convincing anyone of anything??? Have you taken a look at your blog????
Sat Mar 17, 07:33:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Space,
My blog is just my thoughts about the Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon. I'd like others to find out what is in these books, think about it, and then decide for themselves what to make of them.
The books speak for themselves. My opinions about them are unimportant. If you think it's a good idea to kill witches, homosexuals, disobedient children, women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, unbelievers, etc. and then praise God for tormenting them forever in hell, you'll like these books. If not, you won't.
Once people find out what's in these books, they'll make the right decision. It's just a matter of time. And they won't need me or anyone else to convince them of anything.
Sat Mar 17, 09:34:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
Decide for themselves...lol "My opinion about them is unimportant" followed by "If you think it's a good idea to kill...". Do you think you offer an unbiased point of view with all the relevant facts presented for an individual to make an intellectual decision about "these books"?
Sat Mar 17, 09:45:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
So you're not sure which four-legged, flying creeping things God told us to consider abominations, eh Jason? It wasn't beetles, locusts, or grasshoppers. And it wasn't Stumpy. Yet Stumpy is the only four-legged, flying creeping thing that anyone has discussed here so far.
Maybe Stumpy is the abomination that God was referring to in Lev.11:20. God knew that Stumpy would come along and he said the words of Lev.11:20 just for him.
So far I haven't seen anyone suggest a more likely candidate for God's mysterious and abominable four-legged, flying creeping thing.
Sat Mar 17, 09:53:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Space said: "Do you think you offer an unbiased point of view with all the relevant facts presented for an individual to make an intellectual decision about 'these books'?"
Yes I do.
Do you think it's a good idea to kill witches, homosexuals, disobedient children, women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, unbelievers, etc. and then praise God for tormenting them forever in hell?
(You do acknowledge that all these things are in the books, don't you space?)
Sat Mar 17, 10:01:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
That hypothetical scenario isn't hypothetical, it's preschool talk except with big words.
And yet, you bothered to reply to it. Just a shame you couldn't actually give an answer in that reply. I thought my question was pretty legitimate, since the Third Reich was one of few regimes that managed atrocities of biblical proportions.
About the four-legged dilemma, could this be an example of a mercy killing? After all, if an insect gets two out of six legs snapped off, I'd assume it would be benevolent to put it out of its misery rather than hobble around disabled.
Sun Mar 18, 04:24:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
I readily admit I made a mistake. ☺ It’s all good.
1. The laws in Leviticus were written for the Israelites and only for the Israelites. We’ve been through this before, right? The old law was made null and void with the death of Christ so Leviticus 11:20 isn’t a prophecy of 21st Century Stumpy.
2. When were chickens introduced to the Middle East?
Sun Mar 18, 08:21:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
I'm VERY glad to hear your view is unbiased! I would therefore like to request you post a few positive thoughts about the love and mercy of God, the life of Christ, the salvation that's promised to the righteous, and perhaps a few character studies of individuals showing incredible courage, love, etc or even an examination of the Psalms. You know, to show both sides of your unbiased view.
(God tormenting people in hell. Question: How many instances are there in the OT of people being tormented in Hell)
And do I think it's a good idea for God to have done all those things? My opinion is irrelevant. God does what God will do. Regardless, you should really try reading the NT (FYI - the NT is the other half of the Bible). The new relationship that's described between God and man is relevant and practical to people today, unlike the OT.
Again, this would go a long way in showing your unbiased view of God and the Bible.
Mon Mar 19, 07:28:00 AM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason said: I readily admit I made a mistake.
Well, I made one, too, Jason. I was wrong when I said that Leviticus 11:20 clearly declares Stumpy an abomination. I'm not so sure about that. Stumpy is a four-legged fowl, so he might be an abomination in the Bible-god's warped mind. But the verse may (or may not) refer only to four-legged insects (which don't exist).
The laws in Leviticus were written for the Israelites and only for the Israelites. We’ve been through this before, right?
Oh yeah, we've been through this before. You ignore God and Jesus by following Paul.
So we can completely ignore all the laws in the Old Testament, every damned jot and tittle? Even the Ten Commandments? What the hell was Jesus thinking when he said:
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19
Wouldn't Leviticus 11:20 be qualify as one of the least commandments? Then shouldn't we do and teach it in order to be called great in the kingdom of heaven?
I guess Jesus should have talked to you (and Paul) before making such a silly statement.
When were chickens introduced to the Middle East?
Chickens evolved in Asia and were first domesticated there around 6000 BCE. By the time the Leviticus was written (6th - 7th century BCE), chickens were domesticated throughout the Europe and the Middle East.
Mon Mar 19, 07:00:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Surely you have a better argument then claiming that Paul’s writings, which make up half of the NT, didn’t come from God…
We can ignore all the laws in the Old Testament except for the ones repeated by Christ in the NT since it’s these laws he mentions as still being applicable. Are the 10 Commandments mentioned by Christ?
Matthew 5:19. I’ll just copy and paste. …this has already been examined on this site. “…till all be fulfilled” is the key in this verse. The old law couldn’t pass away until Christ had died and been risen. "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." Hebrews 9:16
When Jesus said those words in Matthew 5:19, he was telling the truth: nothing from the law could pass away UNTIL all be fulfilled. After these things were fulfilled (his death and resurrection), every jot and tittle could technically pass from the law. Leviticus 11:20 would definitely have been applicable during Christ’s time, but again, only up until the point of his death. Same goes for the requirement of a high priest to forgive sins, animal sacrifices, mandatory circumcision, etc. etc. etc.
Here’s a few more old law vs. new law verses:
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ…
2 Cr 3:14 But their [Jews] minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law…
Gal 3:24-25 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Leviticus was written in 600BC? I could have sworn Leviticus was written by Moses prior to the Israelites entering the Promised Land, and most certainly prior to the building of King Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6:1)…
Tue Mar 20, 05:59:00 AM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Paul's writings didn't come from God, Moses didn't write Leviticus, and both Jesus and the Old Testament God are quite clear that the laws of the Old Testament are binding on everyone forever. But none of this has much to do with Stumpy and other four-legged, flying abominations.
Tue Mar 20, 07:44:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Actually it has everything to do with Stumpy. What was your original statement? "Okay, Stumpy is kind of cute. But he's an abomination to God and to all true Bible-believers. It's one of the few things that the Bible is clear about."
This is why you're debunking Paul and half of the NT. He's a threat to your old law opinion. See, you keep talking about about how the OT laws are binding to everyone but you're not offering anything by way of facts.
I don't think I've ever seen an atheist voluntarily choose to side with God and Jesus. This is a first.
In terms of Jesus viewing the OT laws as binding, did Jesus ever command his disciples and followers to offer sacrifices as a means to forgive their sins? Why did Jesus command baptism? Did Jesus command his followers to seek out Levitical priests so they could forgive their sins? And what exactly did Jesus mean by this phrase in light of your opinion about the meaning of Matthew 5:19: "...These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." (Luke 24:24) and "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst." (John 19:28)
Tue Mar 20, 08:26:00 AM 2007 
 GAD said...
Hum......... So don't worry about the all the absurditys of the OT, we did a rewrite and cleaned them up in the NT. How convenient. Funny how quickly the OT it dismissed when it gets in the way, it's even funnier how quickly it is resurrected to prove to that the NT is real and not just made up by it's followers....................
Tue Mar 20, 11:02:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Everything in Scripture ultimately points to Christ. The OT law was no different. These laws were never meant to be perfect in the sense that they couldn't completely take away sin. Sin offerings were required on a continual basis and while this process worked for the OT Israelites, it nonetheless hearkened forward to Christ's perfect sacrifice, a sacrifice which would never need be followed by another.
No one's dismissing the OT. What's being dismissed is the argument that the Mosaic law is still applicable to believers today. If these laws were still in place, believers today would still be sacrificing animals and the life, death and resurrection of Christ would be completely irrelevant.
Tue Mar 20, 12:35:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason said: This is why you're debunking Paul and half of the NT. He's a threat to your old law opinion. See, you keep talking about how the OT laws are binding to everyone but you're not offering anything by way of facts.
Paul is a threat to my old law opinion? Paul isn't a threat to anyone or anything.
I "keep talking about how the OT laws are binding to everyone" because that is what the Old Testament God and Jesus clearly say. As I've said before, I don't think the OT laws are binding on anyone. They are the cruel and absurd laws of an imaginary God. I strongly recommend that everyone stay the hell away from them.
I don't think I've ever seen an atheist voluntarily choose to side with God and Jesus.
I'm not taking sides here, Jason; you are. The OT God and Jesus say we must follow the OT law; you and Paul say we shouldn't. It's just one of the hundreds of contradictions found in the Bible.
Should Christians follow the Old Testment's laws?
Tue Mar 20, 04:02:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason said: Here’s a few more old law vs. new law verses:
Thanks, Jason! I added three of your verses to the Must
Christians obey the Old Testament's Laws? contradiction.
Let me know if there are others I should add.
Tue Mar 20, 05:38:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
And yet you still choose to ignore the points that threaten your view that the Old Testament laws were binding...
Did Jesus ever command his disciples and followers to offer sacrifices as a means to forgive their sins? Why not? Didn't the old law revolve such a practice?
How could Jesus come to be High Priest if he wasn't from the lineage of Aaron?
Why did Jesus preach baptism as a means of forgiveness and salvation if it's not even hinted at in the old law?
And what exactly did Jesus mean by this phrase in light of your opinion about the meaning of Matthew 5:19: "...These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." (Luke 24:24)?
Or "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst." (John 19:28)
(You might as well add the last two to your growing list of contradictions...although they weren't written by Paul...hopefully that won't cause too much of a problem...?)
Tue Mar 20, 09:52:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
space said...
I'm VERY glad to hear your view is unbiased!
I'm very glad you're glad, space.
I try to point out the Bible's good and bad stuff at the SAB. And I discuss them both here. It's true that there are more posts dealing with the Bible's bad stuff, but then there's a lot more bad than good in the "good book".
(God tormenting people in hell. Question: How many instances are there in the OT of people being tormented in Hell)
The Old Testament God doesn't torment people in hell. He hasn't even heard of hell. Hell is a Christian invention.
And do I think it's a good idea for God to have done all those things? My opinion is irrelevant. God does what God will do.
And what does God do, space? Does he tell people to kill witches, homosexuals, disobedient children, women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, unbelievers, etc.? Does he torment people forever in hell? Do you think these things are good ideas? Would you mark them "good" in your annotated Bible? (Your opinion is important and relevant. Or it should be, at least to you.)
...you should really try reading the NT (FYI - the NT is the other half of the Bible).
Oh, I've read it, space. And although it has a few good ideas, it is, on the whole, a rather silly book.
The new relationship that's described between God and man is relevant and practical to people today, unlike the OT.
Oh, the believe-or-be-tormented-forever-in-hell relationship? Yes, I need to address that more at the blog. Thanks for reminding me.
You say the Old Testament isn't relevant or practical?
Well I like the way you're thinking here, space. And I agree with you: the OT isn't relevant or practical anymore. It never was. It wasn't inspired by God and its laws and teachings are barbaric and immoral. But Jesus disagreed.
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17
Wed Mar 28, 04:21:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
Hm. Has the NT God heard of hell?
Oh, and here's why my opinion doesn't matter: Romans 9. "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
I'll just copy and past from someone else's answers in reply to your bizarre instance that the old law is still relevant:
"Did Jesus ever command his disciples and followers to offer sacrifices as a means to forgive their sins? Why not? Didn't the old law revolve such a practice?
How could Jesus come to be High Priest if he wasn't from the lineage of Aaron?
Why did Jesus preach baptism as a means of forgiveness and salvation if it's not even hinted at in the old law?
And what exactly did Jesus mean by this phrase in light of your opinion about the meaning of Matthew 5:19: "...These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." (Luke 24:24)?
Or "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst." (John 19:28)"
Thu Mar 29, 04:56:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
I'd like to comment on this if I may.
First, you have no idea what if anything that Jesus ever said, and neither does the writer of Matthew because neither of you were there. And yes it is different then other events in history, so any argument that it is no different then any other event in accepted history is false.
I read this passage and have no idea how anyone can say that this means that all the old laws are done away with. Wishful thinking at best! The writers of the NT wanted to justify their ideas and beliefs and what better way to do so then to try and tie it to the OT foundation it was created from. They believed that Jesus was the messiah when those around them did not, what better way to try and prove that Jesus was the messiah then to try and tie him to as many passages in the OT as possible, even if you have to make them up.
Matthew 5:19: "...These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."
So from my view this passage does not say anything about doing away with the [any] old laws at all. The key phrase in "concerning me" i.e. all things that "prove" that I am the messiah, as written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, must be fulfilled as proof that I am [or any one else making a messiah claim] the messiah.
There are other passages in the NT that seem to loosen up some of the OT laws, but after 1000's of years of killing animals and each other for things like picking up sticks on the wrong day [with no real improvement in life to show for it], it is only normal that there would be a shift towards more enlightened and reasonable views of god. That same process continues today with women and gays in the church as prime examples of changing and enlightened views of god and his word.
Fri Mar 30, 09:35:00 AM 2007 
 space said...
If the authors of the NT wanted to justify their ideas and beliefs by tying them into the OT:
1. Why did they write Jesus in as a high priest when he wasn't from the line of Aaron?
2. How could NT writers justifying their beliefs without ever referencing animal sacrifices as a means to forgive sins?
3. Why instead would they write in the concept of "one man, one sacrifice"?
4. Where in the old testament is one sacrifice ever enough to forgive sins?
5. Where is baptism taught in the OT law and why was it taught as a means of salvation in the NT?
6. Why would a NT writer, supposedly justifying his beliefs by using the old law, write "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."? (Gal 3:24-25)
7. Where is circumcision taught as a mandatory practice by the NT writers?
8. Why would a pro-OT NT writer write in a chracter such as a Jesus who criticized his own people for hanging on to outdated laws?
9. Why would NT writers mock OT-based groups such as the Scribes and Pharisees if these people supported the very beliefs of the writers?
But then, if you had put a little effort into trying to answer your own questions first, you'd already have had these written down.
Fri Mar 30, 09:32:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
Good god, OK step back. It was stated that Matthew 5:19 is proof that Jesus did away with the OT laws (except the ones he specifically mentions, which can't be throw out because then the argument would be even sillier then it already is).
"Matthew 5:19: "...These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."
I gave a specific opinion on Matthew 5:19 here.
"So from my view this passage does not say anything about doing away with the [any] old laws at all. The key phrase in "concerning me" i.e. all things that "prove" that I am the messiah, as written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, must be fulfilled as proof that I am [or any one else making a messiah claim] the messiah."
And a larger opinion in the rest of my post.
In typical Christian fashion and misdirection your reply is all over the map and not in context to the opinion I stated. Then to add insult to injury you accuse me of not thinking of a better opinion to have.............. LOL
OK, I already went this far, why not waste another 60 seconds to answer these.
1. Why did they write Jesus in as a high priest when he wasn't from the line of Aaron?
Because it sounded better. They were stupid? What ever the answer it could not go against prophecy, otherwise he wouldn't be the messiah! Of course he wasn't high priest of anything except his cult of 12 followers.
2. How could NT writers justifying their beliefs without ever referencing animal sacrifices as a means to forgive sins?
Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. In context of what I stated in the first place was a pointless point.
3. Why instead would they write in the concept of "one man, one sacrifice"?
Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. In context of what I stated in the first place was a pointless point.
4. Where in the old testament is one sacrifice ever enough to forgive sins?
It never was for redemption, because there was none in the OT. This seems like the reverse of the argument you made with me on the other thread..........
and
Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. In context of what I stated in the first place was a pointless point.

5. Where is baptism taught in the OT law and why was it taught as a means of salvation in the NT?
Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. In context of what I stated in the first place was a pointless point.

