Saturday, April 26, 2014
DIU blog posts and comments
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
20 May 2009The Lord plagued the people because of the calf that Aaron made
In his last killing, God forced the Israelites to kill each other. (The Levites volunteered for the job of "being on the Lord's side" by killing their family, friends, and neighbors for God.) The resulting death toll was 3000.
But this didn't quite satisfy God. He needed to kill some more. So he sent a plague.
And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made. Exodus 32:35
Since the Bible doesn't say how many people God killed in this plague, I'll just add another thousand to God's total.
God's next killing: Aaron's sons
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/20/2009 07:12:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
6 comments:
I am the wise fool. said...
This is so strange. Usually God is very proud of His plagues and wants to fill you in on the details.
Personally, I like how God set this plague up in Exodus 32:31-34. God was not willing to sacrifice an innocent man (Moses) to forgive them for their sins, and God will punish them when He feels like it.
Thu Jun 04, 08:47:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
Bacteria & virues are Yahweh's favored creations.
Fri Jun 05, 04:59:00 AM 2009
matt311 said...
Wow. Talk about delegating the blame...
Mon Jun 08, 12:23:00 PM 2009
I Am said...
I am the wise fool said "This is so strange. Usually God is very proud of His plagues and wants to fill you in on the details."
I've noticed in a few others cases that the Bible just glosses over something that seems important, or something that it seems like God would normally want to brag about (death, destruction, plagues, etc.).
I honestly wonder if maybe the writers of the Bible just ran out of ideas sometimes, especially if they were just trying to piece together earlier story fragments, for example. Sort of like saying: "And God plagued the people yet again, yada yada, anyway here's what happens next."
What's scary to think is that the omitted details might be things that were edited out at some point that are even worse than the horrors which are described in the Bible. Although that'd be hard to do...
Wed Jun 10, 11:39:00 AM 2009
Michael Ejercito said...
Idolatry is a bad idea.
Sun Jun 21, 05:43:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Idolatry is a bad idea.
I see. And killing people with plagues is a good idea, eh Michael?
Sun Jun 21, 06:40:00 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
18 May 2009Who is on the Lord's side? (Forcing friends and family to kill each other)
In his previous killings, God killed indiscriminately. He drowned everyone and everything in the flood, smashed people with burning stones at Sodom and Gomorrah, and killed every Egyptian firstborn child and animal just for the heck of it. So I guess we should be used to this sort of thing by now.
But in this killing, God forces 3000 friends and family members to kill each other. That seems kind of nasty even for a very nasty god.
Here are the gory details.
Moses was up on Mount Sinai getting the ten commandments from God. Since he'd been gone so long (he'd been up there for 40 days) the people began to wonder if he'd ever come back, so they asked Aaron to make some other gods for them. Aaron thought that was a pretty good idea, so he:
... said to them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me ... And ... he had made it a molten calf. Exodus 32:2-4
You might think that a bunch of runaway slaves wouldn't have much gold. But God told them to steal whatever jewelry they could find from the Egyptians. (This was before God gave them the ten commandments, so it was OK to do back then.)
The children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment. And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians. Exodus 12:35-36
I guess God wanted them to have enough gold to make a golden calf. It was all a part of his plan.
So the people gave Aaron their stolen gold and Aaron made a golden calf.
Now making a golden calf out of a bunch of ear rings and a campfire might seem hard to you. But Aaron just threw them all onto a fire and out came a golden calf. Really.
And I [Aaron] said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf. Exodus 32:24
It was a miracle. God made the golden calf when Aaron threw the jewelry on the fire. It was all part of his plan.
In any case, when Moses came down from the mountain, he saw the people dancing naked ("for Aaron had made them naked") around the golden calf. So he smashed the stone tablets, burned the golden calf, ground it into a powder, sprinkled it on water, and then forced everyone (all 3 million of them) to drink it.
But Moses was just getting started. Here's what he said next:
Who is on the Lord's side? .... Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour ... and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. Exodus 32:26-28
So those on God's side went out and killed 3000 of their friends, neighbors, and family members. (A question for believers: Are you on the Lord's side? Are you willing to kill your family, friends, and neighbors for God?)
But God still wasn't satisfied. When he first found out about the golden calf and the naked dancing he wanted to kill everyone, but Moses talked him out of it. Imagine that. Moses is a nicer guy than God. (Read Numbers 31:14-18- to see the implication here.)
So:
The LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made. Exodus 32:25
And I have another killing to add to God's list.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This killing is highlighted in the Poverty and Justice Bible.
The Lord God of Israel commands you to strap on your swords and go through the camp killing your relatives, friends, and neighbours.
I guess it shows God's sense of justice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's next killing: The Lord plagued the people because of the calf that Aaron made
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/18/2009 04:33:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
30 comments:
busterggi said...
What is the bible's obsession with the number forty anywho?
$0 days of rain for the flood, forty years of Hebrews wandering around the desert, Moses sitting on top of Mt. Sinai for forty days, Jesus fasting in the wilderness for forty days.
If I didn't know better I'd say this was a cultural meme rather than fact.
Oh, and gold doesn't burn.
Tue May 19, 11:02:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
busterggi,
Yeah, I'm working on a 40 day/year post. It will be ready in 40 days.
And you're right about gold not burning. I don't know what God was thinking.
Tue May 19, 11:31:00 AM 2009
Brendan said...
40 is a lost in translation thing that should read "many".
Tue May 19, 12:16:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Oh, thank you, Brendan, for explaining that to us!
Now whenever the Bible says something crazy we can just ask you and you'll tell us what God really meant to say.
Tue May 19, 12:44:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Actually, a lot of numbers are used symbolically rather than literally. For example, "thousand" is used to denote a unit of soldiers, a village, etc.
That's not to say I think the Bible is word-for-word true.
Tue May 19, 05:15:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
Its a good thing yahweh has Brendan around to tell him what he means.
Tue May 19, 05:15:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Brendan: "That's not to say I think the Bible is word-for-word true."
What kind of true do you think it is, Brendan?
Tue May 19, 05:23:00 PM 2009
I am the wise fool. said...
You know what strikes me as odd?
-We see "all the people" contributed gold for the idol (Ex 32:3).
-Only the Levites armed themselves to fight those who were not with God. (Ex 32:26)
-Yet of the 500.000+ other Israelite men, only 3000 were killed. (Ex 32:28)
Maybe this is God's mercy, or maybe God got tired of the killings, or maybe the Levites are just really poor fighters, and therefore much better suited to be priests.
Tue May 19, 07:56:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
What I say is generally accepted by scholars and Hebrew numerologists (I should mention I'm Jewish, so this isn't a Christian perspective). What I believe is that most of the stories are based on truth.
Some facts:
*There WAS a place which resembled the Garden of Eden and its residents hated snakes. Archeologist have found a couple thousand grave sites at this spot.
*There WAS a flood that destroyed part of Mesopotamia, but only part of it, and certainly not the entire world.
*There have been artifacts that have resemblance to things described in Joshua. The Hebrews believed that God was to give them any land they put their feet on, and a campsite dated to that time period was found in the shape of... a foot. May just be a coincidence.
*There WAS a King David. No proof of Solomon or the deeds the Bible credits David with.
*Much of the later parts of the Bible are true to a certain extent, including the civil war & exile
*Ezekiel was real, although he may have just been delusional.
Do I believe in God? Yes. Do I believe the events the Bible described happened EXACTLY like they say? No, that's ridiculous. Do I believe God is merciless and cruel? No. The Amalekites, for example, worshiped Molech, a god associated with child sacrifices. I could go on, but I'm not bored enough to do that. Maybe another time.
By the way, before you say anything, I'm a liberal who is pro-gay marriage, anti-torture, etc.
Tue May 19, 09:29:00 PM 2009
ecoute89 said...
Does anyone know what religion was target in so far as the idol goes ?
What is it with god and these small puny insignificant religions. Is there anywhere in Judaism, Christianity or Islam where he or his prophets take on a much larger religion / people such as Current Day India/Hinduism, China/Buddhism or even mayans.
Tue May 19, 09:42:00 PM 2009
I Am said...
Brendan, thank you for explaining your beliefs. I have a few questions about what you said:
By the way, before you say anything, I'm a liberal who is pro-gay marriage, anti-torture, etc.I'm glad to hear this, and I share your sentiments on these issues. It's too bad the Bible isn't also pro-gay marriage and anti-torture. If the Bible is God's word, then why would it be wrong or silent on so many important issues (gay rights, torture, slavery, etc.)?
Do I believe the events the Bible described happened EXACTLY like they say? No, that's ridiculous. I'm happy to hear that you don't believe the Bible word-for-word, but then how do you objectively determine what is ridiculous and what isn't?
"There WAS a place which resembled the Garden of Eden and its residents hated snakes. Archeologist have found a couple thousand grave sites at this spot."There have been a number of sites proposed as the lost Eden. Which one are you referring to, and what source leads you to believe that this is actually Eden and that its inhabitants hated snakes?
There WAS a flood that destroyed part of Mesopotamia, but only part of it, and certainly not the entire world.I'm glad you don't believe in a global flood that killed all life on Earth. Do you believe that (the allegedly non-cruel) God caused a non-global, but still massive, flood to kill everyone living in parts of Mesopotamia, except Noah and a select few? Or was it just a flood then that God didn't cause, and that naturally happens from time to time? (If so, why didn't God stop it if he's not cruel, or are you saying that every man, woman, child, and animal that died in that flood deserved to die?)
The Hebrews believed that God was to give them any land they put their feet on, and a campsite dated to that time period was found in the shape of... a foot. May just be a coincidence.Where is this campsite, and what is your source for this information? If such a site exists, wouldn't it be just as likely that the Israelites came across or built the campsite and *then* made up the story about God promising the land to them?
*There WAS a King David. No proof of Solomon or the deeds the Bible credits David with. [...] Ezekiel was real, although he may have just been delusional.So you're saying that all we know is there was at some point a king named David and a person named Ezekiel, but we don't know if there's any truth to what the Bible says about them? This does not sound like a ringing endorsement for Judaism or Christianity, although I appreciate your honesty.
Much of the later parts of the Bible are true to a certain extent, including the civil war & exileWhy wouldn't the whole Bible be true, instead of just stories "based on truth"? Why wouldn't God just tell us which parts are or aren't true, so we know what to believe? If God isn't cruel or unjust, why doesn't he clear his name for the parts of the Bible that clearly depict him as such?
I'm very glad that politically and morally you appear to be open-minded or liberal on some issues, and I wish more religious people were like this. But it sounds like you are this way separate from or in spite of your beliefs, not because of them.
Wed May 20, 11:26:00 AM 2009
Ian G. said...
Stories like this make me think that the writers of the book of Exodus weren't just products of an age of extreme ignorance and superstition, but were actually mentally ill.
Fri May 22, 02:02:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
This is directed to Steve Wells. how come you're such an advocate of free speech when it comes to bashing religion, but you won't publish some of my comments? Are you a hypocrite or did you simply not see my comment for 2+ days?
I'm pretty sure that you're just going to publish this comment and the other comment to make me look stupid. That's OK, I can deal with it. Just publish my other comment because I don't feel like typing it again.
Fri May 22, 06:04:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
About this story: The 3,000 who were killed were Calf worshipers. The Calf worshipers were worshiping a foreign god, and those who worshiped foreign gods frequently sacrificed live, helpless human beings, usually young children (ages >1 to 6).
So, Ian, the HEBREWS were mentally ill? What about the guys around them burning children at the time? m
Fri May 22, 06:16:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Brendan,
I think I've published all of your comments.
The only comments that I reject are those that are pure spam or pure preaching. I even let most of the preaching go, as long as it has something to do with the topic.
I will be gone, though, for a few days (sailing in Hawaii), so I won't be able to publish anything until I return on Tuesday.
Fri May 22, 10:28:00 PM 2009
Ian G. said...
Yes Brendan, the ancient scribe (or scribes) who cooked up the story of Exodus sure seem to be out of their minds since much of the story doesn't make an ounce of sense.
God tries to kill Moses for no reason, and then fails, and then it's never brought up again.
Moses tries to make Pharaoh let his people go because God wants it, but God tells Moses that he'll harden Pharaoh's heart anyway (so what the hell is the point of all the plagues?).
Apparently the angel of death can tell who the first born sons are and kill them, but can't tell the difference between a Hebrew and an Egyptian, so lamb's blood is needed.
Need I go on? I'm not saying that every ancient Hebrew from c. 500 BCE was insane, but that this book seems to be a work of madness (although it pales in comparison to the work of madness that is Revelation).
Sat May 23, 11:06:00 AM 2009
Virginia said...
I love your blog! I find myself laughing and nodding! Thanks!
When reading about the golden calf I've always wondered how the heck it was made. So...you can just dump your grandma's gold into the fire and a "golden calf" pops out? A golden Chia Pet? Is this another instance of "Yahweh Magic"?
I've tried sculpting with clay and it is difficult...I can't imagine making a calf out of other people's earrings...LOL!
BTW: Nude dancing must have been a welcome sight...One has to wonder if Yahweh's henchmen were not on some sort of holy narcotic.
Sat May 23, 01:09:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
Have fun in Hawaii, Steve!
I've known about the golden calf story for a long time, but I never knew (until now) that Moses "burned the golden calf, ground it into a powder, sprinkled it on water, and then forced everyone (all 3 million of them) to drink it."
That's overdoing it a bit, don't you think? :|
Sat May 23, 07:03:00 PM 2009
twillight said...
About Molech (or Moloch):
I once found a source what described its religion. It was a milicist-god, and the child-offerings weren't sacrifises rather sending them to a testing-ground/church for being town-guards with abandoning their families entirely.
Sadly I lost the book that mentioned this :(
Anyway: have a nice time on Hawaii!
Sun May 24, 06:41:00 AM 2009
Brendan said...
@ Ian: There's a belief out there that God acts through nature and that nature can explain the Exodus. Having them spread Ram's blood also gave a chance to tell the Hebrews what exactly to eat, which is what may have cause the first-borns to die (they got to eat first, and the Egyptian food was tainted). It should also be noted that God didn't "fail" to kill Moses (he chose not to), and many interpret the story quite differently, namely that God was testing Moses. You'll find that most of the stories up for extreme interpretation, and that Jews have been arguing over their meanings for thousands of years.
@ Virginia: Aaron fashioned it into the calf and lied to Moses.
@ twillight: That's wrong/outdated (ie, before the archeological evidence was found). Not only are there existing accounts of the child sacrifice, but burnt remains of children were found in the area of what was then Canaan. It was a religion of child murder. Molech was also known as Ba'al in many cases, and was occasionally identified as a sun god, similar to Ra or Cronus.
In II M'lakhim (2 Kings) there is an account of an Israelite king sacrificing his son to idols.
When Vayikra says that God said to stone those who "pass their seed through Molech", it refers to someone who burns a child alive for that god.
Mon May 25, 05:53:00 AM 2009
asdfasdf said...
Holy Hephaestus! Fashioning a calf out of gold taken from others, using a campfire, is still quite a feat or quite the "tall tale".
The Bible is amusing when read as fiction...but so full of colorful holes it might as well be a bedsheet from a Baghdad Target.
I've enjoyed the comments!
Mon May 25, 03:19:00 PM 2009
Xolotl-Tzin said...
You gotta look at it like Stewie does from Family Guy.
I like the idea that God is evil. but people seem to get all upset about it when they hear it. I don't.
I want to add btw, the ten commandments is not from "God" but from the code of hammurabi, which is Babylonian laws based on older Sumerian ones.
The one thing i want to see before i die... Is a atheist who knows all the Mesopotamian and "pagan" customs, cultures, and times of the bible.
Wed May 27, 09:14:00 AM 2009
Lennart said...
Hey, I'm doing a paper for a History class with the thesis of 'increased relgiosity/religious fervour hinders the development, safety, and/or quality of life of civilizations'. I was wondering if they were any lists of people in the Bible who killed because they thought God was on their side or whatever, but it turned out he wasn't? I think I remember something like that. I need an example like that because you can't really use something the religion's God ordains as just to say that the religion is bad.... at least not at my Christian school... Thanks!
Sat May 30, 09:29:00 AM 2009
Brendan said...
These points are addressing "I am"'s points.
1. The Bible doesn't support gay marriage/the Bible isn't liberal.
Answer: For starters, the entire Bible is NOT God's word. A lot of it is simply a historical account. Second, King David was bisexual, which means that the passage on homosexuals in Vayikra (Leviticus) must mean something less obvious. What I think it says is that God was addressing the priests. It was a practice of Molech worshipers to double as male prostitutes. A lot of things prohibited in Vayikra were simply practices of the Molech worshipers, who would shave, have sex with the men that went to their temples, and then would burn children (usually between the ages of birth and 6) alive as a sacrifice to Molech. As evidenced by King David, homosexuality is not considered evil in the Bible, Molech worship is.
2. How do you determine what's real and what isn't?
Answer: Generally whatever doesn't fit with the rest of the text is most likely wrong.
3. Where's the Garden of Eden/How can you tell they hated snakes?
Answer: I believe it was in Iraq. Archeologists discovered, aside from the graves, large numbers of mutilated snake's bodies.
4. On the flood.
Answers: In the Sodom & Gommorah story, God said he'd spare the entire town for the sake of a few good people, which means that there probably weren't very many, if any at all, innocent people in the area destroyed. We aren't given a figure as to the number of children living in the area.
5. Where's the campsite?
Answers: There was an article on Haaretz awhile back. I can't find it anymore, but I believe it was shortly after Passover. As to your other question, why would the Jews make up the Torah? It limited quite a number of practices they had.
6. On David, Solomon, and Ezekiel
Answer: Well, Ezekiel wrote the book of Ezekiel over a 30 year span. The question is if the contents of it are genuine. I DO believe the Biblical accounts of David & Solomon's lives, by the way, I'm just trying to be fair.
7. What parts are true, why doesn't God just tell us the truth about all religion?
Answers: Well, the ending parts about the civil war and captivity have been entirely proven to have happened. There is no doubt about any of the later events. As for the God question, God wants us to challenge our faiths, figure it out for ourselves. If God solved everything for us, there would be no point to life. God wants our beliefs to be as complicated as the holy books themselves.
I'd also like to say that I do believe in Separation of religion and politics. Laws written 3,000 years ago often do not apply to today's world.
Mon Jun 01, 08:15:00 PM 2009
Xolotl-Tzin said...
> For starters, the entire Bible is NOT God's word. A lot of it is simply a historical account.
no the bible is full of political biased coupled with account and reflection of religious beliefs.
>Second, King David was bisexual, which means that the passage on homosexuals in Vayikra (Leviticus) must mean something less obvious. What I think it says is that God was addressing the priests. It was a practice of Molech worshipers to double as male prostitutes. A lot of things prohibited in Vayikra were simply practices of the Molech worshipers, who would shave, have sex with the men that went to their temples, and then would burn children (usually between the ages of birth and 6) alive as a sacrifice to Molech. As evidenced by King David, homosexuality is not considered evil in the Bible, Molech worship is.<
Please, cite your sources. I am highly doubtful of every claim that was just made.
> I believe it was in Iraq. Archeologists discovered, aside from the graves, large numbers of mutilated snake's bodies.
Serpents were associated with wisdom. they were not hated by biblical peoples. Modern Iraq is actually Babylon in any cases. So if anything it reflected the beliefs of the ancient Babylonians not Hebrews.
The Eden story pararells the ones in Gilgamesh where Inanna asks Gilgamesh to remove a snake from a tree.
Please see NEHUSHTAN: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=N&artid=177
The ancient Hebrews actually worshiped snakes, not hated them.
Wed Jun 03, 11:36:00 AM 2009
I Am said...
Brendan, thank you for your reply. Here are some thoughts as well as the source for the footprint campsite article you mentioned.
1) "King David was bisexual." Interesting interpretation, and a Google search shows there's a fair amount of people who lean towards this. If it's true, why didn't the Bible just come out and say it? The Leviticus verses are clear in their prohibitions. If you are a man and want to be part of God's people, you shouldn't lie with a man (Leviticus 18:29-30). No exception for David or anyone else is given, and the reason for the prohibition is irrelevant to its effects. Male homosexuality is "abominable" to God, and you should not "defile" yourself with it. Are there any verses that clearly contradict this?
2) "Generally whatever doesn't fit with the rest of the text is most likely wrong." Who decides what "fit"s? How? If you're using something outside the Bible to determine if it's accurate or moral, then you're not getting it from the Bible but some other source.
3) "Archeologists discovered, aside from the graves, large numbers of mutilated snake's bodies." I looked for a while, and was unable to find a source online referencing this.
4) "God said he'd spare the entire town for the sake of a few good people, which means that there probably weren't very many, if any at all, innocent people in the area destroyed." I'll do my Abraham impersonation here, but go even lower. What if there's even ONE innocent person: is it just for God to kill him or her? It's also obvious that God saved corrupted people: unless you think incest and/or rape are good, then Lot and his daughters weren't very good people and yet God spared them. It simply doesn't make sense.
5) "There was an article on Haaretz awhile back": I found what must be the article you're referring to here. The article states that "Prof. Zertal's excavation team uncovered five large foot-shaped compounds" and quotes the prof. as saying they're "the first sites to have been built by the Israelites upon entering Canaan and manifest the biblical notion of claiming ownership of the land by setting feet on it."
However, note what the article says next: "Most contemporary archaeologists do not consider the Israelite Exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Israel to be verifiable historical events. Zertal is one of the few Israeli archaeologists who claim to have found archaeological evidence supporting the Israelite entrance to Canaan." This suggests the majority of his colleagues don't support his findings. This doesn't mean he's wrong, just that it isn't proven and should be taken with a grain of salt.
6) "I DO believe the Biblical accounts of David & Solomon's lives, by the way, I'm just trying to be fair." Thank you for your honesty and fairness. I'm not claiming most of the Bible is definitely false, but there are enough things in it that I find to be impossible (talking serpents, etc.) that make me doubt what it contains without independent confirmation. As I mentioned for point 2, it seems that in least some cases, you're doing the same, which I think is a good thing, but we are willing to accept different evidence in and out of the Bible, it seems like.
7) "If God solved everything for us, there would be no point to life." I find it surprising that a believer would say this. I would think from a believer's point of view that praising God, loving family and friends, and enjoying God's creation would be meaningful. Let's imagine a case where God exists, and people and the world we live in still aren't perfect (because of original sin, let's say), BUT at least we know clearly what God expects from us. I would think there would be less fighting, less killing, and more peace in the world. My conclusion would be that since that's not how the world is, either God doesn't exist, doesn't care, or isn't good.