6. Why would a NT writer, supposedly justifying his beliefs by using the old law, write "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."? (Gal 3:24-25)
Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. In context of what I stated in the first place was a pointless point.
7. Where is circumcision taught as a mandatory practice by the NT writers?
Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. In context of what I stated in the first place was a pointless point.
8. Why would a pro-OT NT writer write in a character such as a Jesus who criticized his own people for hanging on to outdated laws?
Because they wanted to change them to something that made more sense!!!
and
Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. In context of what I stated in the first place was a pointless point.
9. Why would NT writers mock OT-based groups such as the Scribes and Pharisees if these people supported the very beliefs of the writers?
All the above!
If you had put a little effort into trying to understand what I wrote first, you wouldn't have wasted both our time on these pointless points..... :)
Fri Mar 30, 11:33:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
First of all, there was no 'proof' statement re: Matthew 5:19. Second of all, Matthew 5:19 is part of a collection of similar verses all reading the same thing: “until all be fulfilled”. What we’re looking at is what had to be fulfilled before the old law could pass away. Now the book of Hebrews says Jesus was the mediator of the new testament and that a change in the testament could only come as a result of a death. Jesus’ death ‘killed’ the old testament/old law. Pretty straightforward, no?
Going through your responses, I see you haven’t answered anything in relation to your original comment. Every fundamental OT law such as circumcision, animal sacrifices, forgiveness and the priesthood is never taught or re-taught by NT writers. This in itself should be cause enough to look into things a bit deeper. In fact, many NT laws don’t have any foundation in the OT whatsoever (baptism, salvation, Christ as high priest, etc) and even Christ himself automatically made many of the OT laws null and void (the priesthood, animal sacrifices, etc.).
So in summary, your statement that the NT writers were justifying their ideas and beliefs by tying them into the OT is just plain wrong. There is no room, or point, for Christ if the old laws are still in place.
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.". (Gal 3:24-25)
Sun Apr 01, 07:12:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
No more Stumpy talk...?
:)
I agree with space. Gad, as admirable as your repetitious answers are, your point of view doesn't hold any water when you consider that none of the new testament writers ever repeated the importance of following the laws laid out in the old. I don't see how a new testament writer can prove Jesus was messiah on one hand while on the other he believes sacrificing animals is necessary to forgive sins. It just doesn't make sense.
And these writers weren't stupid. The scribes and Pharisees knew the old testament back to front; the writers of the new testament were no different. They would have known that a messiah couldn't exist as long as the old law was still in effect. It was literally impossible. Really, the old law had to be removed before any kind of proof could be presented that a messiah had come, one who preached very different things then what had been established thousands of years earlier.
Sun Apr 01, 07:28:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
So your primary argument is that because the NT writers [ Jews with new ideas and beliefs about god] throw out or rewrote nearly every OT law and added new ones never used before, that that is proof that Jesus was god! That follows right along with "it is absurd therefore I believe"! That's good info to know, when I write a new [lost] book of the bible I'll be sure to change all the NT laws as proof that it is really another book from god................
"So in summary, your statement that the NT writers were justifying their ideas and beliefs by tying them into the OT is just plain wrong."
Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. Thats the tying them into the OT part. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. Which they did, as you your self keep stating! You also jump through hoops to try and prove that the OT "prophecies" prove Jesus was messiah, but when I say it you ignore it?
We both agree that the that the OT "prophecies" are used to "try" and prove that Jesus was messiah. But then in the NT Jesus seems to disregard or change the OT laws and even adds new ones. That's a problem that wasn't expected (like the "second coming"), so you scan the bible for any passage that can be bent to possibly explain it, and to crown off this weak theory, you claim that they were changed is proof in it self of god!
"There is no room, or point, for Christ if the old laws are still in place."
Exactly! I think god chosen people, the Jews, back up me on this.....................
Sun Apr 01, 07:56:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
This topic has nothing to do with Jesus being messiah or prophecy. This is about Stumpy. And so I have to ask: Huh? “Jesus is god”? What’re you talking about? We’re establishing whether or not the OT laws regarding which animals were allowed to be eaten are still applicable today. My point is that the OT laws were done away with because of the vast number of NT verses proving they were done away with. There’s no mention of animal sacrifices, no mention of priests from the line of Aaron, no instructions on mandatory circumcision, etc. etc. etc and completely new concepts like baptism are introduced. Why? Because the OT was done away with!
You want to be backed up by the Jews on your opinion of OT laws vs NT laws? Then by all means.
2Cr 3:13 “And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.”
Mon Apr 02, 08:03:00 AM 2007 
 GAD said...
Jason said
"I don't see how a new testament writer can prove Jesus was messiah on one hand while on the other he believes sacrificing animals is necessary to forgive sins. It just doesn't make sense."
That's not what I said! Are you and Space the same person? You misread and misinterpret the same points, you take the same things out of context and you quote the same things even when they make no sense......... Bothers? Coworkers? IM buddies?
Mon Apr 02, 01:33:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
"We’re establishing whether or not the OT laws regarding which animals were allowed to be eaten are still applicable today."
Well, actually, this stated out as "Stumpy is kind of cute. But he's an abomination to God and to all true Bible-believers." Then the true believers tried to prove that that was not what the bible said. After going around and around trying to prove it, and failing, the true believers pleaded no contest and stated that it doesn't matter if it is sensible or non-sensible because the OT doesn't apply any more. Cheap cop out, but OK. The true believers then proceeded to try and prove that Jesus did away with the old laws with passages that did not say that in my view.
I gave a specific opinion on Matthew 5:19 here.
"So from my view this passage does not say anything about doing away with the [any] old laws at all. The key phrase in "concerning me" i.e. all things that "prove" that I am the messiah, as written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, must be fulfilled as proof that I am [or any one else making a messiah claim] the messiah."
And a larger opinion in the rest of my post.
You then say;
"My point is that the OT laws were done away with because of the vast number of NT verses proving they were done away with."
I say I don't see where Jesus does away with them per sa. In the NT Jesus seems to disregard or change the OT laws and even adds new ones. That's a problem that wasn't expected (like the "second coming"), and has to be dealt with by the NT writers after the fact, based on the oral stories of Jesus. You then can the bible for any passage that can be bent to possibly explain it, and to crown off this weak theory, you claim that they were changed is proof in it self of god! Which is absurd!
Now you throw out 2Cr 3:13 as proof? Which is written by Paul, which just takes this back to the argument earlier on this thread about following Paul's view not Jesus'...................... Also note that quoting Paul does not take away from my theory, but in fact adds support to it................... Yes, it does! Go back and reread the thread and see if you can't see that that is the case in fact!
Mon Apr 02, 01:53:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
Thanks for the summary :) Although I still have to ask: “Jesus is god”? Huh?
Your opinion on Matthew 5:19 is very nice and all but it has nothing to do with whether or not the old law is valid. Whoa. De ja vu.
Jesus disregards and changes the OT and adds new laws precisely because the old law was being done away with. He was the mediator of the new covenant. The new laws started with him. You’re starting to get it!!!
“That’s a problem that wasn’t expected...” lol That’s just too funny. It wasn't expected...", you say it like you just got off the phone with them! Didn’t these same writers also write in the story of Jesus? Why wouldn’t they have just changed Christ’s words to match their beliefs?
Oh yes, the old “Paul didn’t follow Jesus” view. It’s the most logical solution: when you’re all out of ideas, try discounting ¾ of the NT and cross your fingers. Lol Do you have anything substantial to back up this Paul vs. Jesus view?
I like 2 Timothy 3:16.
Mon Apr 02, 09:27:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
Co-workers? No. Brothers? In a sense, sure. :)
Mon Apr 02, 09:41:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
If I may: “The writers of the NT wanted to justify their ideas and beliefs and what better way to do so then to try and tie it to the OT foundation it was created from. They believed that Jesus was the messiah when those around them did not, what better way to try and prove that Jesus was the messiah then to try and tie him to as many passages in the OT as possible, even if you have to make them up.”
These are your words, gad. From the sounds of it, you believe the new testament writers wanted to justify their ideas and beliefs and thought that the best way to do so was by tying them to the OT foundation they were created from. Is this misreading and misinterpreting?
So in response, this is why I wrote, “I don't see how a new testament writer can prove Jesus was messiah on one hand while on the other he believes sacrificing animals is necessary to forgive sins. It just doesn't make sense.”
I say this because for anyone to believe Christ is messiah, the old testament laws must be of no affect since the two are at odds with each other. This is why a new law was established. And so back we go to Stumpy. At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter if Stumpy was an ostrich or a snake or a chicken; there are no animals that are abominations to 21st century Christians.
Tue Apr 03, 12:14:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason said...
"Everything in Scripture ultimately points to Christ."
Really? You mean Malachi 2:3 points to Christ?
"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces."
How about Ezekiel 23:20?
"For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses."
Deuteronomy 25:11-12?
"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her."
All the nasty, cruel, disgusting stuff in the Old Testament points to Jesus? I think I'd point it at somone else if I were you.
Wed Apr 18, 04:38:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason said...
No more Stumpy talk...?
I'd love to keep talking about Stumpy, Jason. Have you changed your mind? Is Stumpy a four-legged fowl? Is he an abomination to God? Should he be an abomination to all bible believers? If not what animals was God referring to in Leviticus 11:20? ("All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.")
Wed Apr 18, 05:09:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
The old law doesn't apply to 21st century Christians, Steve :)
Your questions have already been answered, some of them multiple times.
Thu Apr 19, 06:46:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason said...
"Your questions have already been answered, some of them multiple times."
Really? I must have missed them.
Could you tell me (again) what animals God was referring to in Leviticus 11:20("All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.")?
I never saw a clear answer from you on this, Jason. Is it just the four-legged fowls that aren't locusts, grasshoppers or beetles?
Would the four-legged fowls include only insects? Or would it include Stumpy, too?
Sun Apr 22, 11:46:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Yes Steve, you did miss them :) The four-legged conundrum has already been "clearly" answered.
Mon Apr 23, 08:32:00 AM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Yes Steve, you did miss them :) The four-legged conundrum has already been "clearly" answered.
Well then what were your answers?
Here are the questions again.
What animals God was referring to in Leviticus 11:20 ("All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.")?
Is it just the four-legged fowls that aren't locusts, grasshoppers or beetles?
Would the four-legged fowls include only insects? Or would it include Stumpy, too?
Wed Apr 25, 06:15:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
---
...There are several verses, translated in English, implying that insects have four legs. In reality, the Hebrew word 'sherets', translated as "insect" (or "creeping" in some Bibles), is not nearly as specific as it seems. For example, in Genesis, sherets refers to swarming sea creatures, in the flood account (Genesis 7) sherets refers to rodents, and in Leviticus, sherets refers to crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles.
It would seem that the term sherets was never intended as a specific biological classification system, so to say that it specifically refers to "insects" is deceptive.
Were the writers of the Bible unaware that insects have six legs? This statement would seem rather silly, but as is apparent in this collection of posts, some actually make this claim... However, one of the verses seems to clearly indicate that these "four-legged" insects have six legs:
"Yet these you may eat among all the [sherets] which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth." (Leviticus 11:21)
The key part of the verse is the phrase "above their feet jointed legs." The Hebrew uses two different words to describe the "feet" (regel) and "legs" (kera). What the verse says is that these insects walk on four "feet" (their anterior four short legs), with an additional two "legs" that are used for jumping. Therefore, all six appendages are described.
Finally, the Jewish Encylopedia says this about "sherets": ("shereẓ," Gen. vii. 21; Lev. v. 2; xi. 10, 29; Deut. xiv. 19) applies only to animals that swarm, whether terrestrial, such as the weasel, mouse, lizard (Lev. v. 29); aquatic (Lev. xi. 10; Gen. i. 2; compare Ex. vii. 28 [A.V. viii. 3]); or even winged (Lev. xi. 20-23). The fundamental connotation of the verb and noun is undoubtedly the incalculably prolific multitudes of little animals which always appear in troops or swarms. The R. V. therefore gives the translation "breed abundantly" (Gen. viii. 17, ix. 7; compare Ex. i. 7).
---
Thu Apr 26, 07:43:00 AM 2007 
 Ryan said...
whoa whoa did this become a hebrew lesson or something?
So apparently what you're saying is that the English version of the bible can be dismissed as misleading and false? If not, then why the enthusiasm in bring Hebrew-English translations here? Shouldn't we all go learn Hebrew then, JUST to read the bible and be saved? Is the author of the English OT and NT NOT celestially enlightened? Is this fair?
But we'll let that one slide, since no one else (i'm assuming) here knows Hebrew. However, you said in one of your previous messages that:
The old law doesn't apply to 21st century Christians, Steve :)
Sigh...
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)
Uh-oh...
And don't give us the "That is not a law" thing. Last time I checked, law in Christianity stood for a commandment or a revelation from God. If you consider God to be the absolute law-maker, then every word he says is a law, whether you like it or not. Like Reverend Hale said: "Theology, sir, is a fortress; no crack in a fortress may be accounted small." If you consider Genesis 1:1 to be valid, then all else is valid. There is no arguing on that one.
Tue May 01, 01:52:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
No one needs to know Hebrew to understand the Bible. Pick up a concordance. It does the work for you.
The law we're discussing, Ryan, is the law given to Moses, the same law that required animal sacrifices.
Exd 24:12 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them."
Hbr 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."
Thanks for your input though.
Wed May 02, 07:58:00 AM 2007 
 Ryan said...
Yes but I'm saying that the English version of the bible is solely dependent on its translator's discretion, in other words, NOT the exact meaning and wording as conveyed by the Apostles and god. (Like I said earlier, my grandmother could very well have written a translation of the bible and put in "in the beginning god created cheese".) So, misinterpretations and skeptical comments are unavoidable when it comes to interpretations of wording, just like Steve said: stumpy is considered a "...fowl that creep[s], going upon all four.."
And I'm sorry but I was talking about stumpy and didn't know that you were talking about Moses.
same question as the other post on the thread a little above this one:
what of the Puritans and the Fire and Brimstone evangelists? Do you think they are going to heaven or hell? If hell, then have they been forsaken by god? They believed in him, in his words, yet the only mistake was probably their misinterpretation or even lack of the NT.
I should start abridging my messages... They're turning into rants..
Fri May 04, 12:27:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
The original Hebrew and Greek is accessible to everyone.
(Here's the "going to hell" bit again) No one goes to hell since it doesn't exist so it shouldn't really be a concern for anyone.
Fri May 04, 10:02:00 AM 2007 
 Ryan said...
"No one goes to hell since it doesn't exist"
- o_o? Why do you say so?
Fri May 04, 08:54:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Firstly, when people die, they all go to the same place: the grave. It's the whole "dust to dust" bit laid out in Genesis. "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (Gen 3:19)
Plus:
"put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man...his breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, in that very day his thoughts perish." (Ps.146:3-4). If there is a hell, no one's conscious of being there :)
"There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest...when they can find the grave." (Job 3:17,22) If there is a hell, people better start including the weary, prisoners, servants and the small and great as those worthy of suffering for eternity in agony.
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten" (Ecc. 9:5). This one speaks for itself.
Secondly, going to hell (or heaven) after death means there are two judgments: One immediately following death and another when Christ returns. However this concept isn't found anywhere in the Bible. Only ONE judgment is mentioned - that of Christ's.
Mon May 07, 09:47:00 AM 2007 
 Andrew said...
Jason, I'm confused. I thought the Bible talked about a place of eternal torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth, and the people will be tormented with fire and brimstone for ever and ever. Why would the Bible say this if it was not so?
Tue Oct 23, 09:20:00 PM 2007 
 gatogreensleeves said...
"In reality, the Hebrew word 'sherets', translated as "insect" (or "creeping" in some Bibles), is not nearly as specific as it seems..."
So what animals this verse refers to is "clearly" unclear? Good thing no-one wants to use the bible in science class... um... http://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/florida-state-senate-bill-2692-the-we-have-no-scientific-standards-act/
Thu May 08, 02:42:00 PM 2008 
 gatogreensleeves said...
"The old law doesn't apply to 21st century Christians, Steve"
When Christians try to get out of the OT Law, at the end of the day, we are left with a collection of moral abuses that stand qualitatively as a record of what Yahweh likes and hates, evidenced by the relative punishments. EVEN IF one concedes that Christians are absolved of the OT via Jesus (which opens a huge Pandora's Box of issues in itself), the record of Yahweh's moral taste and the RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP OF PUNISHMENTS are "clearly" defined (why working on the Sabbath is worse than when you beat your slave and he dies after a couple of days), so ethical arguments STILL APPLY> Get it??
Thu May 08, 02:53:00 PM 2008 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 28 May 2007Getting a tan from the Book of Mormon
The Book of Mormon is black and white about skin color.
White skin is good and "delightsome"; black skin is bad and "loathsome". In fact, God created dark skin just to punish people for their bad behavior.
And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity ... wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people. 2 Nephi 5:21-22
This color-coding scheme was designed by God to separate the good from the bad and to keep them forever separate. God will curse the children that result from any "seed mixing".
And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. 2 Nephi 5:23
And the difference between the races is much more than skin deep. God not only darkened the skin of people of color; he made them lazy, wild, and mischievous, as well.
And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey. 2 Nephi 5:24
[But people of color shouldn't give up all hope. God's curse can be undone, at least in certain circumstances. An especially well-behaved dark-skinned person may become white and delightsome again! (See 3 Nephi 2:14-16)]
And readers of this blog should take note: God may cause your skin to darken if you spend your time dwindling in unbelief.
And the angel said unto me: Behold these shall dwindle in unbelief. And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations. 1 Nephi 12:22-23
But then, that might not be such a bad thing. You'll be loathsome, filthy, lazy, and abominable to God, but you'll get a nice, safe tan out of it!
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/28/2007 02:58:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
9 comments:
 mel said...
Nice one, Steve.
It really amazes me that modern Mormons talk about how JS was no racist, that he ordained black men and ... blah, blah, blah. From a believing perspective this seem fair enough, then only god was a racist and that's his prerogative. But of course JS was a racist who wrote a book that makes it appear as though racism is godly. How convenient.
An people still don't get why Dawkins, Harris, et al think religion is bad?
Tue May 29, 08:06:00 PM 2007 
 Cristiano said...
Yeah, people tend to create their gods like a mirror of themselves.
Thu May 31, 10:51:00 AM 2007 
 sattvicwarrior said...
i LOVE your blog. your brilliant. . wish i had your eloquence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fri Jun 01, 02:11:00 PM 2007 
 mary said...
joseph smith was a racist snake oil salesman!
supposedly hated indians!
Mon Jun 04, 09:19:00 AM 2007 
 McGuire said...
I'd heartily recommend following this post up by watching South Park's "All About Mormons" episode ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_About_Mormons
Though curiously their heaven IS only populated by Mormons ;)
Tue Jun 05, 12:26:00 PM 2007 
 Big Orange (a.k.a. "Uncle Moonpie") said...
do Mormons ever actually READ that book they carry 'round??
Thu Jun 07, 06:12:00 AM 2007 
 Robert said...
Their bible sounds like it is horribly written by some half-intelligent racist. Mormons are half-retarded. My God says Mormons are the devil!
Thu Oct 25, 03:51:00 PM 2007 
 Moses said...
It is very telling that LDS/Mormons en masse do not laugh at this notion. Surely there have been evils committed by mass murderers, Facist dictators, and tyrants of every stripe that have warranted "the curse." How, for example, did Adolph Hitler escape said curse for killing millions, but Cain only killed his brother... Mind boggling.
Further, the whole "dwindling in unbelief" as an explanation for Native American skin color, apart from being mind numbingly absurd, is also clearly avoided by nearly the entire planet of unbelievers.
I actually live in Utah, and am in a constant state of awe and wonder at many of my fellow 'Ewe-tawns.'
I suppose the only thing you really need to know about this state is that George W. Bush still enjoys a greater than 60% approval rating....
[fade into banjo music]
Thu Dec 13, 11:13:00 AM 2007 
 Ryan said...
The weird thing is, people of color actually do subscribe to Mormonism! I don't know if it's because they expect to be saved or because they ignore that part of the Book of Mormon, but they still consider themselves to be good Mormons.
I have an aunt who's Filipino and at least CALLS herself a Mormon, but then she also votes Democrat. That seems a bit liberal for a Mormon, but maybe I just haven't met many. I'm glad she is so liberal, but I think it's hypocritical to go against church doctrine, and to say you're going to heaven when YOUR OWN RELIGION says that by definition you are wrong.
Sat Oct 04, 10:10:00 PM 2008 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 25 June 2007The Finger of Jesus
Who was the first person to see Jesus?
You might think it was Mary or Joseph, then maybe the magi, the shepherds, and the little drummer boy. But you'd be wrong. If the Book of Mormon is right, that is.
The first person to see Jesus was the brother of Jared (aka Mahonri Moriancumer). And he saw him more than 2200 years before Jesus was born. (The brother of Jared lived during the time of the Tower of Babel.)
It's a long silly story and I don't have time to repeat it here, but here are a few highlights.
The brother of Jared saw "the finger of the Lord" when Jesus was making some magic lights out of 16 stones that the brother of Jared had formed by melting some rocks.
And it came to pass that the brother of Jared ... did molten out of a rock sixteen small stones; and they were white and clear, even as transparent glass. ...
O Lord, ... behold these things which I have molten out of the rock. ...
... touch these stones, O Lord, with thy finger, and prepare them that they may shine forth in darkness. ...
Behold, O Lord, thou canst do this. ...
And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord. Ether 3:1-6
Okay, he didn't get to see all of Jesus, but he saw his finger. And that was spooky enough -- for both of them apparently.
I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me. ...
And the Lord said unto him ... Sawest thou more than this? Ether 3:8-9
Finally, after a bit more discussion, Jesus shows his whole body to the brother of Jared, and reveals that he is not only the Son of God but also the Father.
Behold, the Lord showed himself unto him,and said ... I show myself unto you. ...
Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. Ether 3:13-14
So what's-his-name got to see not only the finger of Jesus but the whole enchilada, Father and Son.
I'll bet it looked a lot like this.

Posted by Steve Wells at 6/25/2007 09:39:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
4 comments:
 Daisy said...
Love the picture!
Sun Jul 08, 07:30:00 PM 2007 
 KickSave23 said...
You know, when I was younger, I was dating a hyper-religious girl, and we would often chat in a religious chatroom when she was away at school. Whenever a Mormon person would come in, they would be inquisitioned away as being non-Christians. At the time, I found it hard to justify how Christians could add books to the OT, but not even allow the possibility of doing the same with the BoM.
Now, after reading more than a few passages... She was right.
Fri Jul 13, 05:13:00 PM 2007 
 Rick said...
I love the set-up . . . and the photo is a great punchline. Well done.
CV Rick
Sun Jul 29, 05:16:00 AM 2007 
 Ryan said...
I'd love to see Jared's dumbstruck expression when he comes face to face with Jesus's middle finger.
He would probably say something among the lings of: "Wow, Holy Fuck."
Wed Aug 01, 01:37:00 AM 2007 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.








Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 06 June 2007Giving up on the Bible
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:18
Some things in the Bible are hard to understand. But this isn't one of them.
The meaning of Exodus 22:18 is clear and simple: kill witches. Kill them whenever and wherever you find them. It is your sacred duty, a direct command from God.
But Christians don't kill witches anymore, do they? Is that because they no longer believe in witches or in the Bible, or both?
John Wesley said that "the giving up of witchcraft is, in effect, the giving up of the Bible."
And he was right about that.
It's time for us all to give up on the Bible. Killing witches was never a good idea, and a good God would never inspire the words of Exodus 22:18.
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/06/2007 08:41:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
69 comments:
 DocMike said...
I've met so many Christians who have no idea how many ridiculous passages, like this one, are in their "sacred" book. That's the main reason I created my blog "By The Book Comics."
http:\\bythebookcomics.blogspot.com
I try to use humor to point out some of the Bible's most absurd contents.
Anyway, love your site. Keep up the good work! --DocMIke
Thu Jun 07, 06:26:00 AM 2007 
 Brucker said...
I think either you're taking Wesley out of context, or I'm misunderstanding your point. From the paragraph you quote, Wesley seems to be saying that it's foolish to believe in one kind of supernatural power and deny the existence of any other.
You made this accusation against me in the comments on my post, but in my post, I did not deny the existence of witches at all. Am I missing something?
Thu Jun 07, 08:03:00 AM 2007 
 Brucker said...
docmike, I like your comics; a very clever take on the sort of stuff Steve's doing. Mind if I put a link to your blog on mine?
Thu Jun 07, 08:09:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
The meaning of Exodus 22:18 is clear and simple. God says kill witches. What's the problem?
And Christians don't kill witches today because they're under the new covenant brought in by Christ, not the old as the Israelites were in Exodus. It's the same reason why tithing, animal sacrifices, mandatory circumcision, keeping the year of jubilee and keeping the Sabbath, for example, is no longer required either.
Thu Jun 07, 08:04:00 PM 2007 
 DocMike said...
Brucker: Thank you for the nice comment and yes, you can definitely link to my comic site.
Jason: I have to ask why a benovolent god would EVER have demanded such things from believers. Actually, I know the answer, "We don't understand God's plan" or some such. But I guess the real question is, Why the hell would you want to worship such a god?
--DocMike
Fri Jun 08, 12:40:00 PM 2007 
 KickSave23 said...
This may end up being a double post, and if so, mea culpa.
Just in case, short version: Why is it that when something in the OT is absurd, then it doesn't matter because of the covenant, yet when it can be used to back up a personal viewpoint (ex: homosexuality being a sin) then, hey... time to dust off the Ole' Testament.
And a joke: If the OT is useless, what a waste of trees. Why does it come with a Bible? Wouldn't that be like the U.S. Constitution having the Magna Carta at the beginning?
Sat Jun 09, 06:16:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Doc, God isn't omni-benevolent. He considered witches and others who dealt with the occult to be abominations (Deut 18:10). It is what it is.
Sun Jun 10, 10:40:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Kick, homosexuality is forbiden in the NT. 1 Cor 6:9-10.
Sun Jun 10, 10:47:00 PM 2007 
 DocMike said...
Jason, Here are the verses you mentioned:
1 Corinthians 6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
6:10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
I guess you're reading "effeminate" to mean gay, but what about all the others? I don't hear Christians raving about fornicators or drunkards!
--DocMike
Mon Jun 11, 06:45:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Christians absolutely should be "raving" about fornicators and drunkards. But whether they do or don't doesn't change the fact that the NT condemns homosexual acts, which was the original comment.
Mon Jun 11, 07:40:00 AM 2007 
 DocMike said...
I'm not sure it does, Jason. Which part condemns homosexual acts?
Mon Jun 11, 07:50:00 AM 2007 
 Suricou Raven said...
NT doesn't actually... only even mentions homosexuality once. Indirectly, as part of a re-telling of the old sodom story.
But the OT... oh, yes. Lots and lots of condemning there. It says homosexual acts must be punished by death. The commandment is repeated a few times.
Mon Jun 11, 09:10:00 AM 2007 
 KickSave23 said...
I said: (ex: homosexuality being a sin) the 'ex' standing for EXAMPLE. This is not the only time that the religious use the OT when it suits them and then writes it off when they don't need it.
Let's stop debating the minutia here and talk about the grand-scale hypocrisy.
Mon Jun 11, 09:18:00 AM 2007 
 KickSave23 said...
Jason said...
"And Christians don't kill witches today because they're under the new covenant brought in by Christ, not the old as the Israelites were in Exodus."
Jason also said...
"Doc, God isn't omni-benevolent. He considered witches and others who dealt with the occult to be abominations (Deut 18:10). It is what it is."
My case in point. Last time I looked, Deuteronomy was in the OT, yet just a short while after pointing out that we aren't bound by the OT anymore, Jason uses it because it has a point that he needs. Jason, please explain. It kind of comes off as hypocrisy to me.
Mon Jun 11, 09:23:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Kick,
I'm not sure what you're getting at. In the law given to the Israelites, they were instructed to kill witches because they were an abomination to God. Christ did away with the old law when he died and was resurrected. Hence, Christians today aren't required to kill witches. I don't see the hypocrisy in this...?
Regarding homosexuality, I was simply stating that a Christian doesn't need to go back to the old law to back up a viewpoint, as you were implying. It's already there in the NT.
Mon Jun 11, 09:52:00 AM 2007 
 KickSave23 said...
Jason,
Fair enough. So why reference the OT at all? Why include it with the NT Bible?
Are you telling me that Christian preachers don't quote the OT in sermons? Or just that the ones who do don't know what they are talking about?
Mon Jun 11, 10:02:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Doc, the condemnation of homosexual acts is given in 1 Cor 6:9. "Abusers of themselves with mankind". Also mentioned in 1 Timothy 1:10.
Mon Jun 11, 10:13:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Kick, the OT itself isn't null and void, only the law. Among other things, the OT includes a history of the Jews and it outlines the promises that, with the new law, are now offered to righteous non-Jews as well. There are plenty of great stories and lessons in the OT that are applicable to our spiritual lives today and I would hope that Christians use it to its correct and fullest capacity in coming to a fuller understanding of God and themselves.
Mon Jun 11, 10:19:00 AM 2007 
 DocMike said...
Jason, I think it's a stretch to say the words "Abusers of themselves with mankind" refer to homosexuals. --DocMike
Mon Jun 11, 11:03:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
English: "Abusers of themselves with mankind"
Greek: arsenokoitēs
Root words: arsēn - "a male", koitē - "sleeping with, sexual intercourse"
Definition: One who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite (Thayer's Lexicon)
Mon Jun 11, 01:19:00 PM 2007 
 DocMike said...
Touche', Jason.
I guess I need to bone up on my Greek (no pun intended).
Good job on the research...
--DocMike
Mon Jun 11, 07:11:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
More reading on arsenokoitēs.
http://www.inherit-the-kingdom.org/bible/arsenokoites.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality
Note that in the NT being gay is not a sin (nor sex), only sex outside of marriage, and of course with a little bible magic it is claimed that god says that gays can't get married. So being gay is OK, as long as you never have sex.
Tue Jun 12, 09:37:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Correct, being gay isn't a sin. Homosexual sex (arsenokoitēs), as mentioned in the two links you provided, is.
Thanks for your efforts.
Tue Jun 12, 11:27:00 AM 2007 
 Satantiago said...
Ain't Corinthians just a letter allegedly written by Paul of Tarsus, a late convert, who wasn't one of the twelve, and even quarreled with Peter whom Jesus appointed as head of the Church? I mean, is Corinthians really the word of god?
Is Jesus god, the son of god, or a prophet of god? If he's just a prophet how come he can scrap god's law and make a new covenant with the gentiles? If he's god that means the trinity (polytheism as some believe) is A-OK? If Jesus is an "avatar" of god then why this omnisapient being didn't foresee he'd had to change his mind to fit with the times?
It's just me or isn't it unfair that jews have to go through all that ritual tomfoolery to be saved, but gentiles only have to follow the noahide laws? It would be best to be gentile it seems.
And why did god allow people to be born with sexual "deviations"? By telling that being gay isn't a sin, you admit the possibility that god just make people that way and that being gay isn't a consequence of the original sin.
But remember, every living being has the sex instinct. Instinct is unavoidable just as predators feel the instinct to kill to feed themselves. Don't you think that punishing gay people (born that way) with death or hell for their unavoidable instincts, is a cruel joke?
Wed Jun 13, 02:42:00 PM 2007 
 Satantiago said...
Arsenokoites
Definition: One who lies with a male as with a female.
So that means either that dykes are ok, that women aren't worth mentioning, or that women are supreme over men and have privileges such as laying with each other, nevermind they exchange vaginal fluids during practices such as tribadism and can use their fingers and tongues to penetrate their partners? Just wondering....
Wed Jun 13, 02:51:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
God makes you gay as a test, as long as you love him, worship him, and never have gay sex, you pass, otherwise you are a loser and he wants nothing to do with you. If that seems unfair just remember that god is perfect and never tests anyone with more then they can take, therefore if you fail it's because you suck (pun intended)!
Men wrote the bible, look around, how many men (remember gods a man) hate gay men, it's like a top 10 topic in the world ( higher ranked then even staving children), now, how many men like hot girl on girl action! I think that pretty much sums ups why the bible says what it says.
Wed Jun 13, 03:09:00 PM 2007 
 KickSave23 said...
I would have to vote for hot girl-on-girl action and against 'well, we don't like that part of the OT, so it's been revoked.'
Wed Jun 13, 04:15:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Satantiago,
Just because Paul had a tiff with someone doesn’t make him ineligible to write an inspired letter or two!
Jesus is a man, the Son of God.
The book of Hebrews, among others, goes through great pains telling the Hebrews what the point was to Jesus dying. You’ll find all the good law bits there.
God ‘allowed’ people to be born with sexual deviations for the same reason he allowed people to be born with heterosexual urges. There’s no law, either new or old, that forbids homosexuality. The sin only comes as a result when “lust has conceived” (James 1:15). To make the comparison between having sex and eating food is a bit of a stretch. You might get a bit cranky if you go without sex but it’s not a life or death requirement as is food and water (insert obvious joke here). The battle any believer fights is against the lusts of his flesh:
Gal 5:16-17 “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other....”
So just because someone has an instinct to do something doesn’t justify an allowance for letting them carry through with their actions. Could you imagine…? No one’s saying that being homosexual and following Christ isn’t easy – it’s no doubt extremely difficult. But for someone who accepts that his/her life must be lived in accordance to God’s commandments, while the journey may be difficult, it’s necessary. This goes for any believer. There are sacrifices that will need to be made and sex (unfortunately) happens to be one of them for a specific subset of individuals.
Romans 1:26 touches on the subject of homosexual women.
Wed Jun 13, 08:21:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Gad, I’m impressed; you hit the nail right on the head with your “as long as you love him” comment. Perfect. Gay sex must be your specialty.
Wed Jun 13, 08:25:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason said...
"The meaning of Exodus 22:18 is clear and simple. God says kill witches. What's the problem?"
You see no problem with killing witches, eh Jason?
Jason also said: "God isn't omni-benevolent."
He isn't? Is he omni-malevolent then? Or is he sometimes good and sometimes evil? Is this part of your God=Satan theory that you were telling us about?
Wed Jun 13, 08:50:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
"There are sacrifices that will need to be made and sex (unfortunately) happens to be one of them for a specific subset of individuals."
I do love so these compassionate statements from the faithful. I bet you think about those poor gays making their sacrifices while you love and do your wife every night......