Thu Jun 04, 10:42:00 AM 2009
Xolotl-Tzin said...
It's also obvious that God saved corrupted people: unless you think incest and/or rape are good, then Lot and his daughters weren't very good people and yet God spared them. It simply doesn't make sense.
I'm not trying to play devil's advocate but let's take into account some things here.
Rape and incest were looked at completely differently in the ancient world. I know for one that incest was common and accepted form of practice in ancient Egypt. Whereas rape was more accepted in places like Rome and amongst the Norse. To these people they did absolutely nothing wrong. So how can you condemn them for it?
I know for a fact that the rape comment is to the fact that Lott obeyed Mesopotamian hospitality laws of the era. If you read this passage to a ancient Mesoptoamian, they would not account for the rape thing so much, they would praise Lott for being good for following such customs.
Now the flip side, and this is my point, you look at this and say "Oh they weren't good cuz they liked to do this and this.", well um, please do tell what the definition of good and evil is, right and wrong? If you answer, then you answer with your opinions. Now put yourself in a ancient Mesopotamians shoes, do you honestly believe they would have the same definitions of right and wrong, good and evil, and whats moral and immoral as yourself? Do you think they think the same way you do? Of course they would not. As i have said before, incest-common practice in ancient Egypt, yet not a single person here is bashing them for behaving that way or saying its against their gods and they aren't "good".
Do you see where i am coming from with this?
Thu Jun 04, 12:54:00 PM 2009
I Am said...
Xolotl-Tzin said "Rape and incest were looked at completely differently in the ancient world. I know for one that incest was common and accepted form of practice in ancient Egypt. Whereas rape was more accepted in places like Rome and amongst the Norse. To these people they did absolutely nothing wrong. So how can you condemn them for it?"
Because I think it is inherently wrong to rape someone or knowingly have sex with a family member.I don't believe moral laws were handed down to us by some deity, but I do think that some things are wrong for humans to do.
I agree that it's difficult to define what is and isn't good. Maybe in some or most cases it's natural law (incest can of course cause genetic deformations, for example), instinct (desire to protect one's family from aggression in the case of rape, for example), or something else.
If some ancient Egyptians were fine with performing incest just because they thought it was okay, you could say the same thing about Islamic fundamentalists nowadays: in their moral code it's okay to imprison or even kill a woman if she's raped, or to fly planes into buildings. Should we just accept that as okay? Is it okay for a Christian to kill a doctor who performs abortions just because some people agree those doctors should die?
put yourself in a ancient Mesopotamians shoes, do you honestly believe they would have the same definitions of right and wrong, good and evil, and whats moral and immoral as yourself?
No, they wouldn't. I think when looking at someone's acts, we can take into consideration what is/was common practice in the past or now, but whether or not they are in step with other people of the time doesn't automatically right IMO. Sometimes you have to go against what most people think to promote justice (e.g. civil rights in the US in the 1960s). I think something can be right (or wrong) even if a majority of people don't think so.
incest-common practice in ancient Egypt, yet not a single person here is bashing them for behaving that way[...]Do you see where i am coming from with this?
I think I do see where you're coming from, but I disagree with you that it applies directly here.
IMO, the difference is that, as far as I know, few people nowadays praise Amon-Ra or promote ancient Egyptian religions or customs as a moral guide for modern living, whereas people do so for the Bible incessantly. But since it's come up, please consider the Egyptians bashed; I am an equal-opportunity basher. :-)
I guess you could say I don't know yet (and may never know for sure) how to define good, but I know how not to define it, if that makes sense.
Fri Jun 05, 11:11:00 AM 2009
Giant Hogweed said...
I don't understand the rationale behind trying to explain away all of the offensive behavior in the bible by dismissing it as "just the morality of the time". Bible apologists will tell you out of one side of their mouth that the bible is a timeless source for morality, and out of the other side, they want you to just ignore those nasty things that are clearly at odds with modern morality because they were "OK at the time".
It's also interesting since it's usually the right-wing (and the associated religious right) that rails against so-called "moral relativism". To dismiss immoral behavior as "moral at the time" is the definition of moral relativism.
As "I Am" pointed out, it's really hard to define right/wrong in a way that is time and culture independent. However, I'll take a stab at some of the things that I think are wrong, were wrong at the time of the bible, and will always be wrong:
- Murder
- Rape
- Slavery
- Incest (whether it's father raping daughter or daughter raping father).
- Offering your virgin daughters to a crowd of horny angel rapers.
- Tricking a whole tribe of people into circumcising themselves, then killing them all as they recover from said circumcision. Even if one of them might have raped your sister.
- Killing and incinerating your only daughter as a burnt offering, even if you did promise god that you'd offer whoever/whatever greeted you at your front door in exchange for success on the battlefield.
- Assaulting your son with a knife because you hear voices in your head.
- Allowing your girlfriend to be raped and killed by strangers, then dismembering her body and sending various body parts to local governments.
I'm sure I'm missing plenty, but I don't find any of the above items consistent with "timeless morality".
Fri Jun 05, 03:42:00 PM 2009
Xolotl-Tzin said...
I don't understand the rationale behind trying to explain away all of the offensive behavior in the bible by dismissing it as "just the morality of the time". Bible apologists will tell you out of one side of their mouth that the bible is a timeless source for morality, and out of the other side, they want you to just ignore those nasty things that are clearly at odds with modern morality because they were "OK at the time".
I'm not dismissing it. I am saying your applying modern morality to something that is ancient where people didn't even think the same way as people now. Then some people only stab at biblical peoples, witless ignoring behavior of any other ancient people.
if you read my other comments, you'll see that i actually don't mind the malevolence in the bible. And i do not have a problem looking at the bible from the perspective of him being evil.
It's also interesting since it's usually the right-wing (and the associated religious right) that rails against so-called "moral relativism". To dismiss immoral behavior as "moral at the time" is the definition of moral relativism.
No where did i dismiss the behavior. What i am saying is that their behavior is applicable for their time. Things like abandoning your child may be looked down upon in modern Western culture, but that does not at all reflect every culture or period of time in the world. This is something modern people do not take into account.
If you took the time to read Code of Hammurabi you'd realize how strict it was in ancient Mesopotamia. Does that make it right? That is entirely a matter of opinion.
Things like the treatment of women in the bible--such as the idea of rape which was just thrown around a lot there. Well take a look at the culture of the era. A woman was pretty much owned by her father, if not her father, then the next heir and so forth. If her father married her off then she was owned and had to obey her husband. (Honestly, it sucked being a woman back then.) The same kind of "ownership" applies to ancient prostitutes. Except your life was even more troubled.
I really, don't agree with this treatment of women personally. But it was kind of just how things were done back then. A lot of the people would not have known any better. Women being equal to a male or just the idea of women's rights, was not thought of or heard of.
Its like this... Some of the people in the bible (not all, because some are clearly wrong.) don't know better. It'd be like punishing a tiger for eating a human being. How does it even know better? To them it'd be natural to eat a person.
Condemning the behavior based on personal beliefs, yeah maybe i get that. However, i have not seen many even try to comprehend what ancient people thought. And you really have to be careful with that kind of thinking. Some of the old, outdated, biased scholarship on a lot of history and culture had modern Christian slant that didn't even attempt to understand what these people were thinking. Instead they condemned the people for anything they did. This seems to be what some atheist do with the bible while making comments with out completely comprehending the history, culture, or idea. (Such as is it common knowledge that Noah's myth is from the flood of Gilgamesh, Eve's from Ninti's, Cain and Abel from various myths or Adam from Adapa? To me that is more damaging in atheistic arguments than making one simply based on opinion.) Modern anthropology an ethnography tries to understand the culture from the perspective of the people, which is how it should be done in a sense. The rest is a matter of opinion.(which btw is why i took out your opinions. I am not really disagreeing with that part, personally.)
To me right and wrong, good and evil, are all subjective. Even the idea that god is evil is based on subjectivity. Obviously, there are Christians that disagree with the notion, no matter how much evidence for god being evil you throw in their face.
Fri Jun 05, 05:30:00 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
17 May 2009Inspired by the Bible: Rumsfeld's Secret Holy War
GQ has released copies of secret intelligence briefing covers that were sent by Donald Rumsfeld to president Bush and his senior military staff just after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Here they are, along with links to the Bible verses.
Joshua 1:9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Chronicles 16:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psalm 33:16-19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psalm 139:9-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proverbs 16:3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah 5:28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah 6:8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah 26:2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel 5:5-28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ephesians 6:13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Peter 2:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/17/2009 02:27:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
13 comments:
Randy said...
Oh geez. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please... (you get the idea) let these be from The Onion. Please?
Damn.
Sun May 17, 07:12:00 PM 2009
Baconsbud said...
This is as I always figured it was. I never really believed that Iraq was attacked because of the oil. The former administration was more into it for religious beliefs then anything else. So many people believed it was because of oil that they were blind to the truth. Nothing is more dangerous then someone that believes their god supports their actions.
Mon May 18, 01:39:00 AM 2009
barriejohn said...
This has just GOT to be a wind-up!!!
Mon May 18, 03:16:00 AM 2009
matt311 said...
Damn, this is scary...
Mon May 18, 12:43:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
Great, I wonder if Jerusalem was on the itinerary as in the original crusades?
Mon May 18, 01:18:00 PM 2009
FreZno said...
http://tr.im/tsprummybible
I've got a post up at The Skeptical Pacifist that suggests ten alternative Bible verses that Rummy should've used to sell the Iraq War to GWBush. Feedback would be much appreciated! I provided links to the SAB for each verse mentioned, and directed readers to this blog entry if they want to see the WIU coversheet images without the hassle of Flash at GQ's website.
I think those of us who live in the reality-based community are about to have a field day with this one.
Mon May 18, 01:33:00 PM 2009
Ian G. said...
Yup, in the minds of deranged war criminals like Donald Rumsfeld, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan really WERE connected. Not because of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, but because they are both part of a larger crusade against Islam.
And the forces of reason and secularism get caught in the middle of this war between two unhinged bronze-age superstitions.
Fri May 22, 01:58:00 PM 2009
barriejohn said...
I think the truth of the matter is that different people supported the Iraq war for different reasons, so it was partly the oil, partly the religious crusade, partly a desire to spread American "culture" (thus opening up new markets) amongst "backward" people, and partly, in the minds of some Americans, even a desire to improve the lot of the Iraqi people. However, nothing will ever convince me that the Bush family were not plotting this for years, ever since "Daddy" lost the battle to press on to Baghdad and finish off Saddam during the first conflict, and ended up looking like the loser! Don`t forget how Saddam gloated over the fact that the two supposed "victors" on that occasion - Bush and Thatcher - had been removed from office, while in Iraq his position was stronger than ever. That hurt!!
Fri May 22, 11:48:00 PM 2009
Ian G. said...
barriejohn,
Oh, I'm sure there were all different reasons people supported the war. Christopher Hitchens genuinely believe it would help the Iraqi people. Many neoconservatives saw it as a way to "Americanize" the chaotic Middle East. I'm sure Dick Cheney wanted a show of American might after 9/11, there were the daddy issues with Bush, and the oil...
But it's obvious now that some people (remember William Boykin?) saw it as a crusade against infidels, and that a lot of these people are the base of the GOP. Truly frightening.
Mon May 25, 05:26:00 PM 2009
barriejohn said...