"Gad, I’m impressed; you hit the nail right on the head with your “as long as you love him” comment. Perfect. Gay sex must be your specialty."
Thanks, but no, the real experts are god and his homophobic followers. BTW Romans 1:26 only applies to the ugly lesbians, you know the ones that look like men, the hot one are still blessed for hot girl on girl action.
Wed Jun 13, 10:00:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
No Steve, I don’t see a problem with the Israelites in the Old Testament killing witches. And no God isn’t omni-malevolent. He’s benevolent. He punishes and blesses, kills and gives life.
Wed Jun 13, 11:18:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Hey Gad, I can’t say I think about gays when I’m having sex with my wife but I’m sure there are some Christians out there who do so why don’t you go run off and find them.
Thanks also for your brilliant insight into Romans 1. No doubt the atheist cause benefits greatly from your Bible intellect.
Wed Jun 13, 11:30:00 PM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
But Jason, you said: "The meaning of Exodus 22:18 is clear and simple. God says kill witches. What's the problem?"
God says to kill witches, and you say you have no problem with that. Killing witches is OK with you.
So God isn't omni-benevolent; he kills. And he commands people to kill witches. (And you have no problem with that.)
Wed Jun 13, 11:33:00 PM 2007 
 Satantiago said...
Paul only had a glimpse of Jesus on the road to Damascus. Mohammad had seizures for decades claiming he was actually receiving divine inspiration. Anyone dreaming of god can claim to be divinely inspired.
Jesus was born a man, and after his resurrection promoted to god? Like some pagan demigods?
Or is he a son of god in the way Christians call themselves sons of god and brothers of Christ? Then why was Jesus the man allowed to scrap the old covenant?
What about John 1:1-15? "And the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us"
According to Romans it's all god's fault:
Romans 1 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him... 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts
If gays didn't know god they wouldn't have been gay. Is that what Romans says?
Romans 1 doesn't seem to condemn lesbianism, it only says that God "gave some men over to shameful lusts" and that's why even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones, because their husbands didn't glorified god, hurting god's pride. Pride is a capital sin.
According to biology, life's purpose is procreate to perpetuate the species. I find this more rational than whatever religions say life's purpose is.
Humans are also animals, albeit "sophisticated" ones, there are animals that live only to procreate, dying shortly after the sexual act. The instinct of procreation is so strong that some bishops, supposed to be celibate, are known to have their way with nuns and altar boys. The only way to effectively quench this sexual drive (temptation) would be castration.
"Saints" also felt the sexual urge, they tried to put it off by doing any sorts of unnatural things such as inflicting pain to themselves.
This would mean that god purposely allows people to be born gay and with sexual drive to punish them for their sins or the sins of their parents, to make them suffer from abstinence, and send them to hell if they give in to sin. There's masturbation of course, but remember what happened to poor Onan.
It is said that instinct is god's law, that when animals, flee, kill or procreate they are only obeying god's law. It's known that mammals masturbate and have homosexual intercourse. Are they going against god's law?
I wonder why Saul didn't kill the witch of Endor (1 samuel 28:4–25) and instead used her to bring Samuel back from the dead. Why would prophet Samuel speak to Saul through a witch? And why does Samuel seem to be very up to date with the events occurred after his death? Does that mean there's a place where spirits go after death? There's no need to wait until doomsday?
God is supposed to be infinite, omnipresent, all inclusive, etc. By saying that god isn’t omni-malevolent, one is limiting god to benevolence. The same can be said about god limited to not being the devil, to not being evil, or to not being gay. How could this be?
Thu Jun 14, 08:28:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Correct, Steve. I don’t see a problem with the Israelites in the Old Testament killing witches as commanded by God.
And correct again - God kills. Your posts on this site listing the number of people God has killed would appear to support this supposition.
Thu Jun 14, 08:30:00 AM 2007 
 Satantiago said...
I think killing witches goes against the 5th (or 6th) commandment: Thou shall not kill. If god felt witches could undermine the prophets influence, he should have killed the witches himself, preserving his people from committing a sin.
Thu Jun 14, 08:41:00 AM 2007 
 GAD said...
Why would killing witches be a special case, why not killing anyone. The commandment "thou shall not kill" has to be taken in context, reading the bible it is clear that the context is Jew is not to kill Jew, except when ordered by god, everyone else (those who are not gods chosen) are fair game for all manner of horror and genocide.
Thu Jun 14, 09:06:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Satantiago, perhaps we should take our conversation elsewhere (on another site). We’re hijacking a bit of space here discussing unrelated issues.
Thu Jun 14, 10:21:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Gad's got it right again.
Thu Jun 14, 10:25:00 AM 2007 
 KickSave23 said...
Jason: So if Gad has it right... God believes that the unchosen people 'are fair game for all manner of horror and genocide.' How does this reconcile with 'God is good?' Is such a deity really someone to whom we should want to worship?
Thu Jun 14, 01:25:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
KickSave23,
You have to remember that god is perfect, whether you understand or agree with his will is irreverent. If you follow him and worship him without question, maybe, just maybe , when he destroys the world (which will be very shortly I'm told) he might make you a god cop and let you rule over the world carrying out his will on all the unchosen, atheist, gays, ugly lesbians etc. in order to make the world perfect (again). To use a more familiar example(s), it's the same concept as why millions of Germans followed Hitler, Russians Stalin, Chinese Mao, Catholics the Pope, Muslims the Ayatollah and Bin laden.....
Thu Jun 14, 02:51:00 PM 2007 
 Satantiago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thu Jun 14, 03:08:00 PM 2007 
 Satantiago said...
God doesn't need your love, kicksave23, you have to appease him lest every kind of disgrace befalls you.
Thu Jun 14, 03:12:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
God is good to those who do His will. It’s always been a two-way street. Turn from God and He will turn from you and vice versa.
2Ch 30:9 “...for the LORD your God is gracious and merciful, and will not turn away his face from you, if ye return unto him.”
Everyone has it in their ability to “choose” God. Deu 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:”
The appeal from God is to choose life.
Thu Jun 14, 04:25:00 PM 2007 
 Satantiago said...
Stalin was good to those who did his will, Hitler was good to Eva Braun. And if ye do good to those that do good to you, what thank is it to you? for even sinners do the same. (Luke 6:33) What happened to "love thy enemy" and "hate the sin not the sinner"?
A benevolent deity wouldn't require constant propitiation so that he doesn't take revenge and cause great misery. Worshiping YHWH is not an act of love but of fear. YHWH is not different from the pagan gods, when any misfortune overtook the worshipers they regarded it as a sign that their deity was angry and had to appease him with sacrificial offerings to retain the capricious favor of the deity.
Jesus is marketed as the ultimate victim of propitiation, yet people to this day pray, praise, implore, repent, give up things, kill goats (Mohammedans) to the Abrahamic god as a matter of precaution, to maintain a propitiatory attitude.
Fri Jun 15, 08:02:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
What point are you trying to make? I fail to see the Stalin and Hitler relevance.
I'd like to know why a benevolent deity wouldn't require propitiation? It's not as if people who don't attempt to appease God are any worse off in life, they just won't be judged worthy. No big deal, right? God says "Do this and I will bless you, do this and I will punish you". It's the same as a parent says to a child. The only thing wrong with this is mankind; they don't like to be told what to do. God's commandments aren't difficult to follow, man just doesn't like to have his style cramped.
I don't know you from a hill of beans but I'm pretty sure you don't possess the insight to know that every religious person on the planet worships God as a precaution. :)
Fri Jun 15, 11:56:00 AM 2007 
 Satantiago said...
My previous comment was not directed at you Jason, you're FUBAR.
Fri Jun 15, 12:33:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
"What happened to "love thy enemy" and "hate the sin not the sinner"?"
Sin is an action, without a sinner there is no sin. To hate sin is to transfer the responsibility from the sinner to the sin, which is both illogical and absurd because it makes the sin a separate thing in and of itself from the sinner (creatio ex nihilo). Ask any Christian and they will tell you that on Judgment day god will judge and punish the sinner not the sin. Keeping these points in mind, it would seem that the way to view the statements "love thy enemy" and "hate the sin not the sinner", is, that we are not to judge that that is gods domain. So, if someone sexually molests your child, you should hate that they were molested not the one who molested them, you should love them and let god judge. I say smile while you pull the trigger!
Fri Jun 15, 02:59:00 PM 2007 
 Satantiago said...
The author of Luke wrote that Jesus explicitly said "love your enemies and do good to them and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked" (!?) I think there's no need to look for further interpretations of that verse.
I remember reading elsewhere that Martin Luther (the German monk) said that the Turks were God's whip and should not be resisted. Had his advice been heeded, Europe (and America) would had suffered the same fate as Constantinople. Christianity can be suicidal at times.
Fri Jun 15, 04:23:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
""love your enemies and do good to them and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked""
Hum lets see, this passage is about lending money, it contradicts what is stated else where in the bible about lending and treating your enemies, and it makes it appear that being bad is a win-win, the good should treat you good and god will be kind to you (makes the whole judgment thing seem so unnecessary) which is also contradicted else where in the bible. And as for "he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked" this could only apply to Jews not Gentiles since you can't be ungrateful for something you haven't been given yet. Even for the Jews "he is kind" it is a tough argument to make for the wicked or the good. Nope no need to look for further interpretations.
Fri Jun 15, 05:45:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
If God/the Bible hated the sinner, there would be no reconciliation for our sins since, as sinners, we're punished because of the fact we have the ability to sin. This isn't the case. Our sins our forgiven each and every time we ask God for forgiveness. The SIN is forgotten, not the sinner. If God hated the sinner, then death would be the punishment whenever we broke the law. This isn't the case either.
The "love your enemy" is part of a series of verses that explain that someone who does good to someone who is bad shouldn't expect anything in return because both are sinners. Everyone sins. Everyone is evil. Through God's mercy, the righteous who have lived their lives as best they can according to His commandments will be judged worthy.
Sat Jun 16, 12:39:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
The statements;
"Our sins our forgiven each and every time we ask God for forgiveness. The SIN is forgotten, not the sinner."
And
"Through God's mercy, the righteous who have lived their lives as best they can according to His commandments will be judged worthy."
Are contradictory. If all sins are forgiven and forgotten, what are the righteous being judged for......What about all those who have never heard of god or his commandments. What about those who can't ask, babies, the mentally challenged etc.. Also to be forgiven one first has to have a genuine belief in god, since there are those who don't, I invoke the argument from non-belief as proof of gods non-existence.
Sat Jun 16, 01:44:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
The righteous will be judged based on their faith and obedience, although ultimately it's God's mercy that is the catalyst for salvation.
Those who have never heard of God or His commandments won't be judged (Romans 2:12). And for those that can't ask for forgiveness, they're committed into the hands of God.
Of course one has to believe in God before they're forgiven. Isn't that obvious...?
Not that any of this has to do with witches...
Sat Jun 16, 05:06:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
"Of course one has to believe in God before they're forgiven. Isn't that obvious...?"
Yes, but it doesn't address the argument from non-belief.
"Not that any of this has to do with witches..."
God kills witches, or more specifically orders his lackeys to do it. The first question is how is that compatible with an all good god, you answered with the only defensible answer, god is not all-good. The next question is are you OK worshiping a god like that, the answer is apparently yes. Some follow on questions I would have are, 1) how is killing witches not contradictory to being judged by god after death 2) since no witch really has any power (unless god gave it them) what is the point 3) how is killing them not a violation of the whole freewill argument 4) by ordering his followers to do the killing he has put judgment in the hands of man (sinful man), what is the sense in that.....
Mon Jun 18, 08:35:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
How can there be a non-belief argument? If one doesn't believe God exists, there is no such thing as sin, repentance doesn't accomplish anything, and salvation is only another drink away.
About witches...
1. Because it's not.
2. Practicing witchcraft was abhored by God. It's not about whether witches had any legitimate power, it's about where the glory and worship was being directed. It's the same reason why idol worship was forbidden.
3. What's the freewill argument?
4. The judgment was given by God in the laws. E.g. "If you do this, then you will be punished." Likewise, when a judge orders someone to die by lethal injection, who made the judgment, the judge or the person injecting the needle?
Tue Jun 19, 07:13:00 AM 2007 
 GAD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wed Jun 20, 10:22:00 AM 2007 
 GAD said...
"3. What's the freewill argument?"
There are many, but in this context, god supposedly gave humanity freewill, the right to chose or not chose god in life and therefore the afterlife. For god then to say that you are free to chose him in life but if you chose not to, he will kill you in this life and reject you in the next is directly incompatible with the argument of freewill on multiple levels. The judgment of god and the judgment of men are vastly different things in context, the same for example as the faith in your wife is vastly different in context from faith in god. You conveniently make no distinction between the two in your arguments.
BTW, it is clear from the bible that witches and other gods had real [supernatural] power. If you believe that god is the only god, then god would of had to have given them the power which he then condemned them for using. But since we agree that god isn't all good such actions aren't surprising.......
Wed Jun 20, 10:24:00 AM 2007 
 KickSave23 said...
I've decided that God created the serpent, allowed Eve to eat the 'apple,' creating sin just because he enjoys watching war, murder, rape, torture, lying, greed, envy, et cetera.
Wed Jun 20, 03:38:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
That sounds a lot like the Demiurge of the Gnostic's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic
There is also the idea that Satan who has direct influence in this world, influenced events and the biblical writers to his POV, therefore those who can see that what is written in the bible can not of come from the all loving god, are the ones on the true path to god.
Wed Jun 20, 04:52:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
I fail to see the relevance of your point in relation to the punishment of witches in the OT. God says, “Follow my commandments and live. Don’t follow them and die.” What part of this infringes on freewill? Any Israelite could still have practiced witchcraft if they so desired.
Your argument seems to presuppose that freewill cannot exist where there are laws. This is flawed for any number of reasons, least of all because laws in of themselves cannot stop someone from committing a specific act.
The judgments of God and the judgments of man are certainly different but in the case of punishing witches, the judgment was already handed down by God: witches were to die.
God has given power to dozens of people to accomplish incredible things but, much like Moses, Samson, Solomon and Peter, the individual is still held responsible for their actions [or lack therefore] when using this power. Being given power from God never removed the responsibility which comes with freewill.
Wed Jun 20, 10:45:00 PM 2007 
 KickSave23 said...
Just because things have slowed down as of late:
====
Jason said...
Bingo.
The OT paved the for the NT.
No one goes by the OT because it's null and void.
Mon Apr 16, 07:22:00 AM 2007
====
and then:
====
Jason said...
Kick, the OT itself isn't null and void, only the law....
Mon Jun 11, 10:19:00 AM 2007
====
Sun Jun 24, 12:59:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Please read the context before attempting to discredit. The context of my first comment was in response to: "Perhaps in your studies you will find that Christians are no longer under the Law of the Old Testament."
It's really quite simple: The old law, given to the Israelites, has been replaced by the new law, given to believers via Christ. No one's saying that the Old Testament is useless and not worth reading because there are some wonderful lessons and stories in the OT, many of which are applicable to Christians today (the trials of the Israelites, the faith of Caleb and Joshua, the relationship between Ruth and Boaz, etc.).
Sun Jun 24, 05:41:00 PM 2007 
 KickSave23 said...
In context, your response was in answer to the question if anybody goes by the Old Testament anymore.
As far as the OT being good for the wonderful stories and lessons, I think it's been proven that, statistically, that book is far more filled with tales of destruction and murder. Including that of witches. (Hey, look. I'm back on topic!) :o)
Sun Jun 24, 05:53:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Like I said, the context of my comment was a response to "Perhaps in your studies you will find that Christians are no longer under the Law of the Old Testament." The discussion was regarding the old versus the new law.
Whether or not anything's been proven anywhere about the prevelant theme in the OT isn't what's being discussed. The Old Testament contains great lessons and stories, many of which are applicable to Christians today (the trials of the Israelites, the faith of Caleb and Joshua, the relationship between Ruth and Boaz, etc.).
Sun Jun 24, 09:00:00 PM 2007 
 GAD said...
Interesting article on witchcraft from Sam Harris.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-witchcraft_b_53865.html
Tue Jun 26, 03:25:00 PM 2007 
 KickSave23 said...
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:7)
Sounds kinda like Jesus didn't nullify anything.
Sat Jul 21, 03:41:00 PM 2007 
 Aaron said...
Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law not abolish the law, correct. But focus on the word fulfill, Jesus also said the battle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities of darkness God has always has offered people this grace whether Jewish or gentile, but He now is making it clear to His disciples that "the Ultimate Sacrifice has been made". The reason He allowed people to be killed in the OT is not because He believe in murder, but there were deliberate threats to the people of God, just as there are to people nowadays. The General Church is not against war and killing when it is necessary to survive. Many of the wicked people in the Bible desired to destroy Israel, just as they are today. God has not changed, but offered grace.
Tue Oct 30, 10:05:00 AM 2007 
 TylerWhitehead said...
Hey guys. I think that most of you are missing a huge point... Witches get their power from Demons and the Devil. God did give the devil power while he was still an angel. did no one else think of that? and to all athiests who may read this, i have a question for you. Suppose that you are right and i am wrong. what happens then? we die and our bodies decompose and we are dead. woo. i dont recieve a penalty for being wrong. Now lets suppose that i am correct and you are not. i believe i will go to heaven and spend eternity with my creator, savior, and friend. you on the other hand, go to HELL where you will burn for all eternity. hmmmm. think on that.
Sat Jan 24, 03:17:00 PM 2009 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 15 July 2007The God of the Old Testament (Richard Dawkins)


The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/15/2007 02:44:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
78 comments:
 Anonymous said...
Dawkins RULES!!!!!!!!!!
Fri Feb 02, 06:53:00 AM 2007 
 Martin said...
He does have a lovely way with words.
Fri Feb 02, 10:18:00 PM 2007 
 dave said...
Dawkins is a psychopath! He is merely a man on a mission to disprove religion while he actually proves nothing. Anyone who puts their trust in a man like this is on the fast track to no where. Trust Jesus - He wont let you down!
Sun Feb 04, 06:25:00 PM 2007 
 Brent said...
Go get them, Richard!
Sun Feb 04, 07:59:00 PM 2007 
 Greg said...
Dave, I "trusted Jesus" for 30+ years..... He just doesn't stand by his promises. People in antiquity created God in order to make some sort of sense out of life's chaos. We now know that this chaos and randomness is simply the way life is. God or the gods are no longer players in reality. WAKE UP! Ask yourself if the Holy Spirit really aids you and helps you do things that are godly. If you are honest, you will realize that it is all in your head. No outside (or inside) force helps you get through life. It is merely your own delusional imagination telling you that God is there with you.
Greg (former Christian)
Sun Feb 04, 08:09:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Former Christian Greg - I'm curious, what exactly did Jesus promise you that he didn't stand by?
Sun Feb 04, 08:29:00 PM 2007 
 Greg said...
Jason,
"Have faith in God. Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, 'be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mark 11:22-24)
"For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you." (Matthew 17:20)
"If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you." (John 15:7)
"Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven given good things to those who ask him." (Matthew 7:9-11)
Prayer flat out doesn't work.
It is actually not quite fair for me to claim that Jesus does not stand by his promises because most of the words attributed to him in the New Testament a product of the late 1st or early 2nd century Church - not Jesus.
Thus, my statement should probably go something like this: The Bible and its claims is not a product of divine inspiration.
It is not the Jesus' fault that his claims are contradictory and false - it is the fault of those who created Christianity out of false hope and of the early church fathers who used Christianity and the scriptures to gain power.
The ethics attributed to Jesus are praiseworthy. His philosophy on how to be human are great to live by. However, the belief systems of Christianity have caused sorrow, death, and hatred.
Mon Feb 05, 05:18:00 AM 2007 
 Yaakov said...
Y'all know how god used to kill people for picking up wood, pissing against walls, offering strange fire, dancing before golden figurines and spilling semen on the floor. I have blasphemed against him in every possible way for years and he hasn't killed me yet! What is he waiting for!? He used to be so effective in the past!!! Wait, my girlfriend Marianne died in a car accident, she was the most beautiful, nice, honest, loving, compassionate girl in the world, maybe her death was god's way to tell me to change my life, FORGIVE ME GOD FOR I'VE SINNETH boohoohoo!!! He killed my beautiful girlfriend instead of me just to save me!!! Praised be him!!!
Mon Feb 05, 07:14:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
I'm sorry your prayers weren't answered :) Perhaps it was a faith issue.
I've never understood the anti-Christian viewpoint that the belief systems of Christianity have caused death and hatred. This isn't a reflection on the validity and truth of the Bible, this is reflection of man's greed by tampering and perverting God's word to further their own personal and religious agendas. Confession, purgatory, limbo, the Pope, hell, etc. etc. These are the man-made beliefs that cause so much of the problems within and without Christianity, but these beliefs aren't found in Scripture.
Just some food for thought :)
Mon Feb 05, 07:26:00 AM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
You're an angry man, yaakov.
A disillusioned person blaspheming a god he doesn't believe in and yet still expecting divine retribution. Seems to be a common thread here.
Mon Feb 05, 07:32:00 AM 2007 
 Flumadiddle said...
Ah, Dave. Has Richard struck a nerve? I think perhaps the reason you have such disdain for him is because he speaks the truth. Stings a little doesn't it?
Mon Feb 05, 07:32:00 AM 2007 
 Greg said...
Jason said: Confession, purgatory, limbo, the Pope, hell, etc. etc. These are the man-made beliefs that cause so much of the problems within and without Christianity, but these beliefs aren't found in Scripture.
The Bible is man-made, you blind fool!
Sorry for such a mean statement but Christians need to open their minds and look at all this stuff they believe. It is based on wishful thinking and fantasy. There is no concrete reality in it at all.
I'm sick of the ubiquitous argument - "If God doesn't answer your prayers and bless your life - then it must be due to a lack of faith."
Nobody has ever provided concrete evidence that Christians are more "blessed" than anyone else. For example, a Christian prays for God to rid them of an addiction and they fair worse than the person who has enough common sense to check him/herself into an addiction program. The Christian can trust God; I'll trust reason.
Greg
Mon Feb 05, 10:30:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
I have no problem accepting Scripture as God's divine word. Personally, I see prophecy and archaelogy as being proof enough but you obviously don't and that's totally cool. I have my beliefs, you have yours. It's all good.
Just because you're sick of an argument doesn't automatically make it invalid :) From a Bible point of view, faith and prayer are inexorably linked. This is why you'll hear the same argument over and over again.
Anyhow, a Christian can't be expected to provide evidence they're any more blessed then the guy next door because for someone like you, nothing they could offer would be sufficient. I could say that I've had four near death experiences this year and was miraculously saved from all of them, you would counter with "how do you know it wasn't luck?". I could say that my business has inexplicably grown for five years in a row, you'd tell me I'm a good business man. I could say I was blessed with a beautiful baby boy, you would reply "so have a billion other people". I could say God blessed with me a safe trip to China, you would come back with "a safe trip isn't proof of God".
What you would consider luck or the law of averages, I would consider a blessing. There's nothing inherently wrong with either view. But just because you don't agree with my outlook doesn't mean I'm a "blind fool" any more then you're an "ignorant fool". :)
Mon Feb 05, 01:39:00 PM 2007 
 Pieter from the Netherlands said...
Unfortunatly, I've had a stroke at the age of only 19. Now I'm 25 years old, and although I've recoved a lot, I still have to use a wheelchair. It hurts so much to not be able to enjoy life at the same leveel as before.
The theodicies christians (and people of other religions) offer in order to reconcile the concept of suffering with the idea of a good God are SO incredibly dissatisfactionary it is rediculous. I personally ABSOLUTELY can't help feel I've been mistreated by God. Theodicies are just stupid theoretical nonsense.
(By the way, the God of the bible actually IS an evil, immoral bastard).
Tue Feb 06, 08:14:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
I could say that I've had four near death experiences this year and was miraculously saved from all of them, you would counter with "how do you know it wasn't luck?
I could say that I come from planet Vegeta and can fly and when I'm very pissed off my hair goes spiky and turns yellow, and be replied with a "What drugs are you on?"
Show me a well documented case of an amputee who spontaneously regrew a limb without medical treatment or without treatment of any kind (like mating with a starfish or with an axolotl)
Mat 13:11
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
We brutes were not given the gift of understanding all things Christian.
Mat 13:13
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
He should try having his second coming at the Super Bowl halftime show.
Heck, even one of Jesus disciples doubted Jesus was alive until he saw him.
John 20:29
29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed
Appearing out of the blue and letting people stick their fingers in his wounds would be easy for a miracle worker.
John 20:29
...blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.
Rephrasing the previous sentence: Blessed are the gullible, for they shall be deceived.
Isn't it funny how people from different religions, sects and denominations claim to be recipient of miracles and blessings? Looks like Jehovah is a true ecumenist, I can almost imagine Jehovah playing poker with fellow deities Shiva, Odin, Gaia, Jove, Ahura Mazda, Marduk, Baal, Satan? I'd like to see the Pope meet with his Church of Satan colleague.
Tue Feb 06, 08:20:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Pieter, first of all, we're very sorry to hear about your stroke.
Secondly, I have to ask how much time and energy you gave God before your stroke?
Tue Feb 06, 06:59:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
I’m not sure what your point is about limb regeneration.
About being brutish, you would rather not give up the “spirit of the world” in exchange for the “spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:12). It’s an ignorant refusal to change a state of mind. You don’t try, God won’t try. You don’t give, God won’t give. See how the relationship works…?
And I totally agree with your gullible/deceived comment. This was the warning time and again to 1st century believers being led astray by false religions. Today it’s in the shape of Catholicism, Mormonism, etc. But that obviously doesn’t concern you. It’s a Christian vs. Christian thing. ☺
Tue Feb 06, 07:12:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Spontaneous limb regeneration would be tangible proof for the existence of miracles.
I was a devout Christian for 13 years, so don't preach me about giving up the spirit of the world and bulls...
Matt. 5
17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.
It looks like Christians are gonna be the called least in the "kingdom of heaven"
You need to stop believing a heresy of a heresy and convert to Judaism, be circumcised (ouch!), keep Sabbath, eat kosher, celebrate Sukkot, etc.
Wed Feb 07, 06:31:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
You’re kidding, right…? Limb regeneration is tangible proof of miracles… No limb regeneration, no miracles!! SO THERE!!! lol Do you have a job? A car? A family? A house? Food on your table? Why are these not miracles in and of themselves?
I’m not preaching any more then anyone else is here. I’m simply explaining and refuting your point about “brutes” not understanding all things Christian.
Matthew 5 - And your point is…? (by the way, could you perhaps include the whole verse next time you quote from the Bible? “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”)
A heresy of a heresy…is that a good thing? Two negatives equal a positive…? You, a former Christian, should know more then anyone else that the old law was done away with. Jesus “fulfilled” the old law (Mat 5:17) and then it was done away with once this was completed (:18). This is why no one in the NT ever offered sacrifices as a means to have their sins forgiven. This is why circumcision wasn’t mandatory, etc. etc. In all seriousness, are you trying to be difficult or did you really not pick up on this during your 13 years of devout Christian living?
Wed Feb 07, 10:47:00 AM 2007 
 Keith said...
"You, a former Christian, should know more then anyone else that the old law was done away with"
This God guy really has it tough, doesn't he? He claims omniscience, but then fouls up all the time. His most recent announcement: he was wrong and now has revoked what only seemed good on paper. This guy has really got to start thinking things through.
Wed Feb 07, 07:43:00 PM 2007 
 beepbeepitsme said...
I like the cut of his jib. ;)
Wed Feb 07, 08:47:00 PM 2007 
 Brian de Ford said...
Some people say that atheists, who do not believe in the big spy in the sky, therefore act immorally, despite Christians being proportionately higher in the prison population than the general population.
Some people say that morality comes from God and that without God it is impossible to act morally because one cannot know what morality is. So let me tell you the story for religious instruction, a parable if you will, about The Moral Atheist.
One day an atheist record producer was visited by bodyguards of a famous, powerful rapper. The rapper was famous not so much for the quality of his music but for having an arsenal of weapons that put his fellow rappers to shame (those that he didn't kill in wanton acts of violence). The bodyguards were, like their boss, well-heeled (but not so well-heeled as their boss for they left their howitzers behind) carrying Uzis illegally converted to full automatic fire and many spare clips of ammunition.
The bodyguards explained that their boss had decided the other rappers were destroying the good name of rap music and that his only course of action was to slaughter them and their record producers. Of the entire industry, only this one rapper and the record producer whose home they were in would be spared.
But at that point all the other record producers showed up, somehow having learned that the bodyguards were visiting. The other record producers kicked up a fearful racket begging to be allowed to speak to the bodyguards. There was so much banging on doors and shouting that the record producer, the Moral Atheist of our tale, couldn't hear what the bodyguards were saying.
So this Moral Atheist went to the door and shouted through the letterbox "I have two virgin daughters. Take them and have a gangbang with them. Brutally and repeatedly rape and sodomize them. Just leave me and my guests in peace and you can do whatever you want to my virgin daughters."
The other record producers, having no morals, took the daughters and did as they were bade. The record producer, the Moral Atheist, completed his deal with the rapper's bodyguards. Days later the rapper and his bodyguards massacred all the other rappers and record producers, sparing just the Moral Atheist, his wife, and his two daughters (somewhat the worse for wear but still alive).
I think that nobody can dispute that the record producer, though an atheist, exhibited the highest moral behaviour. An exemplar to us all.
Oh damn. I've just realized I got the story wrong. It wasn't an atheist at all. The story doesn't prove atheists are really moral because it all happened (with a few minor details changed) to Lot in the old testament. When two angels came down to warn him of the impending destruction of Soddom and Gomorrah, the Sodomites demanded to see his visitors and he got rid of them by offering his two virgin daughters for a gangbang.
As an atheist I couldn't even begin to conceive of offering my two virgin daughters (if I had any) for a gangbang to protect two guests who had the power to zap any number of hostiles using their magic powers. Even if my guests had no magic powers but were still very important, I could not morally justify trading two other humans for their protection. Which means that us atheists just aren't as moral as Lot.
Thu Feb 08, 06:57:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
lol! "Old" doesn't mean "wrong". "old" means "old" as in "back then". :)
Thu Feb 08, 03:04:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Has it ever been said that everyone in the Bible is perfect? No, because the people mentioned in the Bible weren't. Lot was just another guy who had flaws, like you and me.
Thu Feb 08, 03:07:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Jason:
For the most part, the practice of sacrifice stopped in the year 70 C.E., when the Roman army destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, the place where sacrifices were offered. The practice was briefly resumed during the Jewish War of 132-135 C.E., but was ended permanently after that war was lost. There were also a few communities that continued sacrifices for a while after that time.
We stopped offering sacrifices because we do not have a proper place to offer them. The Torah specifically commands us not to offer sacrifices wherever we feel like it; we are only permitted to offer sacrifices in the place that G-d has chosen for that purpose. Deut. 12:13-14. It would be a sin to offer sacrifices in any other place, akin to stealing candles and wine to observe Shabbat.
http://www.jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm
Fri Feb 09, 11:52:00 AM 2007 
 Brent said...
Anon,
What does this have to do with the current discussion and why did you direct it at Jason? Besides, sacrifices existed long before the people of Israel implemented them and continued on in places well after 70 BCE.
Brent
Fri Feb 09, 03:16:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Brent, because Jason wrote this:
the old law was done away with. Jesus “fulfilled” the old law (Mat 5:17) and then it was done away with once this was completed (:18). This is why no one in the NT ever offered sacrifices as a means to have their sins forgiven. This is why circumcision wasn’t mandatory, etc. etc.
Sat Feb 10, 08:35:00 AM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
Anon,
What exactly are you arguing...? The validity of the New Testament? As a Jew, you obviously don't adhere the teachings of the NT so...the conversation is kind of moot. :)
Sat Feb 10, 11:10:00 AM 2007 
 Duke Nukem said...
I spent 24yrs as a highly committed born-again Christian. The Bible itself deconverted me. Christians do not "think" they "rationalize"...They rationalize away all the errors, Biblegods failure to obey/keep his own word, historical inaccuracies, contradictions, scientific fallacies, failed prophecies, and their innumerable sins and failures to obey Biblegods teachings. Biblegod is incapable of doing anything good or bad, and negligent parent that he is, he has been unable to stop me from deconverting his "blood-bought" children and restoring them back to reality.
Sat Feb 10, 09:55:00 PM 2007 
 jason said...
What Christian denomination dd you belong to?
Sun Feb 11, 12:05:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
The interesting thing about the cruelty in the old testament is not that it didn't happen, its that God worked through many of the figures inspite of their sin and the sinfulness of the era.
Old testament figures being imperfect is nothing new. Moses killed a man, David sent a soldier to his death so he could bonk his wife, Moses used a miracle wrongly and was barred from the Holy Land, Jonah was clearly angry at God on being used to convert a city.