I am not saying, Ian G., that to Rumsfeld and others the Iraq War was not a religious crusade - it obviously was. I just don`t think it was to the Bush clan, that`s all. To them it was sweet revenge for Daddy`s perceived humiliation, and was planned well in advance. I don`t know about you, but I have never bought into the George W. Bush conversion myth. I am an ex-evangelical, and to me he is the least-convincing "born-again Christian" that I have ever come across! Nothing in his demeanour and use of language says "Christian", and where amongst all those books that he was supposed to be reading were all the Bible commentaries and devotional tomes of which evangelicals are so very fond? None of it stacks up! What I do think, though, is that being the career politicians that they are, the Bushes were very skilfull at bringing together people with different agendas - some of whom are completely bonkers - who would be happy to work together towards a common end, and in this respect were "all things to all men", much like the old mafia bosses. As you say "truly frightening" - but brilliant!!
Tue May 26, 07:52:00 AM 2009
Baconsbud said...
barriejohn, Check out this article http://www.alternet.org/politics/140221/bush%27s_shocking_biblical_prophecy_emerges%3A_god_wants_to_%22erase%22_mid-east_enemies_%22before_a_new_age_begins%22/ . I can't say it is completely the truth since the site it is from can be extremely liberal in their view. I do recall hearing something about some of the events in it though.
Tue May 26, 02:54:00 PM 2009
barriejohn said...
Well, I suppose it`s quite possible that "W" really did believe this bullshit - it`s still very popular amongst American Christians, and some British Evangelicals. I`m amazed to see that Hal Lindsey is still going strong, and even has a website on which he is attempting to show how every little political event on the face of the earth is another step towards Armageddon and the fulfilment of God`s eternal purposes! His books "The Late Great Planet Earth" and "Satan Is Alive And Well On Planet Earth" were both very popular at one time, but the big snag with all this doomsday talk is that people soon start saying: "Hang on a minute. If these really are the `end times`, and the Lord`s return is imminent, when is something definite going to happen?" Those books must have been written over twenty years ago, and the end was very near THEN!! Still, to get back to Bush - he still doesn`t convince me that he is a sincere Christian, and that`s it!
Tue May 26, 05:07:00 PM 2009
larry said...
A TAIL WAGS THE DOG
There is something-fishy going on in America. An octopus with multiple tentacles has managed to reach into every chamber where laws are made. Its influence redirects tax dollars to the benefit of a foreign government with little care or concern for the well-being of the American taxpayer whom Congress mandates must provide the funds.
According to the National Debt Time Clock, the national debt stands at $6,401,310,925,064. This puts the debt at $22,177 for each of 289 million citizens and the debt is growing at $1.45 billion each day. One would hope that elected officials would reign in this wasteful spending but that isn’t likely to happen. Israel receives over one third of the total U. S. aid to foreign countries. Israel receives this aid because the AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the pro Israel lobby, has bought and paid for the support of almost every sitting member of congress.
Since 1949 Israel has received $97 billion in U. S. aid and annually receives approximately $3 billion. The U. S. being in a deficit funding position itself is forced to borrow money, which it then provides to Israel, increasing the cost of this aid, another 60%. Several months ago a letter was sent to Senator Hatch of Utah protesting the annual $3 billion in aid provided Israel. In his reply Senator Hatch justified the aid on basis of Israel being America’s ally and having never defaulted on a loan. What he neglected to say is that Israel has never defaulted on a loan because the Economic Support Funds going to Israel must never fall below the amount of money needed by Israel to repay its loans to the United States. All loans are eventually forgiven thus never defaulted on.
Lobbying Congress is an art which has been encouraged over the years by members of Congress who are always willing to receive perks for votes and by lobbying groups, such as AIPAC, which is dedicated to buying support for Israel. PACs can give a candidate up to $10,000. By splitting into 50 PACs, one for each state, it is possible for AIPAC to spend a half million dollars to support or defeat a candidate who does or does not toe the line and support Israel. Therefore when it comes to politics regarding Israel, there are only a very few members of Congress who do not bow to the Israeli flag. Thus in America, the tail is wagging the dog and it is a cowering dog at best. In Utah alone, there are 70,000 children living in poverty. The number must be larger in more populous states. Surely, it makes more sense to help American citizens instead of giving billions to Israel so they can pay a Russian Jew $20,000 to emigrate to Israel. What they need in Washington is more decency and less politics as usual. What they need is no more aid for Zionist Talmudic Israel.
Fri Feb 21, 12:21:00 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
04 May 2009The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation
Before the Israelites had even left Egypt, they began to do what they do best: complain.
They complain when they see the Pharaoh's chariots.
When Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them; and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto the LORD. And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt? Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness. Exodus 14.10-12
They complain when they’re starving to death.
The whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness: And the children of Israel said unto them, Would to God we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger. Exodus16.2-3
They complain when dying of thirst.
There was no water for the people to drink. Wherefore the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink. And Moses said unto them, Why chide ye with me? wherefore do ye tempt the LORD? And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst? Exodus 17.1-3
Before long, God will have to respond to their complaints with several mass murders. But we'll leave that for another time.
Because now it's time for some Holy War.
The Amalekites show up and the fight begins. God controls the whole thing with some remote control magic tricks. Every time Moses holds his hands up, the Amalekites are slaughtered by the Israelites. When he gets tired and lets his arms down, the situation is reversed.
When Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. 17.11
Eventually they had to set some rocks under Moses' arms to make sure that the right people got killed.
But Moses hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands. 17.12
But it all worked out just fine.
Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. 17.13
It's too bad, though, that the Bible doesn't say how many Amalekites died in this magical holy war, because now I'll just have to guess. Oh heck, let's just call it 1000.
But God was far from done with the Amalekites. In fact, he is fighting with them still and commands us all to kill them wherever and whenever we see them.
The LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. Exodus 17.14
The LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation. Exodus 17.16
Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it. Deuteronomy 25:19
So if you happen to see an Amalekite, you know what to do.
God's next killing: Who is on the Lord's side?
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/04/2009 08:50:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
14 comments:
Baconsbud said...
Your coverage of the mass murders are just a reminder of how much a christian has to lie to themselves about their peaceful god. Thanks for doing this.
Mon May 11, 05:43:00 PM 2009
I Am said...
You've got to admit, it is kind of a catchy song. If I had to write a song about God blowing his nose to drown the Egyptian army, I certainly couldn't do any better. "She Loves You" is pretty repetitive, too, but look where that got the Beatles.
The difference being, of course, that the Beatles sang about peace and love, whereas God's chosen people chose to sang about war and death.
It's clear which Yahweh prefers...If only Lennon had been right about Christianity.
Mon May 11, 09:09:00 PM 2009
Ritchie Annand said...
It's my pet hypothesis that Moses' advantage in this instance was not due to magic at all, but can be reasonably inferred as having something to do with the smell of his armpits. The Israelites would be used to it, but against other tribes, it could be deadly.
What other use could raised arms be put to, really?
Mon May 11, 09:48:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
The verse, (after amassing a plethora of them) that put the proverbial nail in the coffin of a sadistic god-concept, was for me:
1Sam 15:3 The Lord says, Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies.
Many deluded christians have to do mighty back-flips and mental gymnastics in order to condone and salvage their sky-father's vile, sadistic actions by offering bloated rationalizations, like the Amalekite children were being sacrificed to false gods, and children living with evil people would be better of dead, blah, blah, blah.
So, lets get this straight, an all-loving, god created these children and babies, knowing they would be abused and suffer egregiously, with evil people, some of them being burned alive, in heinous sacrificial offerings, but still chose to put these innocent children and babies in these sick, unimaginable situations anyway?
And god's only solution to the problem was to rescind his commandment of thou shall not kill, thereby ordering in a barbaric army of men, to destroy everyone, including, pregnant women and innocent children and babies, showing them no pity, using the primitive weapons of the day -- cutting throats, chopping off heads, plunging swords into bellies, bludgeoning and eviscerating, causing some to suffer for hours or days as they slowly died?
Now, these same psychotic christians will assert that god gave them life, so he can take it -- BUT why did he have to cause them to SUFFER in egregious unthinkable ways first?Why would an all-loving, god create and send these children into these horrific situations, in the first place?
And why would a god -- who could simply wish the universe into existence -- not just simply wave his hand and make these children disappear into his awaiting arms, forgoing all the immense pain and mass suffering?
The bible-god and christianity are both bullshit.
--S.
Mon May 11, 11:03:00 PM 2009
Baconsbud said...
Sconnor I agree I first started questioning the goodness of their god because of how he had them get the land that they claimed to be promised to them. If I was some supreme being and promised land to a select people, i don't see how a being can select just one of his creations as his only ones, I wouldn't have let anyone move on it in the first place. Why did he just put a barrier up that wouldn't allow anyone in until his chosen had arrived. Did their god tell the people living there that he had promised that land to his chosen? Some will say yes because whoever it was told them god had promised it to them. I then usually ask them how they would react if I came to them saying god had promised the home and land they live onto to me. Most then try to avoid the question or say god wouldn't do that.
If their god is truly as powerful and loving as they claim, he would have transported all the people to a different part of the world with new memories.
Tue May 12, 06:52:00 AM 2009
Markus Arelius said...
Hey I Am,
If John Lennon, McCartney and crew lived in this region during the Iron Age, would they have instead named their band "The Scarabs"?
Bwahahahah!
Tue May 12, 08:54:00 AM 2009
Markus Arelius said...
"So if you happen to see an Amalekite, you know what to do."
Actually, from what I gleaned from reading the Bible regarding anyone who opposes God or his so called "chosen people" on the face of tiny earth in a massive galaxy, I think we all just need to look in the mirror to find an Amalekite. Or am I wrong?
Tue May 12, 08:58:00 AM 2009
matt311 said...
This mentioning of the Amalekites makes me remember an early quibble I had with the Bible: At the end of 1 Samuel, Saul asks his spear-holder to kill him, but he refuses, so Saul throws himself on his own spear, and so does the spear-holder; at the beginning of 2 Samuel, however, an Amalekite comes up to David and gives a very detailed account of how he killed Saul, to which (despite having been Saul's enemy) David orders the man to be killed for.
This completely threw me off as a little kid. "Huh?" was my reaction. Which part of the Bible was right?
I know now: Neither.
Tue May 12, 02:18:00 PM 2009
barriejohn said...
And I suppose "The Rolling Stones" would have been "The Pyramidal Blocks" Markus? Doesn`t exactly roll off the tongue though, does it?
The reason why the Jews are the "Chosen Nation" is of course because "Yahweh" was originally just a tribal god. It`s perfectly possible that an "Abraham" character once existed, and that this family deity became, over the years, The One True God, due to the influence of other charismatic tribal leaders (see Akhenaton). He would obviouusly have been a vengeful, merciless warrior-god, because that is what kings were like in those days, and their gods were just cast in the mould of earthly leaders (but "Ours is greater than yours" of course!).
As for the "slayer of King Saul", I always assumed that he was lying in an attempt to gain favour with Saul`s sworn enemy David, and thought it rather a good morality fable, but I might be wrong there. It never bothered me that much.