God worked with imperfect men because they are all that is with Jesus as the exception. Original sin remember.
The lesson is that regardless of your sins, whether or not your beat them all instantly, salvation is an option becuase of his forgiveness.
Sun Feb 11, 12:49:00 PM 2007 
 Brent said...
There is no extrabiblical evidence that Moses, David, Jonah, Abraham, and especially Adam ever existed. They were more than likely human constructs written into the history of the Jewish people in the 6th to 8th centuries B.C.E.
Original sin? The myth of Adam is told in an attempt to explain the way the world works. Genesis 1-6 is a collection of metaphors, not documented history. We can learn about ourselves from the metaphor of "the fall." However, to take this literally is a mistake.
The belief in a future salvation is in the mind. Life after death goes back past the 3rd century B.C.E. The Jews did not invent it. Real salvation happens in this life, not the next.
Brent
Mon Feb 12, 05:29:00 AM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
The lack of evidence isn't proof these men didn't exist. Considering they lived more then 4000 years ago, what kind of evidence would would you expect to still be around?
Why is taking Genesis 1-6 literally a "mistake" and why can't it explain the way mankind works?
An atheist's opinion on salvation doesn't mean too much, as I'm sure you can appreciate :) A Christian can just as easily claim salvation is in the next life as you can claim it's in this life. It's just a difference of opinion.
Mon Feb 12, 07:54:00 AM 2007 
 Brent said...
Why isn't there evidence that a man named Moses led over one million people from Egypt to Canaan? We have archaeological evidence of other societies. We have names of leaders, the artwork of the people, etc. But you are right in pointing out that a lack of evidence isn't proof.
What is amazing is that Jews and Christians take writings from the 6th to 8th century BCE as a documentation of history from the preceeding 2,000+ years. Have you seen the geneaologies in Genesis? How can those be taken as true records?
Genesis 1-6 DOES explain the way mankind is. It is a metaphor told in the form of stories. It does not give us true historical information. The mistake is to take it as such.
Brent
Mon Feb 12, 02:19:00 PM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
Consider the environment the Israelites were in during their time between Egypt and the Promised Land. How much evidence do you think would have survived 4000 years after the fact?
Jews and Christians believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. We operate under this pretext. Atheists operate under the complete opposite. So it shouldn't be difficult to see how things like the geneologies in Genesis can be taken as true records. We take it as truth because there's nothing to suggest it's wrong. A 21st century viewpoint can't sway the balance of belief far enough in either direction to make this a valid point of debate.
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood the point about explaining mankind. Duly corrected. :) However, it's only an opinion that Genesis isn't historical. I would counter by saying it is historical and that's really as far as the argument can go (it's kind of like an argument about salvation between an athiest and a Christian) :)
Mon Feb 12, 02:35:00 PM 2007 
 Brent said...
Tiny Tim,
You're probably not aware that I was a Christian for 20+ years. I am aware of most, if not all, of the arguments in this discussion. I have read more Bible and books about the Christian faith than most Christians. The irony is that the Bible is what convinced me that God was created by man rather than vice versa.
You can choose to believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Many people believe that. I am fine with that as long as a person is willing to discuss "why" without playing some sort of trump card like "you can't prove that my belief is wrong."
If you believe that the Bible is inerrant, literal and totally authoritative, you need to be prepared to seriously look at all of its claims. You must look seriously at the problematic passages and the contradictions that are found throughout the pages of scripture. Of course, most Christians choose to "explain away" the problems of scripture because they start with a non-negotiable presumption that assumes "there must be some logical reason for such 'apparent' contradictions."
Look forward to hear more from you.
Brent
Tue Feb 13, 06:02:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
This I found by surfing the intertubes http://www.strangescience.net/evolution.htm
People took a long time to figure out that evolution happened, and before that, Western civilization relied largely on the Bible to understand how we got here. Starting in the Renaissance, however, some of society's keenest thinkers began to puzzle over just how the Bible could be literally true. Early on, the story that caused the most trouble was Noah's Flood.
One man who managed to stir some doubt was Niels Stensen (or Nicolaus Steno). A religious man, Steno wasn't out to disprove the Bible; he used it as the basis for his work in piecing together old landscapes. He figured out that rocks are deposited in layers with older rocks at the bottom, and in the landscape of Tuscany, he thought he saw the events described in Genesis. In the century following his death, however, people who searched rock layers for remains of earth's earliest inhabitants found some thing odd. According to Genesis, God made Adam, Eve, and all the animals first. Then Adam and Eve started a family and left plenty of descendents. Only later came Noah's Flood, which was held responsible for depositing all those weird remains, like shells, in rocks on top of mountains. If that actually happened, human remains should have appeared in the oldest rocks at the bottom of the heap, but they didn't. Human remains showed up only in the newest layers. The oldest layers of rocks held different creatures, and the further down in the heap one looked, the weirder the creatures got.
Steno wasn't alone in inadvertently causing Noah trouble. All the naturalists who traveled to the New World to draw, collect, measure and catalog what lived there threatened to sink Noah's Ark with too many passengers. After all, fitting two of everything living in Europe was enough of a challenge. Squeezing in all these newly discovered creatures from America looked impossible. Biblical scholars went back to calculating the length of a cubit.
Not everyone who accepted an ancient earth necessarily accepted biological evolution. By the early 19th century, the professional scientists and leisurely gentlemen who dabbled in geology or comparative anatomy entertained a variety of explanations for humanity's predecessors. Evolution was one explanation, but many savants believed a series of catastrophes had been followed by fresh creations.
Artificial selection shows the power of an outside selective force acting on a species, but that's not the only evidence for evolution. Other factors point to common origin for life forms. Bats, dolphins and people are all mammals, but bats fly, dolphins swim, and humans type, dine and doodle. If each species were carefully designed from scratch, there wouldn't be much need for overlap in skeletal structure. Yet all three types of animals share the same general limb design. Humans, dolphins and bats all have upper arm bones, lower arm bones, wrists, hand bones, and fingers. In dolphins, these bones are shortened to make a stiff flipper. Bats, meanwhile, spread their wings out over their finger bones.
Why would evolution do this? Because it works with whatever it's got handy (pardon the pun). Evolution can't see the future and it can't change the past. It can only cope with the present.
Da Vinci
http://www.strangescience.net/davinci.htm
He felt that the similar appearance of branching bood vessels, branching stems, and mingling tributaries weren't just coincidence; the actually were fundamentally the same. In that same spirit of unified microcosm/macrocosm, he investigated geology.
Da Vinci refuted the prevailing beliefs about marine fossils. Refusing to believe that the fossils were simply carried to their present destinations by the biblical deluge, he suspected a much older earth than what the Bible described.
Da Vinci rejected the notion that fossils were just "sports of nature," understanding instead that they belonged to once-living organisms. He noted that fossil shells appeared in several different horizons in the mountains, meaning they could not have all been deposited in a single deluge, nor could slow-moving mollusks reach the mountains in the biblical flood's short duration. He devoted years to studying the behavior of water and identified the sedimentary rocks that water deposits. He even anticipated the 20th-century theory of plate tectonics by considering the possibility of uplift in mountain building.
Perhaps most interesting of all, da Vinci may have formulated a vague notion of evolution:
"Nature, being inconstant and taking pleasure in creating and continually producing new forms, because she knows that her terrestrial materials are thereby augmented, is more ready and more swift in her creating than is time in his destruction."
Tue Feb 13, 06:16:00 AM 2007 
 tiny tim said...
Brent,
I’m always up to discussing “why” ☺ However, let’s be fair here: Christians assume there are logical explanations to Bible “contradictions” because of their fundamental belief that God is perfect. Atheists and Bible critics, on the other hand, look for contradictions often where none exists and then blame the Christian for not keeping an open mind ☺ Oftentimes, it’s a lose-lose situation for the Christian.
As for “explaining away” these so-called “problems”, it would appear that any explanation a Christian offers for a problematic verse is going to be automatically met with skepticism (the discussion revolving around Satan and God on this site is a prime example). You seem to be starting from a non-negotiable presumption as well.
But we can see where this takes us. Your blog or mine? ☺
Tue Feb 13, 07:17:00 AM 2007 
 Brent said...
I'd rather discuss on your blog. Mine is down right now. Click on my name above to see my profile and email me the location of your blog.
I DO believe that there are explanations that are easier to accept (as an atheist) than the "God said it - end of story" type of response to the problematic passages. I am willing to share those during the conversation.
Brent
Tue Feb 13, 09:40:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Yes indeed, Jesus does not keep his promises - because his dead
Eg JOHN 6:39 where none who believe in jesus will be torn away from him. Hmmmm! Go on, lie and say that I never truly believed or wanted to keep my faith.
Billy Sands (another ex christian that Jesus ignored)
Wed Feb 14, 03:07:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Is brent suggesting that if the fall is not historical, then evolution is true? Surely the nature of evolution means that we will be selfish (sinners) Therefore, his god loaded things against us from the start. Not very nice.
If the fall is taken as fact, then Adam and Eve did not know that to disobey god was wrong. They oly knew that after eating the forbiden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL - Nasty god! Because of this, even as a metaphor for moral teaching, it is still a pretty retarded one. Extrabiblical sources like Confucious are much better moral teachers :"force not on others that which you would not choose for yourself" written 500 years before jesus was born.
PS Go Richard!
Wed Feb 14, 03:18:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
PS last comment was me
Billy Sands
Wed Feb 14, 03:19:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Jesus is dead...? Well that's a new one.
Wed Feb 14, 07:41:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Billy, your misunderstanding of the fall has obviously made you a bit jaded. Adam & Eve knew it was wrong to disobey God in exactly the same way a child knows it's wrong to disobey their parents. A child doesn't know anything about sin but a child knows the difference between right & wrong. The "knowledge of good and evil" however was an awareness of their sinful human nature in contrast to God's will.
Lev 19:18 "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:" Written 1500 years before Confucious.
Wed Feb 14, 07:54:00 AM 2007 
 roopster said...
I agree that the Old Testament portrays God as all of these things. I'm chronicling that in my blog Daily Bible Readings - 2007
However, my opinion is that this is not an accurate representation of God but simply an ancient culture's view of him.
Sat Feb 17, 06:48:00 AM 2007 
 Joel said...
roopster said:
"However, my opinion is that this is not an accurate representation of God but simply an ancient culture's view of him."
And that is the problem. Can you truly justify all of the bullshit that happened because that's the culture's view of God?
There is no such thing as an accurate representation of something that is a delusion. If it is all based on our time's view of him, then my view of him is that he is a human construct.
Sat Feb 17, 10:59:00 AM 2007 
 Roopster said...
Joel,
There are no justifications.
BTW, for those of you who want this in written form here it is:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasantcharacter in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust,unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser;a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal,filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciouslymalevolent bully."-- Professor Richard Dawkins
- Roopster
Sun Feb 18, 07:21:00 AM 2007 
 CrownRightsPatriot said...
The God of the Old Testament:
-- Jealous? Amen. His name is Jealous (Exodus 34:14)
-- Proud? Nothing to my knowledge indicates pride.
-- Unjust? False. Prove he's unjust.
-- Petty? (i.e. Insignificant?) Where'd he get this from?
-- Unforgiving? False. He's longsuffering (Exodus 34:6).
-- Control-freak? Amen (Romans 11:36).
-- Vindictive? (i.e. vengeful) Amen.
-- "bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser"? No proof.
-- Misogynistic? False. Exodus 21:12
-- Homophobic? Not literally afraid of homosexuals; however, God hates sodomites (Leviticus 18:22).
-- Racist? False, prove it.
-- Infanticidal? Amen (Hosea 13:16).
-- Genocidal? Amen (Isaiah 45:7).
-- Filicidal? Amen (Leviticus 20:9).
-- Pestilential? Amen (I Samuel 2:6).
-- Megalomaniacal? No, God is quite certain He is Supreme. It's no delusion.
-- Sadomasochistic? False. See Jeremiah 8:18-9:3; Micah 1:8; Ezekiel 18:23, 33:11). However, He does mock at the destruction of the wicked (Deuteronomy 28:63).
-- Capriciously malevolent? (i.e. unpredictably hateful) False. Prove it.
-- Bully? Well, He is God after all, which means He exercises absolute control over His entire creation. So I guess you could say He's a bully for all the mean things He does to you; but at the same time, He's often giving you a blessing in disguise (e.g. when you learn a moral lesson after having suffered a great loss).
Sun Feb 18, 09:39:00 PM 2007 
 CrownRightsPatriot said...
After reading some early comments, I noticed one guy who said that Jesus never answered his prayers.
If you were in rebellion against God, your prayers were an abomination to Him (Proverbs 15:8-9). For example, if you asked Jesus in prayer for a large sum of money, and Jesus didn't give it you, it's not because Jesus doesn't exist; it's because you never had faith in the first place, and God hated you for deceiving yourself as such.
Sun Feb 18, 09:48:00 PM 2007 
 CrownRightsPatriot said...
Brent wrote, "Why isn't there evidence that a man named Moses led over one million people from Egypt to Canaan? We have archaeological evidence of other societies. We have names of leaders, the artwork of the people, etc."
If the Bible is truly the inspired Word of God, then I should expect that He makes absolutely sure that little to no evidence of His works are preserved. He hides Himself so as to demand faith.
If He had preserved all the evidence, then salvation could be achieved by looking at archaeological evidence. What kind of salvation is that? No, to enact His will, He destroyed most of the evidence, so that He could consign all to disobedience, so that He could have mercy on all (Romans 11:32), especially on those who, despite the total lack of evidence and logical reasons to the contrary, believed anyway.
Sun Feb 18, 10:45:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Jason, dont talk rubbish! they did not know what was right or wrong before they sinned. Also, how could they judge for themselves who was right? god or the serpent?
BTW do you actually believe all that crap? What about disease etc that existed before the appearence of humans? Or are fossils the work of the devil - ha ha!
Mon Feb 19, 05:29:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Oh, and the leviticus verse was probably actually written about 800-500 BC, and plentuy of older babylonian moral teachings exist. Morality is actually innate.
The bible is a disgusting moral guide, where rapists are punished by being forced to marry their victims, and offers wonderfull advice on relationships like kill your family if they worship other (false) gods
Billy
Mon Feb 19, 05:34:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Crownrights patriot read yor bible properly, and not just the bits you like.
Here are a few (I dont have time for them all)
Unjust - punishes all man kind for the sins of two, or the killing of babies in egypt (who had done no wrong EX.11, or how about punishing people for the sins of their forefathers (Is 14:21-22 or deut 5:9)
He punishes people for being born bastards (23:2) He excludes the deformed (Lev. 21:16-23) even although he makes them that way (Ps. 139:13-15)
Unforgiving. Women still have pain in child birth (gen 3:16) and lets not forget veryone in jericho that he destroyed, when he ordered no mercy to be shown
Mysogenistic - yes
God does not have a problem with kidnapping women, nor with making them gifts to be used as sex slaves (Jud. 21:11-14). In fact, the god of the bible doesn’t think too much of women at the best of times. These following attitudes make me sick! A rapist must marry his victim. . Eve also gets all the blame for the original sin (1Tim. 2:12-14), and women are the property of men and were created for men, because we are superior. They must be silent in church and never hold authority over men, or even teach a man (1Cor. 11:8-9, 14:34-35, Eph. 5:21, Col. 3:18, 1Tim.2:11-14). All however is not lost, as a woman can be saved through childbirth (1Tim. 2:15). The only problem is that God would rather men didn’t get married (1Cor. 7:8), and for those lucky enough to get a man, child birth will be incredibly painful (Gen.3:16). Yep, God hates women!
So, what does he like then? Well, slavery for one, as long as the slaves are not Israelite (Lev. 25:44-46). Furthermore, he doesn’t mind you beating them, as long as you don’t kill them (Ex. 21:22-24). God likes slavery so much; he even sets different laws for their welfare to those of their Israelite masters. If an owner knocks out a slaves eye, he must set the slave free (Ex. 21:26). If he did it to another Israelite, the law requires the loss of his eye too (Ex. 21:22-24). I like Gandhi’s observation (pardon the pun) that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Should the master kill the slave, the punishment is not defined (Ex. 20:21) here, but If he kills an Israelite, he too must be killed (Ex. 21:12).
Having read your response and written this brief rebuttal, I can only conclude thast you are brain washed and deluded, and it worries me that you aprove of some of the above stuf by stating Amen - please seek therapy.
And Jason, in further rebuttal of your comment : gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "
So God has a sinful nature if you are right ... Hmm, explains a lot
Billy
PS theists have nice lives, you seem a pretty deluded bunch and i can see sence will not work on you, and see you all in hell
Mon Feb 19, 06:09:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Anon (whoever you are),
I might be talking rubbish but other then personal opinion, you're not offering anything to prove this is the case.
1. Adam & Eve understood God was supreme to the serpent. Remember, God gave them "dominion" over the animals (Gen. 1:26). There would have been no question who the authority was.
2. I'll repost this again. Adam & Eve knew it was wrong to disobey God in exactly the same way a child knows it's wrong to disobey their parents. A child doesn't know anything about sin but a child knows the difference between right & wrong. The "knowledge of good and evil" however was an awareness of their sinful human nature in contrast to God's will.
3. Yes, I believe this crap.
Mon Feb 19, 07:28:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
Billy,
Proof please that Leviticus was written between 800 - 500BC.
How many Christians today do you think base their moral conduct on the rules as stated in the Old Testament? None. It's the whole old law vs. new law thing. Yours is a weak attempt on the grounds of emotion to discount the Bible.
Mon Feb 19, 07:33:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Billy, how does "knowing good and evil" imply God has a sinful nature?
"See you in hell...". A classic closing line from just another threatened atheist.
Mon Feb 19, 07:42:00 AM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Threatened atheists, ha! dont make me laugh.
Lots of evidence as to when the pentateuch was written: read a book called the bible unearthed. for now, how about the fact that gerar was not a phillistine city in the time of Abraham (in fact, it did not exist until much later)
What is your proof that the bible is actually inspired by god and that had he wrote it, he is actually telling the truth? None other than because it says so I'll bet. The earth is not flat and is billions of years old, and death and disease most certainly predated man kind (look up fossil record). Mine is a rational position. You start from the assumption that god exists and that the bible must be inerrant.
Thankfully many (although not all by any means) Christians do ignore the crap laws, even though jesus said that the law will always stand (matt 5:18). The rational response is that this is a contradiction in the nature of God So much for following so called moral absolutes
"Do not return evil to your adversary;
Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you,
Maintain justice for your enemy,
Be friendly to your enemy."
So says a 3rd millennium BCE sumerian text, "Counsels of Wisdom,"
So much for the bible as the source of morality. Infact, cultures who have never heard of your god still make the same moral judgements as christians, muslims and atheists etc (unless their minds have been poisened by disgusting religious laws of course. Do you really think that the only reason you know that coveting is wrong is because the bible says so? (rom 7:7) If so, that really is sad.
Did god actually say dont listen to the serpent? Was eve not persuaded? (gen 3:6) How do you know they knew who the authority was? you have no evidence for this statement and it is just a pre assumption that god wrote the bible makes you say this. If this happened in another book, i bet you would not defend it. And how would realising that they were naked be a realisation of their sinful nature? god made them naked. Get real


Anonymous, I was refreeing to Jason's response and said that by his reasoning, god must have a sinful nature. Therefore, his arguement defeats itself.
Got better things do do with my time than argue with 6 day creationists and inerrantists.
What if you are wrong about Allah? (have you even seriously considered other religions? or are you just following the meme that you INHERITED (through family or cultural context). If so I will see you in hell, and i'll spend all eternity reminding you I was at least right about your god :-)
Oh and one final thing to make you think (I hope) Read the context of Is. 7:14 (the virgin birth) No way is it about jesus. It is about events happening around 730 BCE and was given to the king at that time as an assurance to him that Israel will not be invaded. Yet, Matthew twists this to pretend that it was foretold that jesus would be born to a virgin - presumably like contempory competing myths like hercules, dionysis, mithras etc.
Any attempts you make to claim it is about jesus will be a good laugh for rationalist, so feel free. The same is true of other messianic prophecies eg Micah 5:2 so it looked like the gospel writers lied about the life of jesus then
Billy
I wont reply again, but do give others a laugh
Mon Feb 19, 01:14:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
There's that "see you in hell" bit again... :)
Mon Feb 19, 02:30:00 PM 2007 
 jason said...
Sad to see you go, Billy.
If there's one thing I can leave you with, have a look at Matthew 5:17 and then read :18 again, specifically the part where it says, "...no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Finish with a sprinkling of Hebrews 7:12 and you'll be good to go.
Mon Feb 19, 02:37:00 PM 2007 
 Anonymous said...
Jason Said ... "I've never understood the anti-Christian viewpoint that the belief systems of Christianity have caused death and hatred."
Have you never heard of the Spanish Inquisition? The Reformation? How Charlemagne successfully spread Christianity by conquering other peoples and giving them the option of either converting to Christianity or being killed?
Christianity only got to it's current place in the world after a long history of blood, violence and coercion. No matter what you think your religion stands for, or what it may have tried to stand for (even though the Old Testament does repeatedly advocate God-sanctioned slaughter of non-believing peoples) you simply can't ignore it's history.
Mon Mar 05, 01:03:00 PM 2007 
 space said...
Anon,
You obviously skipped the rest of Jason's comment: "...This isn't a reflection on the validity and truth of the Bible, this is reflection of man's greed by tampering and perverting God's word to further their own personal and religious agendas...These are the man-made beliefs that cause so much of the problems within and without Christianity, but these beliefs aren't found in Scripture."
Unfortunately, there's often a stark difference between Christianity and the Bible. The Spanish Inquisition is an example. These people weren't following the Bible, they were consumed with the desire of power. The history of Christianity is filled with people doing their own thing and deciding for the mases what is best. This isn't a Bible-based religion. This is man-based. Which again goes back to Jason's original point.
Mon Mar 05, 07:13:00 PM 2007 
 Metallimeister said...
Jesus sucks ass
Sat Mar 10, 05:31:00 PM 2007 
 jason said...
Yah, SO THERE!!! lol
Sat Mar 10, 07:24:00 PM 2007 
 jake3988 said...
Anonymous said...
Jason, dont talk rubbish!


Um. That'll never happen. Jason has never and probably will never make a coherent point nor make sense.
Just try to ignore him. His views are representative of his own delusional world which is even stranger and weirder than the delusional world most christians live in. But at least most christians are sensible and speak coherently when they debate. Jason does not.
Mon Mar 12, 09:50:00 PM 2007 
 jake3988 said...
Yeah. Ever heard of the Inquisiton? Northern Ireland? The crusades? The reformation? Khashmir? September 11th? Israel?
All these bloody monstrosities are all attributed to religion.
The Old Testament clearly show God leading genocides of about 40 different kings and being proud of it. David does it and commits wicked sins (Like blatant adultery and murder)... and becomes God's best buddy!!!

And really, if we are to follow EVERY guideline for being able to get into heaven: (Praying solely to God, not being homosexual, becoming like a little child, being baptized, being born again, not being rich, ETC ETC ETC)... almost no one qualifies.
It really shows what guy this 'God' is. He's not very nice.




Lastly. He's jealous and proud of it. He even uses those exact words numerous times. Not something to be proud of, there's a reason its a deadly sin. And yeah, Pride is too!
He really likes the smell of dead animal carcasses too. (Poor animals! No PETA member in their right mind would ever be a Christian or Jew.)

Figures that in The Case for Faith, which has to be the worst book ever written, one entire chapter is dedicated to 'debunking' the myth that the old testament is cruel and violent because supposedly God doesn't approve of it. In fact, he encourages nearly all of it. What he doesn't encourage... he leads himself. I got to that part, I laughed hysterically, closed the book, and didn't read another page.
I do not approve of a jealous, pride-filled, cruel, crazy, violent deity. I will not follow in his ways. I will never believe in any major religion.
Will I believe in a God? Maybe. Probably not. Certainly not an organized religion. The corruption that comes with it is enough within the church by itself to turn me away.
Mon Mar 12, 10:02:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
You have a wonderful way with words, Jake. Your rants are predictable and factless but hey, to each their own, right? :)
Wed Mar 14, 08:39:00 AM 2007 
 fletch said...
Plato, Anselm and Descartes argue that empiricist reasoning is not the best route to knowledge. Modern philosophers, too, such as H.P. Owen criticise the belief that we can know God through our senses: “Our direct knowledge of God takes the form of an intellectual intuition which is analogous to our intuition of other human persons in so far as, firstly it is mediated by signs, and secondly it terminates in a spiritual reality”. In essence, although we can count people, we do not know how to count God as one. Some religious philosophers, such as Brian Davies, have raised the question ‘If God is timeless and spaceless, how are we able to experience God?’ in an acute form: what is meant by ‘experience of God’? Where do we look? How would we recognize omniscience when we encounter it? It is also interesting to note, as Hume did, that different religions experience God in different ways: the Christian experiences of God and Christ are different from the Hindu experiences of Gods. This is seen as contradictory. Furthermore, how can varied experiences get us to the classical concept of God? Can varied experiences lead to one reality? Finally, if there is a common transcendental core to mystical and religious experiences, it will not have much to do with the claims of any one religion. This has given rise to the view that prior beliefs shape experiences (Stace).
Here are some ideas for you guys to throw around!
Sun Apr 22, 09:35:00 AM 2007 
 Ryan said...
For all you guys that have "experienced Christ", guess what? :)
That wasn't Jesus, it was my grandfather. He was actually the only prophet sent by god into this world to save our souls. He has long hair and flowing beard and he liked to wear robes. However, the Communists found out about him and tried to assassinated him by hammering a stake into his heart. Shortly thereafter he transformed into a bat and flew away.
Sounds silly doesn't it?
But like fletch said, how do you know it's not true? :)
If, when you die, you walk into a long, dark tunnel, and eventually see a light at one end, step out, and see someone with long hair, flowing beard, dressed in robes, how would you know if he's Jesus or the Devil? How would you know if he's not my grandfather? How would you know if he's not the Mexican immigrant who died in a car crash on Valley Boulevard? If I ever see someone appear to me after I die, the first thing I'm going to do is ask for an ID.
Tue May 01, 02:24:00 AM 2007 
 Reforming Baptist said...
Mr. Dawkins is a natural man who is angry with God whom he is at enmity with. God is gracious for not having already snuffed out his worthless life and sent him to hell for his blasphemy. The same goes for the author of this blog.
The fact that God has put up with the sespool of human filth for the thousands of years it has been in existance is the mercy and grace of God. The fact that He has made a way to redeem them through the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ is amazing grace...not capricious malevolent bullying.
Tue Nov 18, 04:04:00 PM 2008 
 Gary DeVaney said...
From: "The God Murders"
God had said in Malachi 1:3 and Romans 9:13: I loved Jacob and I hated Esau.

Genesis 38:9-10 Onan, when he had sex with his brother’s widow, would waste his seed on the ground. What he did offended God. God murdered him.

Exodus 31:15 Anyone who dares work on the Sabbath day shall be murdered.

Leviticus 10:1-2 Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu offered incense to God, by unauthorized fire. God murdered them both, by fire.

Leviticus 15:31 Anyone unclean defiling Gods dwelling, God will murder.
Leviticus 21:9 God commanded: A priest's daughter who fornicates - burn her to death.
Leviticus 21:17-21 God commanded: Any one with a handicap shall not profane God’s sanctuary.

Leviticus 22:9 God commands: Obey my rules or I will murder you.

Numbers 1:51 God commanded: Any "stranger" (KJV) "layman" (Catholic Version) who comes near God’s dwellings will be put to death. (Also found in Numbers 3:10.)

Numbers 4:17-20 claims whom God would murder if they look at the sacred objects.

Numbers 5:1-3 God moves all the sick, suffering people away from the camp, as God can't stand to dwell near them.

Numbers 11:1 The people complained, so God murdered many of them.

Numbers 11:18-20 God made them eat meat until it came out of their noses. (They died.)

Numbers 15:32-36 They found a man gathering sticks on The Sabbath Day. God commanded Moses to murder the man.

Numbers 18:7&22 God ordered: Any layman coming near the alter will deserve death / murder.

Numbers 22:33-35 God said: Had your ass not turned away, I would have murdered you; but I would have spared your ass.

Deuteronomy 4:25-26 God commanded: If you make a statue or image, making God angry, you will then be utterly destroyed.
Wed Oct 27, 04:02:00 PM 2010 
 Schlaht said...
personally, i think the people who lived thousands of years ago believed in deities because they had no way to explain certain natural phenomena.
Salem burned people that they thought were witches, because (not only unlawful accusations) but for things like making medicine.
if people don't understand something, they try to kill it. and having a man in the sky is the way we've gone for this problem for thousands of years.
imagine how far we would be in the future if the vatican never hindered scientific study.
Sat Nov 06, 01:48:00 PM 2010 
 Glade Ross said...
Are you serious?
Grown men discussing a primitive myth that involves a "talking snake" . . . and believing it describes a true event!
Please! Didn't you guys get past kindergarten in your mentalities?
Evidently not.
Let me tell you something. You do not deserve to participate in even the pretense of a rational discussion. For you, it's nothing but a charade, and you mock the very enterprise by abusing its stolid premises, giving lip service with one word, then defying with each string that follows.
A talking snake? Yes, you are disqualified.
A discussion between rational folk and you never (and can never) move in a forward direction because you are subject to no rational rules. You toy, only, with that instrument, and are not ruled by it. Unreason is your commander, guide and chief.
Turning now to you who are fellow rationalists, I salute your good will and intent. But I also suggest, as soon as your counterpart in a discussion reveals his utter unwillingness to be ruled by reason (and therefore his ultimate disdain for it), there is no basis for further discussion. With that as the foundation, continued discussion is bound to be an exercise in futility.
BTW, you should also reflect on what really should be considered the first moral rule. To me, it is that we should bind ourselves -- in all our thinking and beliefs -- to reason. It's an implicit moral rule in life because, when we don't so bind ourselves (when we indulge, in other words, in the "sin" of faith), we are at risk of doing things to others such as, well, flying airliners into buildings (as just one out of millions of potential examples).
Given this implicit moral rule, please reflect on the fact that rationalists are indeed the moral ones. The anti-rationalists -- while dressing themselves within their own pretense of moral superiority -- are in fact scathingly (and proudly) immoral.
When you think about it, it quickly becomes apparent this framework is a rather shocking one. Faith-mongerers have pulled-off a (may I say near "miraculous") legerdemain in marketing so gross an enterprise to the point of not mere public acceptance, but even widespread praise.
Sadly, our esteemed Enlightenment still has a very long way to go. Too many minds continue with premises and exercises that belong in the Dark Ages, and worse.
Sat Feb 12, 10:24:00 AM 2011 
 A-Away said...
Dear Richard,
You would make a fantastic St Paul - version II, after you have had your own personal encounter with Divine Grace on your own road to Damascus. We prayerfully look forward to that! :)
With love and warm regards,
Amalan
Sun Apr 03, 09:44:00 PM 2011 
 jb3860 said...
The god dawkins describes here is exactly what he he describes that god to be ...a FICTION. No nercessary connection to the real God that many people know personally.
Fri Jan 27, 12:11:00 PM 2012 
 Burnt Toast said...
Reforming Baptist, you may have forgotten that god created this sespool of human life. "snuffed out his worthless life" yea, that is a typical comment from a christian who doesn't view anyone other than christians as relevant in life. Kill the bastards, right? Who cares about those worthless piece of shit non-believers anyways, right? Maybe you need to go sit on the throne because apparently you know everything you worthless piece of shit. Yea, I'm going believe in jesus listening to a loving person like you. What an example you are. I got some good advice for you; SHUT UP. Yea, yea I'm going to hell, blah blah blah.. Spent 17 years as a christian troll and can only laugh at you, or feel sorry for you. I love how christianity brings out the best in people, I love it!
Fri Mar 30, 12:02:00 PM 2012 
 Mike said...
Wow if there is a God you Atheists have nothing to worry about because Reforming Baptist and the crew seem to know less about the Bible than they do. Christians, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts!
Thu Jul 12, 09:17:00 PM 2012 
 Mike said...
Christians are entitles to their own opinions but they are not entitled to make up their own facts. They seem to be oblivious to the lie that is this!
Thu Jul 12, 09:20:00 PM 2012 
 Quentin Shock said...
I saw a bumper stocker that said "god is pro life" ...... tell that to the victims of the flood, tell that to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, tell that to the first born of egypt , the list can go on and on. Even if all that I just said didn't really happen name one thing that God did that was helpful, that can be proven, that had no help from man..... NOTHING. The fact that so many people are ignorant enough to thank god for every small thing is just beyond me. Yes thank god for the free food the nice man just gave you. It is apauling to me. People are entitled to their opinions but that doesn't mean you should say they should die. Because when they die and prove all Christians wrong then who will be the winner. The same can go for atheists who want Christians to just rot. Either way you look at it religion and belief in an all powerful entity is bull
And by the way to anyone who says we should not trust Mr Dawkins because he is a man and that we should trust Jesus , wasn't Jesus a man himself. Didn't he bleed when he was nailed to the cross? Sure he could do some unimaginable things , but so can any magician like Penn & Teller, David Blaine, or Chris Angel.
Thu Nov 21, 11:44:00 AM 2013 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 25 October 2007Suggested Bible stories for the next Barna survey
As I mentioned in my last post, a new Barna survey claims that two thirds of American adults believe in the literal truth of the stories in the Bible, and concludes that "people believe that their personal trust" in the biblical God "is warranted" from these stories.
But of course the entire survey was set up to produce the desired result. The selected stories were the safe and familiar ones found in children's Bibles (and are the only ones that most adults are familiar with today).
I wonder what the result would be if the Bible stories were selected at random. What would happen, for example, if the following six stories were selected? 
1) God kills every Egyptian firstborn baby.

At midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle .... and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. Exodus 12:29-30
2) God sends fiery serpents to bite and kill his people (for complaining).

And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Numbers 21:5-6
3) Moses commands his soldiers to kill every boy, woman, and female child (except for the virgins).

And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:14-18
4) God orders the Israelites to kill every Amalekite man, woman, and child.

Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3
5) David buys a wife with 200 Philistine foreskins.

And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. ... Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife. 1 Samuel 18:25-27
6) God kills husband and wife for not giving all their money to Peter.
(Or maybe for lying about the amount of money that they had.)
Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? ... And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: ... And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost. Acts 5:1-10
Would people believe in the literal truth of these stories? Would they still "believe that their personal trust" in the biblical God was "warranted" by them?
Barna should do a survey to find out. (I'll bet the believers would drop from two thirds to two percent.)
Posted by Steve Wells at 10/25/2007 07:23:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
27 comments:
 Matt said...
re: 6)
Aw, you skipped verses 4 and 8
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
which makes it seem like they were killed for lying about how much they gave.
Fri Oct 26, 02:27:00 AM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Yeah, maybe God killed them for lying about the amount of money they made, not just for refusing to give all of it to Peter. Would that make the Bible story more acceptable to you, Matt?
I've added a note to say that God might have killed them for lying.
Fri Oct 26, 07:59:00 AM 2007 
 Robert said...
In my opinion that idea that god kills for such a minor infraction period is enough for any reasonable person to question gods morals and values. It definitely appears more likely the stories were generated by man to prove a point using god as their 'puppet'
Fri Oct 26, 11:02:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
God makes it clear that certain sins are punishable by death, specifically lying to the Holy Spirit. Point the finger at the individual, not God.
Fri Oct 26, 11:44:00 AM 2007 
 Dave said...
So Jason, if I clearly tell my daughter that if she lies to me I will cut her arms off ... and she does and I do... you will point your finger at her and not me?
Dude, you are sick. Seriously.
Fri Oct 26, 12:29:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
That's a false analogy (you're bound by the laws of the land, God isn't). Let's try this one: God tells His followers not to lie to the Holy Spirit. If they do, it's punishable by death. His followers heed the warning, recognizing God as the ultimate authority and not one to mess around with. One day, someone lies to the Holy Spirit. Oops. He's promptly killed. God set the law, God set the punishment, man broke the law, man suffered the consequences.
Here's another one. The Texas court system decides that anyone who kills another human being will be put to death as punishment. One day, John Smith kills Joe Blow. John Smith is put to death by the state. Whether or not you think this is "sick" doesn't change the fact there was a law in place with a corresponding punishment that condemned this particular act.
Fri Oct 26, 12:44:00 PM 2007 
 James said...
Yes, but this is one reason why people take issue with Texan law.
Texas doesn't claim to be perfect and all-knowing. God does.
Fri Oct 26, 01:42:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Exactly. So because God claims to be perfect and all-knowing, then the laws He sets are also perfect and thus we're obliged to follow them.
Fri Oct 26, 07:29:00 PM 2007 
 Andrew said...
Jason, I can't believe you are trying to justify the horrendous and abhorrent acts that God performs in the Bible, by arguing that ‘God is God, so whatever he does is justified’
How can you possibly buy into this? God’s actions in the Bible are absolutely incompatible with our moral faculties.
For example: The Bible says that God will send the vast majority of human beings to hell “the place of eternal torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth” and that people sent there shall be “tormented with fire and brimstone . . . for ever and ever”
We know that torturing people is immoral! Certainly you would not think we should gather all the earth’s homosexuals, unbelievers, and other ‘sinners’ together and torture them until they die. This is ludicrous! It is absolutely incompatible with our human faculty of morality; our sense of empathy and sympathy for other human beings. Look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; almost all contemporary societies endorse the idea that all human beings are entitled to certain universal and inalienable rights. This includes the belief humans should not be subjected to torture.
If the absolute source of morality is whatever God commands, no matter how abhorrent, than why would God have endowed human beings with a moral faculty that goes completely against what He commands?
Sat Oct 27, 10:57:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
God’s actions in the Bible are absolutely incompatible with our moral faculties.
This doesn't make God horrible. It simply makes His actions incompatible with our moral faculties.
"The Bible says that God will send the vast majority of human beings to hell “the place of eternal torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth” and that people sent there shall be “tormented with fire and brimstone . . . for ever and ever”
No it doesn't. The Bible says that when people die, they suffer the same fate as the animals (Ecc 3:19-20) and their thoughts cease (Psa 146:3-4).
"Certainly you would not think we should gather all the earth’s homosexuals, unbelievers, and other ‘sinners’ together and torture them until they die. This is ludicrous!
I couldn't agree more.
"Look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; almost all contemporary societies endorse the idea that all human beings are entitled to certain universal and inalienable rights. This includes the belief humans should not be subjected to torture."
Great.
"If the absolute source of morality is whatever God commands, no matter how abhorrent, than why would God have endowed human beings with a moral faculty that goes completely against what He commands?"
Simple - because He didn't.
Sat Oct 27, 08:18:00 PM 2007 
 Andrew said...
Jason, I am open to arguments from theists, deists, and atheists. If you could prove to me that the Bible does not state that any humans will be sent to hell, I would honestly appreciate it (since if it does, I am likely going there). It would help make my understanding of Christianity correct. But, from what I have seen in the Bible it does state that God will send people to hell: (here’s a few examples)
- Rev 21:8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part [will be] in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
- Ps. 9:17: "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."
- Luke 16:22 "Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 "And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment”
- Mark 9:41 "And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,”
- Isa 66:22 "Then they shall go forth and look On the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm shall not die, And their fire shall not be quenched; And they shall be an abhorrence to all mankind."
- Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one [of them] according to their deeds.
# 14 And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire
- Matthew 13:49 It will be this way at the end of the age. Angels will come and separate the evil from the righteous 13:50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, 62 where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
- Matt 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." This passage relates to Jesus' judgment of all the world.
- Revelation 14:9: If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
So for now, it seems my argument is still intact:
1. Torturing a human being is an immoral action.
2. The Christian God has sent human beings to be tortured in hell.
3. Therefore, The Christian God has committed an immoral action.
Sun Oct 28, 02:46:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Rev 21:8 - The lake of fire is the “second death”, not a place of eternal torment.
Ps. 9:17 - Hell is “sheol” in the Hebrew and is simply defined as the “grave” or the “earth”. See Gen 37:35, 42:38, 44:29, Numbers 16:30, 33 (pit), 1 Sam 2:6, etc.
Luke 16:22-23 – A parable. Here's why: 1. The passage speaks about bodies not souls. E.g., eyes, bosom (vs. 23) tip of finger and tongue (vs. 24). 2. The passage states that there was a great gulf fixed between Abraham and the rich man, yet they could both see and converse with each other (vs. 26). Is the great gulf to be taken literally? 3. Is heaven literally a place where conversations can be carried on between those enjoying bliss and those agonizing in hell? 4. How could Lazarus go literally to Abraham's bosom? Abraham (as now) was unquestionably dead and without his reward. (Heb. 11:8, 13, 39, 40). 5. If you were being tormented in flames of fire, as the rich man was, would you request only a "drop of water" to quench your agony? Would not a jug or jar, or even a handful of water be more logical? 6. Do you believe that the rich man was so stupid as to expect righteous Lazarus to leave the comfort of "Abraham's bosom" and spend time visiting the rich man in flames of fire?
Mark 9:41 – Hell is the “unquenchable fire”, not a place of eternal torment (are there immortal worms in hell?) Jesus is almost certainly quoting from Isa. 66:24. But this unquenchable fire is not the hell-fire of Christian teaching. Note the differences: 1. The fire is located outside Jerusalem in Israel. (Isa. 66:20). This is not the location of the hell-fire of Christian teaching. 2. Travellers will observe the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against God. Christian teaching consigns souls, not bodies, to hell.
Fire is used in Scripture for utter destruction, not for preservation in torment. Consider Sodom and Gomorrha, which were destroyed by fire and brimstone and are now set forth as "an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 7 cf. Gen. 19:24). But are these cities still burning? Scripture affirms that these cities were overthrown in a moment. (Lam. 4:6) and turned to ashes. (2 Pet. 2:6 cf. Deut. 29:23).
Isa 66:22 – See above.
Rev 20:13 – “hades” (or hell) isn’t a place of eternal torment since the entire city of Caperneum is condemned to “hell” in Mat 11:23. The word is translated as “grave” in 1 Cor. 15:55, which, using this meaning, makes sense given the context of Rev. 20:13 since death and hell/the grave will symbolically die the “second death” in the lake of fire, marking the end of sin and death in this world.
Matthew 13:49-50 – the “fiery furnace” is utter destruction, not eternal torment (see John 15:6). The weeping and gnashing of teeth come as a result of those individuals who are not permitted into Christ’s kingdom (see Luke 13:28).
Matt 25:41 – Everlasting fire, not everlasting torment (see Mark 9:41)
Revelation 14:9 – Figurative, not literal. Consider: 1. In the first occurrence of the expression, "fire and brimstone" is said to issue from horses' mouths. (Rev. 9:17)… 2. If literal torment in hell were intended, then the language of the passage would require Jesus to be with his angels in hell because of verse 10. 3. Consistency demands that if "tormented with fire and brimstone" is literal, so much "the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation". (Rev. 14:10). But the latter is an obvious figure drawn from Jer. 25:15. Why then insist on literal fire and brimstone?
Sun Oct 28, 03:58:00 PM 2007 
 Andrew said...
Jason, you seem to know the Bible very well, and I appreciate your response.
I’m still somewhat confused and have a few questions:
1. If people are sent to a fiery lake of burning sulfur, would that not be torment to them?
2. You say hell is an unquenchable fire but not a place or torment? I think most would consider being sent into unquenchable fire to be torment whether eternal or not.
3. Matthew 13:49 indicates being thrown into a fiery furnace (which you call utter destruction) and where the people are weeping and gnashing their teeth (the reason for why doesn’t matter)
- being thrown into a fiery furnace with weeping and gnashing of the teeth seems to constitute torture to me. - and if the fiery furnace is simply “destruction” how would they be weeping if they have been destroyed?
4. You argue that being cast into everlasting fire would not entail torment, please explain
I also have a few more quotes I hope you could take the time to address:
- "Anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Matthew 5:22, quoting Jesus)
- "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28, quoting Jesus)

My most important question has to do with Luke 16:22 which you say is a parable not literal, and Revelation 14:9 you say is figurative and not literal.
How do you know what sections of the Bible are to be taken literally and what sections of the Bible are not? We are imperfect human beings very much capable of error. Whether the Bible is to be taken literally or to be seen as a metaphor or parable is a subjective judgment. There is no empirical objective basis in which you can prove that a section of the Bible is to be taken literally or not; it is only your subjective interpretation. For example, According to a 2004 Gallup Poll 92% of those who attend church weekly believe in hell. It seems your interpretation of hell is very much a minority opinion; so why should anyone believe that your interpretation is the one that is correct? How can you take a doctrine of the Bible to be an authority, if the Bible is open to be interpreted in different ways by any imperfect human being?
Sun Oct 28, 06:06:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
1. The fiery lake of burning fire is the second death, not a place of eternal torment. People “sent” there die the “second death”. That is, they are utterly destroyed (no chance of resurrection).
2. Hell is simply the grave and the unquenchable fire is utter destruction, not physical torment. As previously stated, fire is used in Scripture for utter destruction, not for preservation in torment (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrha - Jude 7 cf. Gen. 19:24). Also: Mat 3:12 “Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Mat 13:40 “As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.” The tares and chaff are symbolic of the wicked and, like tares and chaff, they will be utterly destroyed.
3. The weeping and gnashing of teeth is a result of being kept out of Christ’s kingdom, not being burnt in hell-fire. Note how the KJV words it: “And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” (i.e. the wailing isn’t happening in the furnace of fire)
4. Everlasting fire doesn’t entail torment because everlasting fire is symbolic of everlasting destruction (e.g. Sodom & Gomorrah, Jude 7). The punishment is everlasting, but it is not conscious eternal torment. The punishment will be final and complete cutting off (Psa. 37:9, 34). Life eternal is reserved for the righteous, but the wicked are to die "the second death" (Rev. 21:8) which in Scriptural terms means to be without thoughts (Psa. 146:3,4; Eccl. 9:5).
The word "everlasting" is used of a result, not a process. Similarly, "eternal judgment" (Heb. 6:2) and "eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12) do not mean that judgment and redemption will continue throughout eternity, but rather that their results are eternal. Other Scriptures either state or imply a termination of the torment. For example, speaking of those who "know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ", the Paul states that they "shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." (2 Thess. 1:9). Jesus also states that "if a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6). To be "cast forth as a branch" and "burned" suggests termination of the burning when that which is burnable is consumed.
Matthew 5:22 – mentions nothing about eternal torment
Matthew 10:28 – God is the only one who can completely destroy an individual by not resurrecting them after death.
Luke 16:22 must be treated as a parable unless the questions I asked can logically be explained.
Revelation 14:9 is figurative given the context. The entire book is extremely symbolic and we must be careful what we take literally.
How do you know what sections of the Bible are to be taken literally and what sections of the Bible are not?
By first looking at the context, and then comparing these sections to other sections in Scripture to see if the message is consistent.
There is no empirical objective basis in which you can prove that a section of the Bible is to be taken literally or not; it is only your subjective interpretation.
I completely disagree. We simply use the information and evidence provided to come to a logical conclusion. If a Biblical ‘interpretation’ doesn’t hold up when challenged with other parts of Scripture, it should be discounted.
It seems your interpretation of hell is very much a minority opinion; so why should anyone believe that your interpretation is the one that is correct?
It’s not my interpretation, it’s the Bible’s. Just read the text. The very first book of the Bible describes what happens once someone dies – “dust to dust”. If life continued after death, surely God would have mentioned it here.
How can you take a doctrine of the Bible to be an authority, if the Bible is open to be interpreted in different ways by any imperfect human being?
Man has the freewill to interpret anything, including the Bible. The Bible doesn’t say Adam & Eve ate an apple, but people assume they did. This isn’t the Bible’s fault. God never says that when good people die, their immortal souls go to heaven, but people like to think they do because it’s easier to deal with emotionally. This isn’t the Bible’s fault.
Eternal life is only granted to those judged righteous. The problem with "hell-going" is that it requires eternal life to be granted to the condemned, something you won’t find in Scripture. What you will find is that death is the punishment for sin. Restoration from death is the reward of those judged righteous. The condemned simply go back to being dead. The momentous problem for the immortal soulists is explaining why the doctrine of the resurrection is so important. If Jesus was still alive after he died then so what if he was raised from the dead? Likewise, so what about the Day of Resurrection at the return of Christ if everyone who died is still alive?
Mon Oct 29, 05:44:00 AM 2007 
 Andrew said...
Jason, I appreciate the discussion. However, I am still unconvinced.
You state that we know what parts of the Bible are to be taken literally “by first looking at the context, and then comparing these sections to other sections in Scripture to see if the message is consistent.”
Your two criteria for the correct interpretation of a Biblical passage, then, are consistency with other Scripture, and context.
The first criteria you give, seems inadequate.
If a certain interpretation is to be discarded for not being consistent with a different Scripture, how can you be certain that the passage you are using as a proof is being interpreted correctly? Perhaps it is the passage you are referencing that is figurative or symbolic. How can you know which of the two interpretations to discard?
It is incoherent to prove the interpretation of a passage is correct by referencing another passage, if the other passage is also subject to interpretation.
The same problem would occur if a person tried to justify the interpretation of a particular passage by testing it’s consistency with the message of the Bible as a whole. The problem is that “The entire book is extremely symbolic” and people’s interpretation of the Bible and it’s message ‘as a whole’ varies drastically. This is why we have so many different religions and different sets of belief coming from the same book. There is no established interpretation of the Bible’s message “as a whole”.
This method of justification also has another problem. The Bible seems to contain a great amount of inconsistencies in it’s doctrines. If in the Bible there exists contradictions, than surely one cannot use scripture as a justification, since it could be used to prove opposing conclusions.
Look at these contradictions for starters:
(Does God tempt people?)
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." Gen 22:1
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." James 1:13
(Should we fear God?)
DT 6 - And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart
DT 6:13 - Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
John 4:18 - There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.
(Does God always tell the truth?)
PR 30:5 - Every word of God is pure.
EZ 14:9 - And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet
(Will children suffer for their parents sins?)
DT 24:16 - The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
IS 14:21 - Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers;
(Should we follow eye for an eye justice?)
LE 24:20 - Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
MT 5:38 - Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
(Should we be wise?)
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
(What is the order of creation?)
GEN 1 - Day 1: Sky, Earth, light - Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky
Day 3: Plants - Day 4: Sun, Moon, Stars - Day 5: Sea monsters, fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies - Day 6: Humans
GEN 2 - Earth and heavens, Adam, the first man, on a desolate Earth, Plants, Animals
Eve, the first woman
(What is Moses Personality?)
Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."
Num.31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth, . . . And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."
There seem to exist many contradictions similar to these. If the Biblical passages contain inconsistencies than it’s passages cannot be used as a proof.
The second criteria you give, is that we should judge the correctness of an interpretation by using context to come to a logical solution. This criteria also seems inadequate. Hell, for example, you interpret to be a grave and not a place of torment. The problem is that millions of Christians and many eminent theologians have interpreted the Bible to indicate that hell is a place of eternal punishment. The Churches of Christ, The Church of the Nazarene, the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of America, The Evangelical Free Church of America are a few who have taken this view. These theologians have examined the context, many of them have devoted their entire lives to understanding the Bible. If examining context would produce the one true interpretation, than why have millions of Christians and Theologians alike examined the context and come up with different interpretations than you?
The people that use context as an approach for determining which interpretation of a passage is true, do not come to realize the truth of a specific interpretation, but rather, many different interpretations. Therefore, it seems the use of context, is an inadequate tool for humans to determine for certain which interpretation of a passage is true.
- Context can be interpreted in many ways and I think you will agree that it cannot provide the basis for faultless knowledge.
Jason, I appreciate your discourse but we have also strayed very far off topic. Hell was simply the first example that came to mind in posing my argument. If I granted that Hell is not a place of eternal torment I could quite easily reformulate my argument to either of these.
Argument 2:
1. It is immoral to subject a human being to cruel and unusual punishment.
2. God sentences human beings to be punished in cruel and unusual ways.
3. Therefore, God has committed immoral actions.
Or
Argument 3:
1. It is immoral to subject children to capital punishment.
2. God subjects children to capital punishment.
3. Therefore, God has committed immoral actions.
Argument 3 has been brought up by Dave in an earlier blog, but you have not provided a response.
Please address these new arguments as well if you have the time. Thanks.
Tue Oct 30, 11:07:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
It is incoherent to prove the interpretation of a passage is correct by referencing another passage, if the other passage is also subject to interpretation.
If this is actually true, then by extension you must accept my belief about hell to be just as true as the belief that such a place exists. According to you, neither side can prove their point through Scripture. So why bother having this discussion?
The problem is you obviously think the Bible proves the existence of hell and you accept there's Scriptural "proof" saying as much. Not only does this contradict your above statement but what criteria are they using to prove their point that you consider to be acceptable?
I'm also a little confused as why you don't think that Christians are routinely ignoring symbolic language and instead taking things literally to prove hell is a place of agonizing torment (specifically immortal worms in hell, literally cutting off limbs to avoid going to hell, Abraham's bosom and the great chasm, Sodom and Gomorrah burning in unquenchable fire, the lake of fire, etc.). Are these not symbolic?
Even ignoring that, the Christian belief in hell quite obviously contradicts the Bible's message about the death state, yet this doesn't seem to bother you. Why not? What do you think the Bible says happens once someone dies?
Tue Oct 30, 12:53:00 PM 2007 
 Andrew said...
“If this is actually true, then by extension you must accept my belief about hell to be just as true as the belief that such a place exists.”
- Yes, I do.
“The problem is you obviously think the Bible proves the existence of hell and you accept there's Scriptural "proof" saying as much”
- No, I don’t.
“Not only does this contradict your above statement but what criteria are they using to prove their point that you consider to be acceptable?”
- None that I know of.
“I'm also a little confused as why you don't think that Christians are routinely ignoring symbolic language and instead taking things literally to prove hell is a place of agonizing torment (specifically immortal worms in hell, literally cutting off limbs to avoid going to hell, Abraham's bosom and the great chasm, Sodom and Gomorrah burning in unquenchable fire, the lake of fire, etc.). Are these not symbolic?”
- I could care less.
“Even ignoring that, the Christian belief in hell quite obviously contradicts the Bible's message about the death state, yet this doesn't seem to bother you. Why not?”
- This doesn’t bother me because it further proves my point that the Bible is inconsistent.
If you haven’t got it yet, I don’t care if you take the Bible literally or as “extremely symbolic” my goal was to argue against doing either one.
I argued in the last post, that if the Bible is not to be taken literally, but to be interpreted as symbolic and figurative in parts; that using context, and consistency with other scripture as the criteria for how certain passages are to be interpreted is an inadequate method for producing certain knowledge of the correct interpretation.
Along with this argument, I put forth the argument that if you do take the Bible literally, which a surprising number of people do, or if you take certain passages literally, such as the ones that indicate a place of eternal torment, cruel and unusual punishment, or the capital punishment of children then the God you are worshiping is an immoral one. Like I said in an earlier post, Hell was simply the first example that came to mind in proving that argument. I later provided two more arguments using other immoral actions.
The reason I quoted passages from the Bible was to show that it indicated that there exists a hell consisting of eternal punishment (an immoral action) because you denied that the Bible did indicate this. I provided passages to show that it did. Once you argued that certain passages were to be taken figuratively, I moved to argue that it seems to me there isn’t a coherent way to determine for certain which passages are, and which passages are not, to be taken figuratively.
The reason I questioned some of your specific interpretations was to see what reasons you had for holding them.
Wed Oct 31, 08:11:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
“The problem is you obviously think the Bible proves the existence of hell and you accept there's Scriptural "proof" saying as much”
- No, I don’t.
You said: If you could prove to me that the Bible does not state that any humans will be sent to hell…from what I have seen in the Bible it does state that God will send people to hell.
I accepted the challenge and now you're saying you were never interested?
“Not only does this contradict your above statement but what criteria are they using to prove their point that you consider to be acceptable?”
- None that I know of.
You quoted a number of verses that Christians use to ‘prove’ hell, saying that from what you’ve seen, the Bible does state such a place exists. So if Scriptural references are good enough to prove hell, why aren’t Scripture references an acceptable criteria to prove it doesn’t exist? I don’t mean to be picky about this but it seems you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.
...Are these not symbolic?”
- I could care less.
Ouch. You could have told me this from the very beginning!
I argued in the last post, that if the Bible is not to be taken literally, but to be interpreted as symbolic and figurative in parts; that using context, and consistency with other scripture as the criteria for how certain passages are to be interpreted is an inadequate method for producing certain knowledge of the correct interpretation.
I don’t think so. Most people just can’t be bothered following the links through Scripture for the meaning of a particular symbol. For example, the lake of fire. Scripture clearly states the lake of fire is the “second death”. However, by ignoring this link, the lake of fire seems like a literal place where people will be swimming in molten lava.
Along with this argument, I put forth the argument that if you do take the Bible literally, which a surprising number of people do, or if you take certain passages literally, such as the ones that indicate a place of eternal torment, cruel and unusual punishment, or the capital punishment of children then the God you are worshiping is an immoral one.
There is no place of eternal torment except eternal death. Do you consider this punishment to be immoral?
Once you argued that certain passages were to be taken figuratively, I moved to argue that it seems to me there isn’t a coherent way to determine for certain which passages are, and which passages are not, to be taken figuratively.
I explained why they’re to be taken literally by asking questions such as, are there really immortal worms in hell? Does a literal chasm exist between heaven and hell? Does God expect believers to literally cut off a limb to save from going to hell? It should be obvious, to anyone, that these passages are figurative. We can even find the links that explain what the symbols mean. However, if these passages are literal, where are all the other verses talking about what those immortal worms are or why cutting off a limb would decided between redemption or torture?
Thu Nov 01, 06:02:00 AM 2007 
 Andrew said...
- Jason, I will reiterate what I tried to convey in my last post.
“You said: If you could prove to me that the Bible does not state that any humans will be sent to hell… from what I have seen in the Bible it does state that God will send people to hell.
I accepted the challenge and now you're saying you were never interested?”
- Yes I did say that. I was interested in why you thought that the Bible didn’t indicate there was a place of eternal punishment, since taken literally, it seems that it does.
“You quoted a number of verses that Christians use to ‘prove’ hell, saying that from what you’ve seen, the Bible does state such a place exists. So if Scriptural references are good enough to prove hell, why aren’t Scripture references an acceptable criteria to prove it doesn’t exist? I don’t ean to be picky about this but it seems you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.”
- Jason, I’ve already addressed this. I quoted verses I had seen to show that if taken literally the Bible seemed to imply a place of eternal punishment similar to the one pronounced by many religions. Once you said the passages were not to be taken literally, I argued that there seemed to be no justifiable way to prove your particular interpretation is for certain, the correct one.
“You could have told me this from the very beginning!”
- Sorry if you were mistaken as to my intentions. I was interested in why you didn’t think the Bible indicated there was a hell. If you consider our discussion a waste of your time, I apologize. I find your interpretation of hell, and your justification for that interpretation interesting.
“I don’t think so. (In reference to my arguments against using consistency and context as criteria) Most people just can’t be bothered following the links through Scripture for the meaning of a particular symbol.”
- I argued this in a previous post, you can address those arguments. There are thousands of philosophers of religion, theologians, religious authorities, and other academics who have different interpretations of hell than you. To say that they simply just didn’t “follow the links through the scripture” seems unreasonable.
“There is no place of eternal torment except eternal death. Do you consider this punishment to be immoral?”
- No, your interpretation of what the Bible says happens to humans when they die does not seem immoral.
“I explained why they’re (not) to be taken literally by asking questions such as, are there really immortal worms in hell?”
- How could I know there isn’t? Because that’s not consistent with other passages?
I’ve already been over this.
“Does a literal chasm exist between heaven and hell?”
- Again, how should I know? Because it’s not consistent? Same argument.
“Does God expect believers to literally cut off a limb to save from going to hell?”
- Why would I believe otherwise? Same argument.
“It should be obvious, to anyone, that these passages are figurative.”
- Jason, again, millions of people, including academics, philosophers, theologians, and priests who spend great amounts of time on the subject disagree about your interpretation of hell, so no, it’s not obvious that your interpretation of hell is the correct one.
“However, if these passages are literal, where are all the other verses talking about what those immortal worms are or why cutting off a limb would decided between.”
- I don’t know. Are you implying that because something is mentioned only once in the Bible it should be assumed that it is not literal? Why would that be an adequate criteria?
- Jason, I have appreciated the discussion and find your justification of your particular interpretation of Hell interesting; but I am arguing here that upon admitting the Bible is symbolic it seems you don’t have any solid criteria by which you can obtain with certainty what the correct interpretation of Bible passages are. Here is my argument, again:
Your two criteria for the correct interpretation of a Biblical passage, then, are consistency with other Scripture, and context.
The criteria of consistency seems inadequate for the following reasons:
1. It is incoherent to prove the interpretation of a passage is correct by referencing another passage, if the other passage is also subject to interpretation.
If a certain interpretation is to be discarded for not being consistent with a different Scripture, how can you be certain that the passage you are using as a proof is being interpreted correctly?
The same problem would occur if a person tried to justify the interpretation of a particular passage by testing it’s consistency with the message of the Bible as a whole.
2. The Bible seems to contain a great amount of contradictions in it’s doctrines. If in the Bible there exists contradictions, than surely one cannot use scripture as a justification, since it could be used to prove opposing conclusions. (I posted examples previously)
The criteria of context seems inadequate for the following reason:
3. You say that we should judge the correctness of an interpretation by using context to come to a logical solution. The problem is that philosophers, theologians, and religious authorities
who use context as an approach for determining which interpretation of a passage is true, do not come to realize the truth of a specific interpretation, but rather, many different interpretations. Therefore, it seems the use of context, is an inadequate tool for humans to determine for certain which interpretation of a passage is true.
Fri Nov 02, 09:38:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Yes I did say that. I was interested in why you thought that the Bible didn’t indicate there was a place of eternal punishment, since taken literally, it seems that it does.
It does indicate this. What it doesn’t indicate is the existence of a place of eternal physical torment. Any literal reading of the Bible will also show that upon death, all thoughts cease. The existence of hell is a non-issue if you start at the beginning.
Once you said the passages were not to be taken literally, I argued that there seemed to be no justifiable way to prove your particular interpretation is for certain, the correct one.
I had thought I had clearly shown why they shouldn’t be taken literally. Do Christians believe in immortal worms? Do Christians preach believers should literally cut off limbs to avoid hell? Why not? If someone is going to take a concept literally and then ignore the problems this causes with the context, it must be questioned.
There are thousands of philosophers of religion, theologians, religious authorities, and other academics who have different interpretations of hell than you. To say that they simply just didn’t “follow the links through the scripture” seems unreasonable.
It may seem unreasonable but that doesn’t make it wrong. How many 'educated' Bible scholars over the centuries have taught people that Lucifer is a supernatural evil force?