Mon May 18, 05:17:00 AM 2009
I Am said...
sconnor, your image of "back-flips and mental gymnastics" is a good one. The verses you mention are completely unjustifiable to any person who reads them with an open mind. The problem of suffering is part of what helped lead me away from Christianity. God doesn't stop suffering in real life, and actually actively causes it in the Bible throughout the Old Testament and through the lovely hell Jesus and his followers promise.
matt311, that's an interesting contradiction that I don't remember coming across before. As barriejohn said, it could be explained by other circumstances, but it just goes back to interpretation. You would think a perfect God could make a document that was perfectly clear and error-free...
barriejohn, I remember this question coming up at some point when I was a kid, why the Israelites were the chosen people then but Christians now. I don't remember what the response given was, but whatever it was it must have satisfied me for the moment. I wonder what most Christians think about this, if they even think about it at all.
Btw, good one, Markus, about the Scarabs. Since John, Paul, and George having started as the Quarrymen, though, they might have preferred the Stone Age...
Tue May 19, 10:36:00 PM 2009
Michael Ejercito said...
Not being a Jew, I do not have to slay Amalekites.
Sun Jun 21, 05:49:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Not being a Jew, I do not have to slay Amalekites.
God said, "Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it."
But you're going to ignore what God said and forget it since you're not a Jew.
Do you ignore everything that God said in the Bible, Michael?
Sun Jun 21, 06:36:00 PM 2009
Michael Ejercito said...
God's command was clearly to the Jewish rulers.
Mon Jun 22, 09:24:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
God's command was clearly to the Jewish rulers.
So the Bible is only intended for Jewish rulers? Or just the bits that you choose to ignore?
Mon Jun 22, 10:01:00 AM 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
01 May 2009A note about the Exodus
It didn't happen.
God didn't kill the Egyptian firstborn or drown Pharaoh's army in the sea. He didn't drown people in a world-wide flood or smash them with burning stones at Sodom and Gomorrah. And he didn't kill Onan for spilling his seed or turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. None of this stuff happened.
These are all just stupid stories that no one should take seriously. The God of the Bible didn't kill anyone, because the God of the Bible doesn't exist.
But since half of the world still believes in him, I'll keep counting the number of people believers believe that he killed.
So let's pretend that the Bible is true and try taking the Exodus seriously.
Imagine Moses organizing the Exodus. He rounds up all the people (with their animals, baked goods, and silver, gold, and clothes that they stole from the Egyptians) and gets them all lined up and ready to go. Each family follows the next with a meter or so between them.
The Bible tells us that 600,000 men left Egypt in the Exodus, so there must have been about that many families. If each family was one meter apart, the line would be 600 kilometers long. That's longer than the entire Exodus route from the the Nile delta to Israel, even allowing for a bit of wandering around in the wilderness. So the front of the line would have arrived in Israel before the those at the end left Egypt. Yet the Bible says the trip took 40 years (everything takes 40 years in the Bible).
OK. So let's say it took 40 years. How fast were they walking? If the entire trip was 600 kilometers, then they would have had to walk a bit more than 1 kilometer per month (about 40 meters a day).
Of course there's no evidence that any of this happened. And if several million people were roaming around for 40 years in the Sinai desert, they would have left some evidence. But they didn't.
That's because it didn't happen.
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/01/2009 08:21:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
31 comments:
Baconsbud said...
What I have never understood is with that many people why did they seem to fear such a small force?
Sun May 03, 12:09:00 PM 2009
barriejohn said...
From my experience, I would say that the fundamentalists would not be fazed by most of this - they have ready-made answers to all these objections. The clincher, though, is the last point: "Where`s the evidence?". I know that lack of evidence is not proof that something didn`t happen, but even a few thousand Israelites wandering in Sinai for 40 years would have left SOME traces of their presence. But there`s nothing! Their only answer has to be: "But it hasn`t been found yet", and even THEY know how lame that sounds!!
Sun May 03, 12:46:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
barriejohn,
I agree that fundamentalists wouldn't be fazed by this. They aren't fazed by much of anything.
But I've never heard any of their "ready-made" answers. What are they?
Sun May 03, 12:55:00 PM 2009
barriejohn said...
Your own Wikipedia link provides the answer Steve! It is ALWAYS some error of translation or of transcription, or of our understanding of what is being said - NEVER an error or contradiction in the sacred text!! Here, the word translated "thousands" MAY mean "clans": the numbers used (40, 600, and a thousand) MAY be typological, not actual numbers: the lack of evidence - either physical or written - doesn`t actually PROVE that all this did not take place. And so it goes on - they will not give an inch!
Sun May 03, 02:37:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Yeah, you're right, barriejohn.
The mistranslation (or the that's-what-it-says-but-that's-not-what-it-means) excuse works on just about everything, including the numbers in the Exodus.
But if there were only a few hundred Israelites in the Exodus, then there might not be much evidence 3200 years later either. So it works for that one too.
Sun May 03, 03:40:00 PM 2009
barriejohn said...
That did occur to me too, but there would have had to have been a fair number of them to have populated Canaan in the way that they are alleged to have done. In any case true fundamentalists would not agree that Biblical numbers can be manipulated in this way: if that`s what it says in The Bible you just have to believe it! They always quote "St Paul`s" words about "the foolish things of the world confounding the wise" etc, as their last line of defence, and then you`ve really just had it as far as rational discussion goes. Regarding remains though, where on earth is all the evidence that should exist for Joshua, David, Solomon and his temple, and even later icons like Daniel? Christian archaeologists, followed by the Jews, have been searching for years now, and have found very little; and there is no mention of these people in contemporaneous records. Unbelievable!!
Sun May 03, 04:18:00 PM 2009
I am the wise fool. said...
Another glitch in the historical proof just as condemning is the Egyptian record of events. I'm still working on this text for a post later this month, but right now I think it sums things up well:
In summary, the ten plagues of the Exodus have left the Egyptians without livestock, without food, possibly requiring the entire remaining population to dig for drinkable water next to the Nile, plundered, without an estimated 1/4-1/6 of their population (the firstborn males), possibly physically injured, scarred, and diseased, and with a country permeated by the stench of rotting dead carcasses. Plus, the huge slave labor pool they depended on for centuries has instantaneously left the empire. The Egyptian empire is set to crumble even further to a mere remnant of its former glory. In fact, it's hard to imagine much of an empire at all surviving that kind of pummeling. (Isn't it amazing that you find no evidence of this devastation in history?)
Mon May 04, 06:39:00 PM 2009
barriejohn said...
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but they have an answer to this as well! Since we know that the Ancient Egyptians erased from their records all traces of people with whom they disagreed, and since all ancient civilizations were VERY selective about what was recorded in the first place, it is no surprise that there is now no trace of events so embarrassing to such a mighty nation! I know it`s weak, but I sometimes hanker after the days when I too believed that there were such simple answers to all the difficulties arising from having such a "simple" faith!!
Mon May 04, 11:34:00 PM 2009
Sharpfamily said...
The problem with evidence is that neither side can "prove" whether or not God exists any more than i can prove to you whether i love my kids. The issue is how we read the bible then. Whatever our faith position its an amazing account of human history in the light of how people and God relate to the idea of each other. If God does exist we need to work out whether he did command genocide and random acts of cruelty, or whether people just thought he did, or in fact wanted to and told everyone God had told them to do it. (Sound familiar?!) People who claim to be christian also claim to follow Christ, which means that anything in the historical Hebrew bible that does not line up with the example, life & death, teaching and historical understanding of Jesus, needs to be considered as a sociological point of interest rather than as theological truth. Perhaps then we can move away from the unhelpful polemic of "fundamentalists versus atheists" and onto a more useful conversation where all people are able to wonder "whether if there is God, what could he be like?"
Tue May 05, 01:51:00 AM 2009
Sharpfamily said...
The problem with evidence is that neither side can "prove" whether or not God exists any more than i can prove to you whether i love my kids. The issue is how we read the bible then. Whatever our faith position its an amazing account of human history in the light of how people and God relate to the idea of each other. If God does exist we need to work out whether he did command genocide and random acts of cruelty, or whether people just thought he did, or in fact wanted to and told everyone God had told them to do it. (Sound familiar?!) People who claim to be christian also claim to follow Christ, which means that anything in the historical Hebrew bible that does not line up with the example, life & death, teaching and historical understanding of Jesus, needs to be considered as a sociological point of interest rather than as theological truth. Perhaps then we can move away from the unhelpful polemic of "fundamentalists versus atheists" and onto a more useful conversation where all people are able to wonder "
Tue May 05, 01:55:00 AM 2009
matt311 said...
Of all the countries the guys who wrote the Bible could have picked as the land of their "slavery", why Egypt? Why not Syria or Babylon?
Strange way to say your God is great when he takes eight times to convince a guy to let you go.
Tue May 05, 02:14:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
#1. "thousand" in the Hebrew Bible is a mistranslation and should actually be "units", which in this case probably would mean 600 families.
#2. Archeologists decided that Assyria never existed because they couldn't find evidence of it, but they wound up finding evidence of it anyways.
#3. There is no evidence that the Israelites simply rose out of Caanite culture. They just say that simply because they have not found evidence yet that they lived in Egypt.
Tue May 05, 05:29:00 PM 2009
I am the wise fool. said...
Brendan, I think you should double-check your Bible. When you consult Numbers 1, you'll find that the Israelite men totaled 603,550. This confirms the 600,000+ interpretation, unless you want us to believe that they went from 600 families to 603,550 men while they were wandering in the desert...
Tue May 05, 05:53:00 PM 2009
I am the wise fool. said...
barriejohn, it's certainly true that history is often his-story, and that the Egyptians could have conveniently left this out.
However, other evidence would persevere. Something had to be done with the bodies of the frogs, livestock, and the firstborn. Where are the mass graves? Even burning that many bodies would likely have left an archaeological scar of some sort. Turning all the water in Egypt to blood, even the Nile, should have left a distinct chemical signature in the riverbeds, deltas, and lakes.
Tue May 05, 06:04:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Wise fool,
I think what the Bible is saying in Numbers 1:45-46 is that there were 603.55 families in the Exodus. (Is that right, Brendan?)
Tue May 05, 06:57:00 PM 2009
David said...
603.55 families would work only if Pi were equal to 3
Tue May 05, 08:01:00 PM 2009
barriejohn said...
I agree with you entirely of course, Wise Fool, but they are just going to say: "The evidence has NOT YET been found." Indeed, Brendan has already said it! You`re banging your head against a brick wall. (But persevere anyway - it was the intellectual dishonesty of it all that finally convinced me that I had to give up the charade of believing such obvious fables - so there`s hope for some!!)
Wed May 06, 01:06:00 AM 2009
Lord Lulz said...
Here is a what a Baptist preacher once told me.
The stories of the Old Testament are folk legends not to be taken literally. It is the laws and morals they teach that are what's important.
It is certainly the most honest answer I have ever heard. Never mind the fact that raping virgins and killing babies doesn't seem so morally upright to me.
Wed May 06, 09:34:00 PM 2009
Doomsday said...
What happened to your 'God's Killings: The Gory Details' post?
Thu May 07, 04:01:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Sorry Doomsday. I posted "The Gory Details" a bit prematurely. I sometimes do that just to see if I've got a post set up properly.
What I have in mind is an expanded list of God's killings along with an explanation for the estimated number of victims. I hope to get that done soon.
Fri May 08, 07:53:00 AM 2009
thebeattitude.com said...
The only way many Christians can continue to believe is they admit most of the stories in the Bible never happened. They call them "allegories", "metaphors" or "parables".
The problem is these stories were written as fact and taught as truth. Christians shouldn't have to try so hard to rationalize obvious flaws in their faith to continue to blindly believe in primitive teaching.