How could I know there isn’t [immortal worms]? Because that’s not consistent with other passages? I’ve already been over this.
Are immortal worms consistent with the Christian teaching of hell? Why not?
“Does a literal chasm exist between heaven and hell?” - Again, how should I know? Because it’s not consistent? Same argument.
Is it consistent with the Christian teaching of hell? Why not?
“Does God expect believers to literally cut off a limb to save from going to hell?” - Why would I believe otherwise? Same argument.
Is it consistent with the Christian teaching of hell?
...millions of people, including academics, philosophers, theologians, and priests who spend great amounts of time on the subject disagree about your interpretation of hell, so no, it’s not obvious that your interpretation of hell is the correct one.
Who agrees that people should literally cut off their arm so they don’t go to hell?
Are you implying that because something is mentioned only once in the Bible it should be assumed that it is not literal? Why would that be an adequate criteria?
It’s not. But if a Christian is going to use the Bible as the authority on matters of salvation, where are the rest of the pages teaching a believer should cut off a limb to avoid going to hell (instead of, say, praying for forgiveness)? From a Christian perspective, why would cutting off a limb make a difference? The point is it doesn’t since the Bible makes no claims that literal limbs are the source of sin.
Sun Nov 04, 04:31:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
The criteria of consistency seems inadequate for the following reasons:

1. It is incoherent to prove the interpretation of a passage is correct by referencing another passage, if the other passage is also subject to interpretation.
Who decides a verse is subject to interpretation?
If a certain interpretation is to be discarded for not being consistent with a different Scripture, how can you be certain that the passage you are using as a proof is being interpreted correctly?
If it’s consistent with the rest of Scripture, I would say this is proof in itself.
The same problem would occur if a person tried to justify the interpretation of a particular passage by testing it’s consistency with the message of the Bible as a whole.
This is precisely how it should be done.
The Bible seems to contain a great amount of contradictions in it’s doctrines. If in the Bible there exists contradictions, than surely one cannot use scripture as a justification, since it could be used to prove opposing conclusions.
If the Bible contains contradictions, hell is inconsequential. ☺
You say that we should judge the correctness of an interpretation by using context to come to a logical solution. The problem is that philosophers, theologians, and religious authorities who use context as an approach for determining which interpretation of a passage is true, do not come to realize the truth of a specific interpretation, but rather, many different interpretations. Therefore, it seems the use of context, is an inadequate tool for humans to determine for certain which interpretation of a passage is true.
Using context to understand meaning is something people do every day, whether in reading an e-mail or conversing with a friend. Context applies to the Bible as much as it does anything else. We don’t read the account of the Flood as if God were instructing us to gather the animals two by two because we grasp the context. Believers aren’t killing themselves en masse an account of Paul because they understand the context of his words in Romans 6 about being dead with Christ.
Sun Nov 04, 06:29:00 PM 2007 
 Andrew said...
Jason:
- I’ve been very busy with work and school, sorry for the late post. Here is my reply.
You said:
“What it doesn’t indicate is the existence of a place of eternal physical torment. Any literal reading of the Bible will also show that upon death, all thoughts cease.”
- What? Jason a literal reading of the Bible will indicate both a death where thoughts cease and a hell of torment.
when I offered passages to indicate that if taken literally they seemed to indicate hell as a place of punishment, you said they were to be taken figuratively.
For example, when I offered this passage:
Luke 16:22 "Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment”
You replied saying this: “A parable”
If this passage is taken literally it seems to indicates a man being tormented in the afterlife.
Are you now arguing that even taken literally the passages I quoted don’t indicate that, I’m confused?

You said:
“I had thought I had clearly shown why they shouldn’t be taken literally.”
- No, you didn’t.

You said:
“Do Christians believe in immortal worms? Do Christians preach believers should literally cut off limbs to avoid hell?” “Why not?”
- Most don’t, some might. Relevance?
When I said this:
“There are thousands of philosophers of religion, theologians, religious authorities, and other academics who have different interpretations of hell than you. To say that they simply just didn’t “follow the links through the scripture” seems unreasonable.”
You said:
“It may seem unreasonable but that doesn’t make it wrong”
- Haha, no Jason it doesn’t make it objectively wrong, just very unlikely.

You said:
“Are immortal worms consistent with the Christian teaching of hell?” “Why not?”
“Is it (chasm between heaven and hell, and cutting off a limb to save from hell) consistent with the Christian teaching of hell? Why not?”
“Who agrees that people should literally cut off their arm so they don’t go to hell?”
- I don’t know. What is your point? Jason, are you are trying to prove that some Christians interpret these three passages the same way you do? Where does this get you? I have already argued that anyone (including Christians) who interprets the Bible as “extremely symbolic”, does not have certainty as to the correct interpretation of the Bible. The fact is many Christians believe that hell does exist and it is a place of eternal torment whether or not they believe the three lines you quoted are literal or figurative.

In reference to my argument that you have no grounds for rejecting that a passage be taken literally on the basis that it is only mentioned once in the Bible
You said:
“It’s not. (An adequate criteria for rejecting the truth of passages) But if a Christian is going to use the Bible as the authority on matters of salvation, where are the rest of the pages teaching a believer should cut off a limb to avoid going to hell (instead of, say, praying for forgiveness)?”
- Jason this argument is completely incoherent. You agreed that a passage’s literal translation should not be rejected due to it’s only being mentioned once, and then directly argued that there need to be other pages teaching the same thing for it to be accepted. You completely contradicted yourself.
“From a Christian perspective, why would cutting off a limb make a difference? The point is it doesn’t since the Bible makes no claims that literal limbs are the source of sin.”
- Jason, you seem to be begging the question. You said that the reason the Christian perspective does not agree with the doctrine of literally cutting of a limb is because the Bible does not make the claim that literal limbs are the source of sin. You have just assumed the point that you are trying to prove.
- Even if the Christian perspective doesn’t agree with a literal interpretation, where does that get you?

When I argued this:
“It is incoherent to prove the interpretation of a passage is correct by referencing another passage, if the other passage is also subject to interpretation.”
You said:
“Who decides a verse is subject to interpretation?”
- Where is the question going Jason? Lots of people decide that the Bible verses are subject to interpretation. You yourself interpret passages, you said “the Bible is extremely symbolic” and you said that certain passages are not to be taken literally.

When I argued this:
“If a certain interpretation is to be discarded for not being consistent with a different Scripture, how can you be certain that the passage you are using as a proof is being interpreted correctly?”
You said:
“If it’s consistent with the rest of Scripture, I would say this is proof in itself.”
When I said this:
“The same problem would occur if a person tried to justify the interpretation of a particular passage by testing it’s consistency with the message of the Bible as a whole.”
I provided this argument as to why:
“The same problem would occur if a person tried to justify the interpretation of a particular passage by testing it’s consistency with the message of the Bible as a whole. The problem is that ‘The entire book is extremely symbolic’ and people’s interpretation of the Bible and it’s message ‘as a whole’ varies drastically. This is why we have so many different religions and different sets of belief coming from the same book. There is no established interpretation of the Bible’s message ‘as a whole’.”
You replied this:
“This is precisely how it should be done.”
- Jason, I’m starting to get the impression you don’t want to put in the effort to make an argument. For your conclusion to be accepted you need to provide me with some premises to support it.

You said this:
“Using context to understand meaning is something people do every day, whether in reading an e-mail or conversing with a friend. Context applies to the Bible as much as it does anything else. We don’t read the account of the Flood as if God were instructing us to gather the animals two by two because we grasp the context. Believers aren’t killing themselves en masse an account of Paul because they understand the context of his words in Romans 6 about being dead with Christ.”
“If someone is going to take a concept literally and then ignore the problems this causes with the context, it must be questioned.”
- Yes Jason, context can be used to help guide an interpretation; BUT it can only lead to a high probability of certainty in situations where context provides a certain indicator that figurative language is being used; and all readers are in agreement.
For example: if the story line of a fiction novel follows a man’s life, and somewhere in that story a metaphor is used such as “John became a wild animal”, the reader can assume that John did not actually transform into a wild animal due to the fact that the every other event in the entire story conforms to our scientific laws and the purpose of the story is to tell a realistic tale. I could also attain confidence in my interpretation due to the fact that every other reader made the exact same interpretation that I did. At this point, it is highly probably my interpretation based on context is correct.
Can we achieve certain knowledge, or even very high probability that we have correctly interpreted the passages in the Bible based on their context? I don’t think so, and here’s why:
1. Unlike the novel that I spoke of, we cannot determine if a passage in the Bible is to be taken figuratively on the basis that the passage does not agree with reality and the natural laws. Almost everything in the Bible is contrary to our scientific laws; to reject any breach of our scientific laws as not being literal would mean rejecting almost everything in the Bible. You can’t reject a literal interpretation of a Biblical passage because it’s absurd, because that would mean rejecting nearly everything.
2. Another clue as to the presence of figurative language in literature is certain words or phrases that introduce it. For example: “He stood straight like a pole”. But I doubt you’ll find enough indicative language in the Bible to prove all your interpretations.
3. Your criteria of consistency also fails the test. Consistency could be used as a judge in a novel like the one I described above, where a realistic story line is followed, and all readers can agree on the overall story. The fact that it wouldn’t be consistent with the overall story for John to have transformed into a wild animal is a decent indicator of figurative language.
The reason this doesn’t work with the Bible is because “the entire book is extremely symbolic” and there is no interpretation of the Bible as whole that is agreed upon which can be used as a check for consistency. (I gave my argument for this earlier in the post)
4. Another reason your criteria of consistency fails the test is that the Bible seems to contain a great amount of contradictions in it’s doctrines. In the novel I described, It would be possible to use the passages after the line, “john became an animal” as indicators that John was actually still a human, and you would not be able to find other passages that contradict them. The Bible on the other hand, contradicts itself in so many ways that you could find passages to support opposing interpretations. One example from those that I cited earlier is this:
(Should we follow eye for an eye justice?)
LE 24:20 - Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
MT 5:38 - Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek . . .
Also, on a similar note, how is this contradiction any different than the contradiction between hell as described in the old testament (your interpretation of hell as a grave) and the description of hell in the new testament? There are passages to support either interpretation. For example:
1 Kings 2:6 - Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace.