By the way, Dwindling in Unbelief, thank you for the links to my blog. I've noticed traffic coming from your site and see I'm in your "THINGS I'VE NOTICED LATELY". Great blog and I look forward to reading though you posts. I've added you to my blogroll.
Sat May 09, 08:10:00 AM 2009
barriejohn said...
You`re talking about very "wishy-washy" Christians there "beattitude" and Lord Lulz! You must know that fundamentalists take every word of the Bible literally, apart from some obviously metaphorical passages in the more poetic books. They don`t even take "prophetic visions" as allegorical. Many of them believe that ALL of the prophecies of The Book of Revelation, for instance, will be LITERALLY fulfilled, however silly this may seem to you and me; and I have come across many who actually argue that when Jesus said "A sower went forth to sow" he must have been referring to an ACTUAL EVENT, just because he said that it happened!! If you spent some time in the company of these people I think you would be amazed at their naivety!!!
Sat May 09, 12:44:00 PM 2009
barriejohn said...
The latest "Jesus and Mo" ( http://www.jesusandmo.net )sums it all up really - brilliant as usual!
Sat May 09, 03:23:00 PM 2009
thebeattitude.com said...
barriejohn-
"Wishy-washy" or not, this is a very common argument I hear from Christians, one in particular is a Lutheran pastor. There are countless interpretations of the Bible and every person is under the opinion that their view is correct.
I see naivety at both ends of the spectrum, but fundamentalists take the cake. To believe literalistic interpretation of the Bible takes a level of naive blindness that baffles me.
Sat May 09, 08:42:00 PM 2009
barriejohn said...
I don`t understand these people who accept some parts of the Bible but not others (apart from its generally accepted moral teachings, or more prosaic passages - some of which are, indeed, great literature.) There are many Muslims on the net also, claiming to be "moderate". How can they be Muslims then? If you believe that Heaven and Hell are real, and that your holy book and prophet offer the only means of eternal salvation, then how can you be "moderate", or half-hearted about your faith? Surely, you have to be either one thing or the other; and your holy writings are either inspired by your god, or else just a collection of the myths and ramblings of fallible men!!
Sun May 10, 05:30:00 AM 2009
Markus Arelius said...
The problem is that the Old Testament is not discarded. It remains part and parcel of the "Bible". Christians may focus more attention on the "good news" of the new testament and downplay the disconcerting bits within the old testament. But this blog is calling to question a laundry list of canon passages and biblical accounts of history for which I've read no intellectually honest response from Christians. These passages are morally repugnant by 21st, 20th and even 19th century standards. I don't understand why Christians in the 21st century aren't asking their church elders and scholars more serious questions about these passages and determining for themselves whether or not they should be discarded completely.
Set all that aside for one moment. This book is rated R - at least. I mean no self-respecting parent would ever read these stories to young children, yet the story of the flood and Noah is repeated in Sunday schools across the nation. Sure, teachers focus the children's attention on the beautiful animal pairs and the construction of the massive arc, while the horrorific genocide of millions of people and animals destroyed "by God's wrath" becomes a minimized portion of the story - a minor theme that can be swept under the rug.
Tue May 12, 08:42:00 AM 2009
athanasiuskircherus said...
While I agree that most biblical stories are preposterous, I have to point out the flawed logic here. You're assuming that the Israelites walked _single_ _file_ all the way from Egypt to Palestine? That's a level of assumption worthy of the very fundamentalists you're arguing against.
Let's be more realistic. The Sinai peninsula has an area of approximately 6000 km^2, which equals 6 billion square meters. Suppose that when the Israelites camped, they needed 10 square meters per person. 6 billion divided by 600,000 is 10,000. That means they could have 10,000 possible non-overlapping camps in the Sinai peninsula.
Now, many of these are going to be uninhabitable, sure. But even if we say 90% of the land isn't good for a camp, that's still 1000 possible camps for a group of 600,000. If you move your people around only every couple weeks, you could easily wander around such an area for 40 years without even ever camping in the same spot.
I'm not saying it's likely. You'd have to be an idiot to do it. But the arguments about walking speed and single-file are bad assumptions, since we're told they wandered, and it's unlikely a group of that size would move in single-file anyway.
What's more realistic is your argument that there's no solid archaeological evidence that a group of that size was wandering around for so long. That's a reasonable argument, and I'd rather stick to that sort of thing instead of attempting meaningless calculations. Making _reasonable_ assumptions is one of the thing this blog is all about.
Fri May 15, 05:28:00 PM 2009
athanasiuskircherus said...
By the way, there was an error of a factor of ten in my previous post. I originally used the assumption that a camp needed 10 m^2 per person, which ended up with 1000 possible camps, regardless of terrain. With bad terrain, there would be less.
Anyhow, that's only tangential to the point, which is that the biblical stories clearly imply that they weren't continuously on the move. If they were staying in camp for a few weeks at a time (which some stories imply), they could wander around the area for quite a while... assuming they had absolutely no sense of direction. After all, God was confusing them....
But all this is meaningless speculation until there's some archaeological evidence.
Sat May 16, 08:58:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
I love your realism, athanasius!
Yes, I suppose would be possible to get a few million people massed together into a few square kilometers and then have them all randomly move together from one location to the next for forty years.
But wouldn't it make a bit more sense to have the families all line up and start walking east, cross the Red Sea (with a little help from their murderous god), and then turn left? The whole trip should have taken about two weeks.
Sat May 16, 09:02:00 AM 2009
Michael Ejercito said...
Since we know that the Ancient Egyptians erased from their records all traces of people with whom they disagreed, and since all ancient civilizations were VERY selective about what was recorded in the first place, it is no surprise that there is now no trace of events so embarrassing to such a mighty nation!
Egyptians were pioneers in the practice of revisionist history.
For example, they recorded how Ramses II led the Egyptians to victory over the Hittites in the Battle of Kadesh, forgetting to mention that the Son of Ra got his semi-divine ass kicked.
Sun Jun 21, 05:52:00 PM 2009
barriejohn said...
You`re quoting me completely out of context here, but am I surprised? If there were literally millions of Hebrew slaves living in Egypt for hundreds of years there would certainly be a record of their presence: whyever not, I might ask! And where on earth is the archaeological evidence? The truth is that it just didn`t happen!!
Mon Jun 22, 12:00:00 AM 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
29 June 2009While the flesh was still between their teeth, the Lord smote them with a very great plague
In his last killing, God burned people to death for complaining. I suppose this was to teach the people a lesson: Don't whine.
But if so, it didn't work. Those that survived God's fire immediately began to whine again, saying
Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick: But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes. Numbers 11:4-6
So Moses and God talk things over and God says he'll give them meat, alright. He'll feed them meat until it comes out their noses!
Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days; But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you. Numbers 11:19-20
Where did God get the meat, you ask? From quail. Lots and lots of quail.
And there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day's journey on this side, and as it were a day's journey on the other side, round about the camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth. Numbers 11:31
God coated the ground with dead quail. A meter deep, within a circle 60 kilometers in diameter. Six trillion (6 x 1012) dead quail. A couple million for each of several million people.
So everyone had plenty of meat to eat. And the moral of the story is this: If you are hungry, just ask God to feed you. You may get more than you want. You may get so much that it comes out your nose. But God will feed you.
Or that would be the moral, if it weren't for the next verse.
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
So God fed the people quail until it came out their noses and then killed many of them with "a very great plague."
Which means we need a new moral for this WTF Bible Story: If you are hungry, don't ask God for help. He'll force you to eat food that you don't like until it comes out your nose and then he'll kill you in a plague.
God hates whiners.
(Since this was "a very great plague," I put the death toll at 10,000.)
God's next killing: Ten scouts are killed for their honest report
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/29/2009 04:22:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
9 comments:
I Am said...
This quail thing is a vegetarian's nightmare--being forced to eat quail until it's literally coming out of your nose!
God seems so childish at times. You're sick of eating the same manna day in and day out? You want some meat? Fine, I'll give you so much quail, you'll wish you never had to eat it again. And then for the fun of it, I'll send a plague. So there.
Is this the God that's supposed to be giving America its moral guidance?
Tue Jun 30, 09:43:00 AM 2009
busterggi said...
Thus does the bible explain why there are no more quail in the ocean.
O/w the story is senseless.
Wed Jul 01, 05:56:00 AM 2009
matt311 said...
Does God have the moral development of a two-year-old? Really, quail? Ouch.
Sun Jul 05, 08:10:00 AM 2009
The Dragon Lord said...
"I Am" I'd like to reply to you on this. The moral of the story is in fact telling people to relinquish their control over their bondage.
We are looking at a story where God frees the Irelites only to have them romanticize their bondage under the hands of the Egyptians. They escape the cruel hand of their masters only to complain about wandering through a desert because they have no idea where they are going.
God frees us from out bondage and as happen change it may be, humans have this interesting quirk (part being we have free will) to either happily abandon our bondage or control it with deep vigor.
The mana gave the people everything they needed. I suspect it tasted wonderful, but I wasn't there so I can't speculate, however, the point here is that God gave them food in a desert and instead of appreciating the miracle of the water and the bread and their freedom, they did as all people tend to do, control the situation to make it better instead of appreciating the beauty and freedom they have.
Kind of the glass half full vs. half empty mentality.
I believe either the Buddhists or Taoist Zen Masters have a similar perspective on this, where one must experience the world as it is to appreciate its beauty and find peace. I believe this passage is indicating that when we try and control the situation and demanding trivialities when we have all we need and losing sight of the miracles at hand, we begin to destroy the positive values of what we have.
Sort of like Materialism, where, you want something new, even if it isn't better than what you already had, and is worse. I mean, the Mana was everything required. God gave them the works, yet they wanted more. Yet when they wanted meat they forgot it must be cooked, you get sick of it after a while, etc. and they didn't think that God would provide for them.
Those who had taken such strong control over their sin where God could no longer speak to them, where to be smote made a point, but being smote is not destroyed from existence. We have this horrible tendency to overlook basic intrinsically aspects of the bible and God. We think or make God out to be this horrible bully figure, when things like, "smote" really are freeing them from their control. I didn't read "and they were banished into the eternal fires, or obliterated from all existence never to return." Simply, "smote" or "killed".
So they died? That in conceptual belief isn't the end. Just the end of mortal living. I really can't say what happened to them, but I think the idea here is when on a long journey, you must look for the positive attributes not the negative factors.
Our current situation in America is a great example. We can look at the negative, or we can say, alright...God, what is you plan here? What do you want from us and the like? And move forward with whatever you get. Do you best and have faith. Most importantly, stand strong and optimistically move towards a better future, because sedentary mentalities or grumpy monkey mentality is how society fails. If you always think it was better in the past, how can you appreciate the present, nor make improvements in the future? The same hold for life, you just have to flow with it.
Hope that brings some clarity.
-Chris
Tue Nov 17, 11:32:00 PM 2009
About Mr. Pollock said...
Chris, you basically just attempted to justify God murdering people for voicing their needs. Murdering them with the flesh still in their teeth no less! So you think there is some merit for punishing people for having desires for better things? Or, if you believe this story to be true, that God is somehow justified in murdering people for saying they want to eat meat for a change instead of endless bread? I rest my case.
Wed Jun 30, 12:44:00 AM 2010
bernlin2000 said...
Chris, you're completely ignoring reality. Of course bread isn't enough to thrive: you have to have protein in your diet, it's simply a fact. You would think God would know that, seeing how he supposedly created us. But no: he get's all pissy about it ("You want food? I'll give you so much food it'll be coming out of your nose!") and then even when he does recognize a human's basic need for meat (or some kind of protein) he poisons it, just to punish them for complaining about their needs. He's childish and a prick, nothing worth worshiping or revering.
Thu Feb 03, 02:39:00 PM 2011
Mark said...
This is another contradiction.
Not only does God totally over-react in verses 19-20 to their complaints, but he can't even wait a month to smite them with a plague.
So much for 1 John 4 v 8, "God is love", and 1 Corinthians 13 v 4, "Love is patient, love is kind."
Thu Dec 20, 03:52:00 AM 2012
Emmanuel Obarhua said...
God is One with great understating - The book of Enoch says that He needed no holy councils, not even the council of ten thousand holy counselors. God's purpose for giving the Israelites that food (manna and quails, though they didn't like it) is good, and it came to a good end. Though they didn't like the food God gave them, but they wax strong and mighty plus they mightily increased. And God smote them because they had no morals.
Regards,
Online MBA Programs
Wed Oct 30, 02:09:00 AM 2013
Alan Arber said...
I pray for you people. Chris was stating exactly what was happening. You have to separate spirituality from the reality on earth that we're used to. All God wants is us to have faith- we don't know the circumstances of the day of these happenings. Remember, if you think God 'overreacted', he did end up sending Jesus to pay for all of our sins. There are questions I have about the bible, but I have enough faith to know that there is a reason for all the questions I have. Thank you, Chris for trying to clarify, but unfortunately, all these people want to do is argue.
Thu Feb 13, 08:15:00 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
28 June 2009When the people complained, God burned them to death
Here's a fun little Bible story for you.
It all happens in just two verses.
And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: Numbers 11:1a
The Bible doesn't say what the people were complaining about. Spending years wandering around the desert following a cloud around? Not having enough food or water? It doesn't say.
But whatever it was, God heard it. (He had his hearing aid on.)
and the LORD heard it; Numbers 11:1b
So what do you think God did? Did he explain why he was leading them around for 40 years without adequate food or water on a trip that should have taken a few weeks?
Not quite. Here's what he did.
and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp. Numbers 11:1c
I don't know for sure, of course, but I think God was trying to teach parents a lesson here. When your kids complain, burn them to death. God teaches best when he teaches by example.
Finally the people beg Moses to make God stop. And God stopped burning people to death.
And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto the LORD, the fire was quenched. Numbers 11:2
Don't you just love happy endings?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(For those keeping score: The Bible doesn't say how many people were burned to death in this episode. So I just guessed 100.)
This killing is highlighted in the Poverty and Justice Bible. Here's how they put it.
One day the Israelites started complaining about their troubles. The Lord heard them and became so angry that he destroyed the outer edges of their camp with fire.
This shows God's sense of justice. If you complain about your troubles, God will burn you to death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's next killing: While the flesh was still between their teeth, the Lord smote them with a very great plague
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/28/2009 09:22:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
7 comments:
Jerome said...
Another cute story they left out in Sunday class!!
Mon Jun 29, 10:31:00 AM 2009
liminalD said...
I think they could use it as a great illustration for training kids only to listen to the 'right' people, the story shows that the perspectives of the majority are less important than the views of those who are on your side. God only listens to Moses here, after all.
Mon Jun 29, 03:41:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
Yahweh got off his meds alot didn't he?
Mon Jun 29, 06:03:00 PM 2009
WolfFable said...
gah these things get soo confusing. ive read soo many contredictions in the bible its not even funny and when a debate happens they both pull out information.
Mon Jun 29, 06:50:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
Looks like God's puttin' on a barbecue -- just in time for the Fourth of July!
Sun Jul 05, 08:04:00 AM 2009
jonathan said...
Actually, they knew why they were in the wilderness for 40 years. When God took them straight to the "promised land", they were scared to fight. Even after they saw God "murder" all the egyptians and free them from slavery. So he told them they'll have to wonder for 40 years until their children are old enough to fight and believe. If you actually saw God, heard his audible voice, saw what he was capable of, I think you would trust him enough not to complain. Rather, if you had a legitimate need, you would merely ask God. Every time Moses went to him with a legitimate request God was reasonable. But I see your point, burning people with fire is extreme. But at the same time, we don't know what they were complaining to God about. They could have very well been bringing curses on his name and saying they wish he would have never interfered. Which they did multiple times according to Biblical history. Which in that case, lightning or fire seems like a reasonable thing—uh maybe. God had a reputation to maintain, he couldn't just let fools curse his name :)
Fri Jul 31, 11:40:00 AM 2009
About Mr. Pollock said...
The way you talk about God possibly being justified in murdering people with fire just for being angry at him (and rightly so) shows how psychopathic you are
Wed Jun 30, 12:51:00 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
22 June 2009God's Killings in Leviticus
I can only find two killings in Leviticus, but they are both doosies.
God burned to death Aaron's sons for offering "strange fire."
Leviticus 10:1-3
A blasphemer is stoned to death at God's command.
Leviticus 24:11-23
And although God only kills three people, he orders everyone else to kill plenty of others.
Some he wants you to stone to death.
Blasphemers Leviticus 24:16
People with "familiar spirits" (witches, fortune tellers, etc.) Leviticus 20:27
And others you must burn.
A man that has sex with his wife and mother-in-law (burn all three) Leviticus 20:14
A priest's daughter who "plays the whore" Leviticus 21:9
But most he just says you should kill, without specifying the method. (Although you should make sure, whatever method you use, that "their blood be upon them." It's probably best to use a humane, God-approved method like stoning or burning.)
Children who curse their parents Leviticus 20:9
Both parties in adultery Leviticus 20:10
If a man has sex with his father's wife (kill them both) Leviticus 20:11
A man that "lies" with his daughter-in-law (kill them both) Leviticus 20:12
A man that has sex with another man (kill them both) Leviticus 20:13
A man or woman that "lies with a beast" (kill man or woman and the beast) Leviticus 20:15-16
And of course God wants you to kill animals for him. Lots and lots of animals.
Indeed, the first 9 chapters of Leviticus can be summarized as follows: Get an animal, kill it, sprinkle the blood around, cut the dead animal into pieces, wave the body parts over your head, and burn the whole bloody mess for a "sweet savor unto the Lord."
And what if you refuse to kill all these people and animals?
Here's what God will do to you.
If ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.
...
I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children
...
And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. Leviticus 26:14-29
So it's up to you. Burn, stone, kill and slosh the blood of dead animals round about. Or God will force you to eat your children. It's just that simple.
And now on to God's killings in the Book of Numbers.
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/22/2009 09:17:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
39 comments:
Brendan said...
Just curious, where does Vayikra 20:9 say "children"? The law did not apply to children in most cases.
It should also be noted that God was not demanding sacrifices. Maimonides (an incredibly famous rabbi) stated that God allowed sacrifice only because it was too much ingrained in the culture of the people at the time.
It should also be noted that the death sentences were rarely, if at all, actually carried out, and that they were never meant to be carried out but instead act as a hypothetical deterrent (source: The Talmud). The same applies for the threats listed in chapter 26. The Israelites lived in a barbaric, violent time, and were not likely to obey something without extremely dire consequences.
Mon Jun 22, 02:27:00 PM 2009
C Woods said...
Whoa, Brendan! I thought religion was supposed to make people moral. Do you mean that even religion and the threats of an omnipotent God couldn't make people obey his word?
Shocking!!!
But wait! It was God himself who was commanding killings, even if, as you say, they were rarely carried out.
I'm confused.
Mon Jun 22, 03:38:00 PM 2009
Baconsbud said...
Seems he needed a bit of rest after all the earlier killings. LOL
I don't think that just saying they were meant as a deterrent clears him/her/it of the moral implications they imply. We live in a very barbaric and violent times. There are many even with the threat of life in prison or the death penalty. Neither of these stop people from committing the crimes. If you look at the states within the USA that have and don't have the death penalty, you find it isn't the states with the death penalty that have the lower murder rates.
Because it was so ingrained it is ok. Many things have been ingrained in society to be rejected later as morally wrong. That sounds like the god you are describing is just going along so he/her/it doesn't lose believers. This implies that it wasn't from some good being but from man.
Mon Jun 22, 04:31:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
C Woods:
The purpose of the Torah (1st 5 books of the Bible) is not actually morality, it's peace. Besides, in a world where morality is lacking (see: every single war mentioned in the Bible, people giving their daughters to rapists), God can't make people moral without infringing on free will.
Baconsbud:
The fact that there are more crimes in states with a death penalty is irrelevant. The fact that there's a death penalty is actually a reflection of certain mindsets that happen to be more aggressive. The difference between God and states with the death penalty is is that God never wanted them to be carried out. Besides, if you compare the immorality of society today, think about it back then. Lot offered his daughters to rapists. People fought total war on a regular basis. Moses rule for warfare was considered merciful by the standards at that time, and they're extremely barbaric. It's different (although, admittedly, not by much).
Also, God states in the Torah that he does not desire sacrifices, but if you are to sacrifice, there is a certain process. He told the Israelites he disproves of sacrifice, but they still did it, so they were given a process by which to do it. Maimonides never seemed to think that makes God any more human, and he was a philosopher, so if it's good enough for Maimonides, it's good enough for me.
By the way, if anyone is interested, here's the process by which someone could actually be sentenced to death in ancient Israel:
If there are 2 witnesses to the event, one has to remind the perpetrator that such an offense is punishable by death. Then, the perpetrator must keep going, or resume within a few seconds (I've heard around 3 seconds) of stopping the activity. After that, he needs to be given a trial with 23 judges. If he was found guilty, he was to be executed far away from the trial spot, at a later date, to allow more time for evidence.
It should also be noted that some crimes were never punished at all (for example, the drunken son, which was to serve as a hypothetical warning).
Mon Jun 22, 05:29:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Brendan,
Just curious, where does Vayikra 20:9 say "children"? The law did not apply to children in most cases.
"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death." Leviticus 20:9
That would include children, wouldn't it, Brendan? And how the hell would you know that "the law did not apply to children in most cases"?
It should also be noted that God was not demanding sacrifices.
It should only be noted by those that are not interested in the truth.
The truth is that the bible god demanded sacrifices throughout Leviticus. Chapters 1-9 consist of nothing but his demand for sacrifices, along with disgustingly detailed descriptions about what to do with the blood and guts.
It should also be noted that the death sentences were rarely, if at all, actually carried out, and that they were never meant to be carried out but instead act as a hypothetical deterrent (source: The Talmud).
That's just more bullshit, Brendan, and I don't care where it came from. God commands everyone to burn, stone, or kill anyone who commits certain acts. If he didn't want us to burn people to death he shouldn't have commanded us to do so. (Do you think it is wrong to burn people to death, Brendan?)
The same applies for the threats listed in chapter 26. The Israelites lived in a barbaric, violent time, and were not likely to obey something without extremely dire consequences.
Oh, I get it. Thanks Brendan!
God had to tell people that he would force them to eat their own children if they didn't burn the people to death that he didn't really want to be burned to death.
I guess he was confused and/or just didn't mean any of it. He didn't want us to kill animals for him or burn people to death, and he didn't mean it when he said he would force us to eat our own children if we refused.
That's what he said, but that's not what he meant. What did he mean, Brendan?
Mon Jun 22, 05:39:00 PM 2009
Baconsbud said...