Revelation 20:10 - And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
5. My biggest concern is that you think context “obviously” establishes the correctness of your Biblical interpretations. The problem is that millions of Christians and many eminent theologians interpret the Bible differently than you do. If context is a sure indicator of a correct interpretation than why are there so many different interpretations. The example of the metaphor about John becoming a wild animal would be unanimously agreed upon, interpretations of what is literal and what is figurative in the Bible (hell for example) are nowhere close to unanimous but rather stacked against your interpretation.
Sun Nov 11, 07:56:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Jason a literal reading of the Bible will indicate both a death where thoughts cease and a hell of torment.
The Bible never says the wicked are now being consciously tormented in burning fire. What the Bible does say is that the dead all go to the same place (the grave) and that when Christ returns, the wicked and the righteous will be resurrected from the dead and subsequently judged.
Luke 16:22 - If this passage is taken literally it seems to indicates a man being tormented in the afterlife. Are you now arguing that even taken literally the passages I quoted don’t indicate that, I’m confused?
I’m arguing there’s no good reason to take this parable literally. Is there a literal chasm between heaven and hell? Can those in heaven and those in hell converse with each other? Could Lazarus go literally to Abraham's bosom if Abraham (as now) was unquestionably dead and without his reward? Not only do these not correspond with Biblical teachings of death and judgment, they also don’t correspond with Christian teachings about hell as a place of eternal conscious torment. This would explain why Catholic doctrine also refers to Abraham’s bosom as a “parable”…
“Do Christians believe in immortal worms? Do Christians preach believers should literally cut off limbs to avoid hell?” “Why not?” - Most don’t, some might. Relevance?
If Christians don’t believe in literal immortal worms, they’re obviously admitting that some imagery in the account is symbolic. So if immortal worms aren’t literal, why would you automatically assume unquenchable fire is a literal place of conscious torment reserved for the wicked prior to Christ's judgment?
“It may seem unreasonable but that doesn’t make it wrong” - Haha, no Jason it doesn’t make it objectively wrong, just very unlikely.
“Unlikely” isn’t intellectual grounds to discount anything. The inhabitants of Jericho thought it unlikely the Israelites would destroy their city, but they did.
Are you are trying to prove that some Christians interpret these three passages the same way you do? Where does this get you?
I’m asking if the three concepts I mentioned are consistent with the Christian teaching of hell. So are they or not?
My point is that a teaching of hell as a place of conscious torment runs contrary to your opinions on how a Biblical doctrine should be proven; Christians pick and chose between literal and symbolic ideas within individual verses to prove their point without any additional Biblical evidence to support their reasoning, yet you consider this acceptable as a means to prove their point. This is a double standard. Either choose to debate from an atheist standpoint or a Christian standpoint. If the former, then it doesn’t matter to you what anyone thinks about hell.
You agreed that a passage’s literal translation should not be rejected due to it’s only being mentioned once, and then directly argued that there need to be other pages teaching the same thing for it to be accepted. You completely contradicted yourself.
I did agree but I never said there's "needs" to be other teachings for it to be accepted. I'm simply stating there's cause to question why a teaching that could effect something as vital as salvation is only mentioned once. In the same manner, hell as place of eternal conscious torment is never mentioned once in the OT. God never threatens the Israelites with painful torment in fire and no one is ever said to have gone there. If hell is timeless and the wicked have been going there since the beginning of time, why would such an important concept be excluded from fully one half of Scripture? For many, myself included, this is adequate criteria to more closely examine the likelihood of such a place existing.
Jason, you seem to be begging the question. You said that the reason the Christian perspective does not agree with the doctrine of literally cutting of a limb is because the Bible does not make the claim that literal limbs are the source of sin. You have just assumed the point that you are trying to prove.
Mainstream Christianity doesn’t teach a literal cutting off of the limbs because mainstream Christianity understands this verse is symbolic on account of the fact the Bible never makes a claim that literal limbs are the source of sin.
Even if the Christian perspective doesn’t agree with a literal interpretation, where does that get you?
It doesn’t need to get me anywhere. You’re the one arguing that my mode of interpretation is wrong. If a Christian perspective doesn’t agree with a literal translation, then claiming that the Bible states hell is a literal place of conscious torment is questionable at best.
“Who decides a verse is subject to interpretation?” - Where is the question going Jason? Lots of people decide that the Bible verses are subject to interpretation. You yourself interpret passages, you said “the Bible is extremely symbolic” and you said that certain passages are not to be taken literally.
Red herring. Who decides a verse is subject to interpretation?
Jason, I’m starting to get the impression you don’t want to put in the effort to make an argument. For your conclusion to be accepted you need to provide me with some premises to support it.
:) I’ve made the argument already: hell isn’t a literal place of conscious torment and I’ve shown you why. You’re arguing against this as an atheist posing as a Christian – you disagree with my claims not because you have Scriptural references refuting my claims, but because you reject the methods I’ve used to prove my case. The Bible says all thoughts cease when someone dies. From a Christian point of view, how do you reconcile this with the concept of people living forever after death in hell?
Yes Jason, context can be used to help guide an interpretation; BUT it can only lead to a high probability of certainty in situations where context provides a certain indicator that figurative language is being used; and all readers are in agreement.
No, all readers do not have to be in agreement. The lake of fire is symbolic of the second death. Scripture states as such. If a million people claim it’s literal, this doesn’t make it right. Lucifer isn’t Satan, Scripture states as such. If a hundred million people claim otherwise, this still doesn’t make it right.
Can we achieve certain knowledge, or even very high probability that we have correctly interpreted the passages in the Bible based on their context? I don’t think so, and here’s why...
You’re now arguing the relevance of Scripture from an atheist point of view. What exactly do you want to discuss – the existence of hell or the inspired nature of Scripture?
The Bible on the other hand, contradicts itself in so many ways that you could find passages to support opposing interpretations. One example from those that I cited earlier is this: LE 24:20...
MT 5:38...
This is precisely why so many interpretations of the Bible exist. You’ve completely ignored due diligence. The Old Testament laws were given to the Jews and the Jews alone. Upon his death, Christ ushered in a new law which did away with the old law. This is commonly accepted knowledge within Christianity and well documented within Scripture.
Also, on a similar note, how is this contradiction any different than the contradiction between hell as described in the old testament (your interpretation of hell as a grave) and the description of hell in the new testament? There are passages to support either interpretation. For example...1 Kings 2:6…Revelation 20:10
There is no contradiction. As previously stated, the lake of fire is the “second death”. We know that the lake of fire is the place of destruction, so whatever goes in there will not last 'forever'. Note that the very fact that death and the grave enter the lake of fire proves this. Unless you can prove that death and the grave will literally suffer conscious torment in literal eternal fire…
My biggest concern is that you think context “obviously” establishes the correctness of your Biblical interpretations. The problem is that millions of Christians and many eminent theologians interpret the Bible differently than you do.
This isn’t a concern of mine. If you’d like to discuss these issues from a Christian perspective, I’m prepared to do so.
If context is a sure indicator of a correct interpretation than why are there so many different interpretations.
Because, as you’ve shown in your previous post, people ignore the context. The lake of fire isn’t a place of conscious torment. The law given to the Jews was done away with by Christ. Etc. Etc.
The example of the metaphor about John becoming a wild animal would be unanimously agreed upon, interpretations of what is literal and what is figurative in the Bible (hell for example) are nowhere close to unanimous but rather stacked against your interpretation.
Then let’s discuss how the Christian interpretation of hell stacks up with the interpretation given by God using the Bible as the sole authority.
Mon Nov 12, 12:20:00 PM 2007 
 Andrew said...
Jason, you consistently ask questions that I've already answered, and use arguments that I have already provided counterarguments for, please look at what I've already said before asking questions.
Here is my reply:
You said:
“I’m arguing there’s no good reason to take this parable literally. Is there a literal chasm between heaven and hell? Can those in heaven and those in hell converse with each other? Could Lazarus go literally to Abraham's bosom if Abraham (as now) was unquestionably dead and without his reward?”
- Yes and your argument fails. According to the Bible all kinds of absurd and unrealistic things happen, what makes these things you mention any more unbelievable than a virgin birth, or the multiplying of loaves and fishes? Why couldn’t there be a literal chasm between heaven and hell, and why couldn’t those in heaven and hell ever converse, lots of absurd things take place in the Bible? And even if someone did accept that they weren’t to be taken literally, that doesn’t provide grounds that the line about the man being tormented shouldn’t be. Metaphorical sentences are followed by literal sentences in literature all the time. You have no proof for your argument that the line about torment can’t be taken literally.
“Not only do these not correspond with Biblical teachings of death and judgment, they also don’t correspond with Christian teachings about hell as a place of eternal conscious torment. This would explain why Catholic doctrine also refers to Abraham’s bosom as a ‘parable’”
- Yes I know the Bible is inconsistent, that supports my argument not yours. So what if the Catholics call it a parable? Parables are used to illustrate truth, how do you know for certain that Jesus wasn’t intending part of his parable to illustrate what would truly happen to those who were wicked? AND PLEASE DO NOT SAY BECAUSE IT’S INCONSISTENT, do not continue to use the same tired argument over and over again that I have already provided solid counter arguments to disprove.
You said:
“If Christians don’t believe in literal immortal worms, they’re obviously admitting that some imagery in the account is symbolic. So if immortal worms aren’t literal, why would you automatically assume unquenchable fire is a literal place of conscious torment reserved for the wicked prior to Christ's judgment?”
- Jason, I wouldn’t automatically assume that the lines about torment are to be taken literally, but I am arguing that you can’t know for sure that they’re not. Yes the Christians might admit that some imagery in the account is symbolic, that doesn’t mean the entire thing is. Maybe that’s why the same Christians assume immortal worms aren’t literal and also assume there literally is a hell where there will be torment. My point is you can’t know for certain.
You said:
“‘Unlikely’ isn’t intellectual grounds to discount anything. The inhabitants of Jericho thought it unlikely the Israelites would destroy their city, but they did.”
- Please don’t compare the unlikeliness of citizens not thinking they will be attacked to my argument that “there are thousands of philosophers of religion, theologians, religious authorities, and other academics who have different interpretations of hell than you. To say that they simply just didn’t “follow the links through the scripture” seems unreasonable.”
Unlikely is a word that needs to be qualified, it is very different to say “it’s unlikely that it will rain today” and to say “it is unlikely that the force of gravity will stop being effective today and mass will no longer attract mass”. One is much more unlikely than the other. It is VERY unlikely that thousands of intelligent people who spent large periods of their life researching the Bible simply didn’t “follow the links through the scripture”.
Come one Jason, in a debate if someone puts forth a premise that in all probability is likely not to be true, it should be rejected. I’m sure anyone will agree with me on this point.
You said:
“My point is that a teaching of hell as a place of conscious torment runs contrary to your opinions on how a Biblical doctrine should be proven; Christians pick and chose between literal and symbolic ideas within individual verses to prove their point without any additional Biblical evidence to support their reasoning, yet you consider this acceptable as a means to prove their point. This is a double standard.”
- Jason, how many times do I have to tell you this. No I don’t think that Christians have an acceptable means to prove their point. I have said this over and over and over again. My point, that I have already stated, is that there is no way to know for certain how Bible passages should be interpreted.
“Either choose to debate from an atheist standpoint or a Christian standpoint. If the former, then it doesn’t matter to you what anyone thinks about hell.”
- First of all I’m not an atheist or a Christian. Secondly, why can’t what people think about the Bible matter to Atheists? Are you saying Atheists aren’t allowed to be interested in debates concerning the Bible?
You said:
“I did agree but I never said there's "needs" to be other teachings for it to be accepted. I'm simply stating there's cause to question why a teaching that could effect something as vital as salvation is only mentioned once. In the same manner, hell as place of eternal conscious torment is never mentioned once in the OT. God never threatens the Israelites with painful torment in fire and no one is ever said to have gone there. If hell is timeless and the wicked have been going there since the beginning of time, why would such an important concept be excluded from fully one half of Scripture? For many, myself included, this is adequate criteria to more closely examine the likelihood of such a place existing.”
- Jason, the Bible is inconsistent, I agree. The fact that the Bible contains many contradictions and inconsistencies works to support my argument, not yours. The fact that Hell is described differently in the OT and NT, if anything, provides more support for my argument that consistency with scripture isn’t an adequate criteria for certainty of an interpretation. How does proving the Bible is inconsistent lend support for your argument that you know for certain that the Hell described in the OT is the correct interpretation?
“It doesn’t need to get me anywhere. You’re the one arguing that my mode of interpretation is wrong. If a Christian perspective doesn’t agree with a literal translation, then claiming that the Bible states hell is a literal place of conscious torment is questionable at best.”
- Just because a line in a passage is taken figuratively doesn’t mean the all other lines are also figurative. We wouldn’t apply that logic to normal literature, so why apply it to the Bible?
When I said this:
“Where is the question going Jason? Lots of people decide that the Bible verses are subject to interpretation. You yourself interpret passages, you said “the Bible is extremely symbolic” and you said that certain passages are not to be taken literally.”
You replied:
“Red herring. Who decides a verse is subject to interpretation?”
- red herring? Jason, do you even know what a red herring is? A red herring is when someone in a debate ignores a criticism and launches a counter-attack by raising a different issue altogether.
I’m not attacking anyone here, and I’m not raising a different issue either. I’m actually just unsure of what your question means. You asked “who decides a verse is subject to interpretation?” and I gave you an empirical answer: lots of people do, and you are one of them. I’m lost on how this is a red herring and how this question is even relevant.
You said:
“:) I’ve made the argument already: hell isn’t a literal place of conscious torment and I’ve shown you why. You’re arguing against this as an atheist posing as a Christian – you disagree with my claims not because you have Scriptural references refuting my claims, but because you reject the methods I’ve used to prove my case. The Bible says all thoughts cease when someone dies. From a Christian point of view, how do you reconcile this with the concept of people living forever after death in hell?”
- Jason, you use the same tired argument over and over again, and still have yet to justify it in regards to the criticisms I have posed. CONSISTENCY IS NOT AN ADEQUATE CRITERIA. Before you keep using this argument please address the criticisms I have posed as to why it is not adequate. Yes Jason the Bible does say that all thoughts cease when someone dies, it also says that people will be tormented after they die; it’s inconsistent. How do I reconcile Christian inconsistencies? Christian inconsistencies work to further prove my argument. My position is that no one, Christians included, can know for certain how the Bible passages are to be interpreted. I’ve said this before Jason.
You said:
“No, all readers do not have to be in agreement. The lake of fire is symbolic of the second death. Scripture states as such. If a million people claim it’s literal, this doesn’t make it right. Lucifer isn’t Satan, Scripture states as such. If a hundred million people claim otherwise, this still doesn’t make it right.”
- Jason, I never once indicated that the majority of people who hold an interpretation are automatically right, if you actually read my posts you would see, that what I did say was that in order to gain a high probability that one is making the correct interpretation, the fact that EVERYONE else makes the same interpretation provides a good proof that one is likely correct.
As I illustrated: “The example of the metaphor about John becoming a wild animal would be unanimously agreed upon, interpretations of what is literal and what is figurative in the Bible (hell for example) are nowhere close to unanimous”
You said:
“This is precisely why so many interpretations of the Bible exist. You’ve completely ignored due diligence. The Old Testament laws were given to the Jews and the Jews alone. Upon his death, Christ ushered in a new law which did away with the old law. This is commonly accepted knowledge within Christianity and well documented within Scripture.”
- I’ve ignored due dilligence? Jason my example works just fine, regardless of the fact Christ ushered in a new law. What your stating isn’t even relevant. If you believe that Jesus ushered in a new law, than how can you possibly know that he wasn’t also ushering in a new punishment (hell)? You just admitted that the NT changed things established in the OT, so why couldn’t the afterlife also have been changed?
When I said this:
“Also, on a similar note, how is this contradiction any different than the contradiction between hell as described in the old testament (your interpretation of hell as a grave) and the description of hell in the new testament? There are passages to support either interpretation. For example:
1 Kings 2:6 - Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace.
Revelation 20:10 - And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
You said:
“There is no contradiction”
- Jason, how the %*$& is this not a contradiction between a grave and “the lake of fire and brimstone where. . . they will be tormented day and night forever and ever”.
“As previously stated, the lake of fire is the “second death”. We know that the lake of fire is the place of destruction, so whatever goes in there will not last 'forever'.”
- Jason, you are begging the question, again. You are assuming your interpretation of the lake of fire as being only a place of destruction and not possibly a place where torment could occur. The problem is you haven’t yet proved that your method of making interpretations is the correct one.
When I said:
“My biggest concern is that you think context “obviously” establishes the correctness of your Biblical interpretations. The problem is that millions of Christians and many eminent theologians interpret the Bible differently than you do.”
You said:
“This isn’t a concern of mine. If you’d like to discuss these issues from a Christian perspective, I’m prepared to do so.”
- Jason, again, you don’t even make the effort. My argument in this statement is that context doesn’t obviously establish the correctness of your interpretations. You response to my argument is that it doesn’t concern you? I guess your implying I’m correct here? If not provide a counter argument as to why I’m not.
You said:
“Because, as you’ve shown in your previous post, people ignore the context. The lake of fire isn’t a place of conscious torment. The law given to the Jews was done away with by Christ. Etc. Etc.”
- First of all my previous post shows no such thing, since the post didn’t ignore context.
- Second of all if you are trying to prove thousands of philosophers of religion, theologians, religious authorities, and other academics who have devoted large portions of their lives to studying the Bible, have a different interpretation of hell than you, because they simply didn’t look at the obvious context. Showing one example of a person that didn’t correctly use context is not even close to an adequate proof.
When I said this:
“The example of the metaphor about John becoming a wild animal would be unanimously agreed upon, interpretations of what is literal and what is figurative in the Bible (hell for example) are nowhere close to unanimous but rather stacked against your interpretation.”
You said:
“Then let’s discuss how the Christian interpretation of hell stacks up with the interpretation given by God using the Bible as the sole authority.
- Jason, WTF are you even talking about here?
Sun Nov 18, 02:10:00 PM 2007 
 Jason said...
Abraham’s Bosom: Yes and your argument fails…You have no proof for your argument that the line about torment can’t be taken literally.
According to you, every passage is subject to interpretation and since we can't know if a passage is literal or symbolic, it can't be proven hell does or doesn't exist. Why are you arguing the point then?
So what if the Catholics call it a parable? Parables are used to illustrate truth, how do you know for certain that Jesus wasn’t intending part of his parable to illustrate what would truly happen to those who were wicked?
Because the parable doesn’t refer to the rich man as “wicked”.
Maybe that’s why the same Christians assume immortal worms aren’t literal and also assume there literally is a hell where there will be torment. My point is you can’t know for certain.
Actually, your point is that no one can know for certain if the descriptions of hell are literal based on these verses alone.
It is VERY unlikely that thousands of intelligent people who spent large periods of their life researching the Bible simply didn’t “follow the links through the scripture”.
You say "no one can know for certain how a passage should be interpreted." Intelligence is therefore irrelevant.
Come one Jason, in a debate if someone puts forth a premise that in all probability is likely not to be true, it should be rejected. I’m sure anyone will agree with me on this point.
It can’t be rejected. You’ve already stated no one can claim passages dealing with hell are literal or symbolic. No one can be right, no one can be wrong.
No I don’t think that Christians have an acceptable means to prove their point. I have said this over and over and over again. My point, that I have already stated, is that there is no way to know for certain how Bible passages should be interpreted.
Then once again, why are you debating the existence of hell from a Christian perspective? Why bring up the same stock verses Christians use to prove hell exists? If people can’t be sure how these stock verses should be interpreted, they can’t be used as proof of anything.
Secondly, why can’t what people think about the Bible matter to Atheists? Are you saying Atheists aren’t allowed to be interested in debates concerning the Bible?
The Bible being filled with “absurdities” and “inconsistencies” and “contradictions” aren’t logical Christian arguments when it comes to debating the existence of hell. I’m asking you to pick a side to debate from: Bible critic or Bible believer.
How does proving the Bible is inconsistent lend support for your argument that you know for certain that the Hell described in the OT is the correct interpretation?
The Bible is consistent. Therefore, any Christian teaching that makes the Bible inconsistent is wrong. That's my proof. Your proof is that there is no proof to claim anything so by extension I'm just as right as all those "educated" Bible scholars :)
Just because a line in a passage is taken figuratively doesn’t mean the all other lines are also figurative. We wouldn’t apply that logic to normal literature, so why apply it to the Bible?
It follows then that since we don't apply the logic that no one can truly know the interpretation of normal literature, there's no reason to apply it to the Bible.
You asked “who decides a verse is subject to interpretation?” and I gave you an empirical answer: lots of people do, and you are one of them. I’m lost on how this is a red herring and how this question is even relevant.
You’re of the belief that no passage can be determined to be literal or symbolic so I suppose it no longer matters. :)
Yes Jason the Bible does say that all thoughts cease when someone dies, it also says that people will be tormented after they die; it’s inconsistent. How do I reconcile Christian inconsistencies? Christian inconsistencies work to further prove my argument. My position is that no one, Christians included, can know for certain how the Bible passages are to be interpreted.
Then if no one can know for certain, you must admit I may very well be right.
I never once indicated that the majority of people who hold an interpretation are automatically right, if you actually read my posts you would see, that what I did say was that in order to gain a high probability that one is making the correct interpretation, the fact that EVERYONE else makes the same interpretation provides a good proof that one is likely correct.
Following your theory, there is no such thing as “likely correct” since no Biblical teachings can be proven or disproven using…er, the Bible.
I’ve ignored due dilligence? Jason my example works just fine, regardless of the fact Christ ushered in a new law. What your stating isn’t even relevant. If you believe that Jesus ushered in a new law, than how can you possibly know that he wasn’t also ushering in a new punishment (hell)? You just admitted that the NT changed things established in the OT, so why couldn’t the afterlife also have been changed?
You just finished comparing Leviticus (Old Law) to Matthew (New Law) as proof of a Biblical ‘contradiction’. This is wrong because it’s not a contradiction. Hence, you’ve ignored due diligence. BTW, are you implying Christ “created” hell…? :0
1 Kings 2:6, Revelation 20:10 - Jason, how the %*$& is this not a contradiction between a grave and “the lake of fire and brimstone where. . . they will be tormented day and night forever and ever”.
The lake of fire is the SECOND DEATH. Death and hell are also cast into the lake of fire. Will a literal death and a literal hell also literally be tormented in…er, hell??? No, these verses are simply stating that death and the grave will be “killed”, that is, they will cease to exist. No different then the fate of those who are not found in the book of life (Rev 20:15).
You are assuming your interpretation of the lake of fire as being only a place of destruction and not possibly a place where torment could occur. The problem is you haven’t yet proved that your method of making interpretations is the correct one.
Er, the lake of fire is the “SECOND DEATH”. Death, hell/the grave, and the wicked will all go there. What exactly is left for interpretation? Not that it matters. You don't believe anyone can claim a "correct" interpretation.
Jason, again, you don’t even make the effort. My argument in this statement is that context doesn’t obviously establish the correctness of your interpretations. You response to my argument is that it doesn’t concern you? I guess your implying I’m correct here? If not provide a counter argument as to why I’m not.
lol I’m not making the effort? How can anyone make an effort considering your theory of the futile nature of interpreting Bible passages? ☺
First of all my previous post shows no such thing, since the post didn’t ignore context.
Er, you took a passage from the OT and a passage from the NT and stated they were contradictions... Reading both in context (old law vs new law) shows they’re not.
Second of all if you are trying to prove thousands of philosophers of religion, theologians, religious authorities, and other academics who have devoted large portions of their lives to studying the Bible, have a different interpretation of hell than you, because they simply didn’t look at the obvious context. Showing one example of a person that didn’t correctly use context is not even close to an adequate proof.
I’m not using it as proof for anything. I’m simply showing you how easily, and quickly Biblical doctrines can be corrupted because the context is ignored. Remember, most of the “scholars” out there belong to churches who claim infallibility. The church makes a doctrinal mistake 1600 years ago. Can they correct themselves? Not if they want to remain infallible. So they adjust the new doctrine to maintain the lie and then try and incorporate it back into Scripture. The immaculate conception, infant sprinkling, limbo, purgatory, the Trinity, etc. etc. all have their roots from “academics” who, for one reason or another, tried to change Bible doctrine to fit their concept of religion.
Jason, WTF are you even talking about here.
Christians don’t claim the Bible is filled with contradictions or absurdities and they don’t maintain people don’t know if a passage is to be taken symbolically or literally. So like I said, let’s discuss how the Christian interpretation of hell stacks up with the interpretation given by God using the Bible as the sole authority.
Mon Nov 19, 08:13:00 AM 2007 
 Satantiago said...
It's such a shame a supposedly universal revelation used the garbage dump of an unremarkable city (before Xtianity was all the rage) as metaphor for eternal punishment.
Said Atabalipa the Inca: Jerusawhat? Yeshuawho? OH DEAR CONQUISTADOR DON'T MAKE THE THUNDER ROAR NOOOOOO!!!! BANG! BANG!
I like Jason's view of hell. Once you die you're dead for good. The difference is that Jason and his Christadelphian brethren will be the only ones to be reanimated because they correctly interpreted the Babble. Enjoy eternal life Jason, hope it will be like a never ending orgasm for you, don't let priapism stiffens your gait though.
Tue Dec 11, 06:29:00 AM 2007 
 Jason said...
The difference is that Jason and his Christadelphian brethren will be the only ones to be reanimated because they correctly interpreted the Babble.
Really? I'd be interested in knowing where you're getting this idea from.
Enjoy eternal life Jason, hope it will be like a never ending orgasm for you, don't let priapism stiffens your gait though.
I appreciate your well wishes :)
Tue Dec 11, 07:36:00 AM 2007 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 17 October 2007New Rule: A Religious Test with Bill Maher
Okay, this "New Rule" is a bit old (It was on Bill Maher's 21 Sept 2007 Real Time show), but it's a good rule to follow.
New rule: just because the constitution doesn't have a religious test for office, doesn't mean I can't.
...
If you believe you're in a long-term relationship with an all-powerful space daddy who will, after you die, party with your ghost forever, you can't have my vote....
...
Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven might be a little less willing to get them killed.

Posted by Steve Wells at 10/17/2007 02:15:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
2 comments:
 Dave said...
Hey Steve... what happened to your Elisha and the Bears post?
Thu Oct 25, 09:23:00 AM 2007 
 Steve Wells said...
Thanks, Dave. I guess I must have clicked the wrong button ("Save" instead of "Publish"?).
It's back now.
Thu Oct 25, 01:09:00 PM 2007 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.








Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 17 October 2007Landover Baptist Pastor Preaches to Atheists
Jesus, I love to hear Pastor Deacon Fred preach! Here are some excerpts.
When the Lord gets a bee in his bonnet about something, he turns into a killing machine.
...
Now anyone familiar with this wonderful book [the Bible] will know that if there's one thing that the Lord enjoys more than making free booze at wedding parties, it is killing.
...
Hosea 13:16 says, 'The people of Samaria must bear their guilt because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword. Their little ones will be dashed open. Their pregnant women, ripped to pieces.'
...
Yes that's right. God wants us to constitutionally ban abortion, but he's not above using it to get back at folks that tick him off.
...
We have an invisible friend on our side who is more powerful and diabolical than this Mohammad fella.
Glory!

Posted by Steve Wells at 10/17/2007 09:23:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
1 comment:
 Leena said...
Great video. Landover Baptist is good stuff. But I didn't even know there was an American Atheists org.
Wed Oct 17, 12:11:00 PM 2007 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


 Atom   Posts
 RSS Feed
 Search This Blog
 
 powered by 
 A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
 Blog Archive
 Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
 Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
 Site Meter
 Follow by Email
   
 
  


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.