Brendan are you sure you are reading the Torah right?
Like what has already been said why was it said? It was said because people in power wanted the death penalty not some god. If a god can't come up with a better way of getting people to act morally then with threats of death, then why listen to him?
Why didnt't he say that there are to be no sacrifices? How would him saying that there were to be no sacrifices in anyway affect freewill more then any other action he took. If man was actually given freewill then would he/her/it have to remain completely silent about anything so as not to interfere with that freewill?
Mon Jun 22, 06:01:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
baconsbud:
1. The Jews had no reason to make up the Torah. Why would you make up a document that forces you to change your lifestyle in ways that really aren't preferable, and in fact quite restricting? If kings mandated it to be written, why does God say he's opposed to the Israelites having a king (which, I admit, is after the Torah, but it IS in the Tanakh)? If it were the priests, why does it paint a less-than-favorable picture of the priests? There's no one who would've wanted to make it up!
2. Telling people to do something is not going against free will. Changing someone's morality, which is what you spoke of earlier, is against free will.
In a time when people were sacrificing their own children to their gods, and attributing HaShem's miracles to other gods, changing their habits too much would lead to worship of other gods. People weren't ready to abandon the practices of their ancestors. If God simply changed their mind, it would go against free will. If God told them not to, they could've just worshiped other gods, and attributed God's signs to those other gods. The only solution then is to force them to believe, through violence. I believe your response is that he does that throughout the Bible, so I'll wait for your examples before I form a counter-argument.
(I know you're going to bring up B'midbar, so please do)
Besides, as I mentioned in another post, Maimonides seemed to have no problem with it, and I have a hard time believing that ANY of you (or myself) are smarter than Maimonides.
Mon Jun 22, 07:16:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
I'd like to add a quick footnote to my responses to Steve's arguments:
Only the King James translations says "For every one". The King James is an awful translation.
Here's a more accurate translation:
"For any man who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon himself."
According to Rashi, another ancient Biblical commentator, this refers to someone who curses the name of a dead parent.
Mon Jun 22, 08:10:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
I don't believe this comment got through beforehand:
OK, Steve, I'll bite.
"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death." Leviticus 20:9
That would include children, wouldn't it, Brendan? And how the hell would you know that "the law did not apply to children in most cases"?
The law does not apply to people who do not know the extent of the law.
Also, in the case of children, 2 things would need to happen:
Parents would have to hand them over to be killed, AND the judiciary system would arrange to have them killed, which they did not do.
It should only be noted by those that are not interested in the truth.
The truth is that the bible god demanded sacrifices throughout Leviticus. Chapters 1-9 consist of nothing but his demand for sacrifices, along with disgustingly detailed descriptions about what to do with the blood and guts.
I think Maimonides knows shitloads more than you about the Torah. The truth is that you're almost never supposed to take the Torah as entirely literal.
That's just more bullshit, Brendan, and I don't care where it came from. God commands everyone to burn, stone, or kill anyone who commits certain acts. If he didn't want us to burn people to death he shouldn't have commanded us to do so. (Do you think it is wrong to burn people to death, Brendan?)
It's not bullshit. You know jackshit compared to the writers of the Talmud, who happen to have studied the Torah for the majority of their entire lives. I think they knew a bit more about it than you do.
Several Rabbis who studied the Torah > guy with a computer who has read the Torah a couple times
Oh, I get it. Thanks Brendan!
God had to tell people that he would force them to eat their own children if they didn't burn the people to death that he didn't really want to be burned to death.
I guess he was confused and/or just didn't mean any of it. He didn't want us to kill animals for him or burn people to death, and he didn't mean it when he said he would force us to eat our own children if we refused.
That's what he said, but that's not what he meant. What did he mean, Brendan?
You need to stop taking everything at circumstance.
It's also worth noting that The high court of Judea (which followed Tohranic law), shortly before the revolt (which the Romans crushed), banned the death penalty because "Only God has the right to take a man's life". If experts on the subject matter- much more qualified than you, I'm afraid- can arrive to that conclusion, then anyone should be able to.
Can I tell you for sure what God meant? No. Can I tell you what people have generally believed he meant for thousands of years? Yes.
By the way, before you ask, the universe is 12-16 billion years old.
Mon Jun 22, 08:14:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Brendan: Only the King James translations says "For every one". The King James is an awful translation.
Uh huh. Here are nine more nonexistent awful translations that say "everyone", "anyone", "whoever", or "all."
For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. NKJV
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. NLT
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. NIV
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. ESV
If {there is} anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death. NASB
For every one who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death. RSV
For every one that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death. WEB
For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. HNV
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. ASV
Mon Jun 22, 08:28:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Quit hiding behind Maimonides, Brendan. He could be the smartest guy that ever lived and the bible would just as cruel and full of shit.
If your going to argue from authority, then tell us what the expert said and why.
What specifically in my post would Maimonides (Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Averroes, Homer Simpson, etc.) have disagreed with and why?
Mon Jun 22, 08:40:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
The difference is in the translator, Steve. If you're translating from Hebrew, it's better if Hebrew is your first language (the translation I was reading came from a Jewish source).
By the way, I was refering to the KJB as a whole. It's God-awful.
My favorite example of how bad it is:
Translating "prosperous" as "fat".
Mon Jun 22, 08:43:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Brendan,
So you were mistaken when you said,
"Only the King James translations says 'For every one'"
since there are at least 9 other translations that say the same thing.
Mon Jun 22, 08:52:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
The fact that I was wrong about that has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion. For what it's worth, you haven't contested that "Any man" is more accurate than "Every one".
Mon Jun 22, 09:01:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Brendan: The fact that I was wrong about that has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion.
No, I suppose not. It's just that you seemed so sure about it...
For what it's worth, you haven't contested that "Any man" is more accurate than "Every one".
No, it doesn't matter too much to me. I think it's a wrong to kill someone for cursing his or her parents, no matter how old they are. How about you?
Mon Jun 22, 09:10:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Why don't you read my previous posts and find out?
Mon Jun 22, 09:12:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Why don't you read my previous posts and find out?"
I've read them, Brendan; I can't tell what you think about it.
Why don't you just answer the question?
Here are two that I've asked that you haven't answered:
Is it wrong to burn someone to death (for whatever reason)?
Is it wrong to kill someone (of any age) for cursing his or her parents?
Of course you don't have to answer if you don't want to. I understand. I wouldn't want to either if I were you.
Mon Jun 22, 09:25:00 PM 2009
maneater said...
Hi Steve,
I hope you don't mind me chiming in on this debate? I am a career student in woman's and matriarchal studies and the studies cover a large range of academia, such as...archaeology, anthropology, mythology, sociology, theology, and the list goes on.
I hope I can add a more scholarly view of ancient paganism to your already great blog. I, myself, am not a scholar, maybe one day...but, I do have a lot of knowledge in scholarly work and research in the studies of ancient paganism..
Brendon
Your agruement doesn't hold any water. An argument based on assumtions that are based on bias priestly idealogies, who not only forcefully and violently forced conversion, but also manipulated by demonizing other religions and their gods.
The truth and FACT of the mater is that, wide scale, pagan, child sacrifice has really never been proven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice
(As bias as wiki is, they still acknoledge that, there is a debate in whether or not child sacrifice was practiced by the pagans.)
The archaeological, and anthropological evidence just does not support that the pagans regularly tossed their children in fire pits.
What the evidence does show is that many peaceful pagan countries were invaded by desert nomads that brought along their barbaric child sacrificing practices. God wasn't always Jahova, he was also known as Bal, Moloch, and many other names, and the bible even tells you that.
The truth is, the Hebrews never had any land worth a shit after desertifacation took theirs. From there, they ivaded other peoples lands and forced their war god on them and with that, their barbaric practices.
We must also acknoledge the effects of desertification on human behavior. Study after study proves, that women who do not have proper nutrition during pregnancy are more likely to give birth to offspring that suffer from anti-social behaviors. Thus, is what we see in the bible.
Bredon, you seem like a pretty smart guy and with a little more research into ancient paganism, arcaeology, and anthtopology, you too, can get a more honest view of the hebrews, and how, even their religion had evolved to a war god base to survive the horrific effect of drough,t and famine.
Peace
Tue Jun 23, 06:51:00 AM 2009
Brendan said...
Sorry, Steve, I wasn't paying too much attention when I wrote that first response.
What do I think of the death penalty in general is a better question. The answer is that I believe the death penalty should be reserved for the worst of crimes. It depends on the circumstance, but I wouldn't execute someone for anything much less than 2 murders.
Here's a hypothetical question: How would you feel about the laws in The Torah if they didn't have the penalties attatched?
(And no, I'm not trying to avoid the real question here, I will get to that, but I'm just curious)
In regards to the death penalty in the Bible, here's a good example that does a much better job of describing what I attempted to earlier:
http://www.nyadp.org/main/judaism.html
If wikipedia counts, then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_capital_punishment#Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_(Judaism)#Capital_Punishment
Tue Jun 23, 08:48:00 AM 2009
Brendan said...
Maneater:
I. The Hebrews did not forcibbley convert anybody. There is no evidence that anyone they took prisoner was forced to convert, and the Bible doesn't say it (with a few possible exceptions). They did, rather barbarically, kill thousands of people living in enemy territories.
II. Wide-scale child sacrifice by the Caanites has not been proven in its entirety, but there is evidence for it. The accounts of Molech sacrifice match accounts written by others of different nations from similar or the same time periods. Atheists counter this by accusing each of the nations of fabrication to demonize the enemy. While this cannot be disproven, there is evidence that indicates child sacrifice, and I feel that that is enough evidence for me.
To summarize, because I'm not sure I'm actually writing very clearly (I'm reeeaaalllly tired right now), there is some evidence of child sacrifice. There is no evidence that it was a lie, nor is there evidence that the birth ceremony was passing a child's feet through fire. Those claims have less evidence than the evidence for child sacrifice.
The fact that many peaceful countries were forced to convert to a violent religion of child sacrifice doesn't mean they never did it. In fact, that's evidence that they DID do it. Or are you insinuating that the Hebrews sacrificed children?
Before you bring up Jephthah, let me state that Judaism does not believe that he was right to kill his daughter. Most Jews don't believe he literally sacrificed his daughter, but rather forced her to live a life of seclusion devoted entirely to "serving God". Even the Orthodox believe this. It should also be said that other records of Jephthah claim he met an untimely, and quite unpleasent death.
III. HaShem is not the same god as Baal, Molech, etc. They're all different gods, worshipped by different nations at the time. They're completely different. The Bible does not say they are the same, it has HaShem forbidding people from worshipping Baal, Molech, etc. Many of the early Hebrews DID believe in these gods, but believed that they were inferior.
IV. What's your point on desertification? I never denied that the people in the Bible are violent and cruel.
V. Yes, B'midbar and Y'hoshua show a sort of belief in a war-type God, however I have never believed either of the two to actually be word of God. I do believe the Hebrews violently slaughtered people in neighboring nations, and yes it was usually because of religious beliefs, but such behaivor was not uncommon at the time. This does not excuse their behaivor, but one has to recognize that they were not barbaric by the standards of that time.
A few questions:
For clarification, is this a timeline of the events you're refering to?
1. Hebrews resided in what the Torah calls "wilderness"
2. Hebrews lost land to desertification
3. Hebrews resorted to invading other land
Is the drought & famine you're refering to related in anyway to the ones described in the Bible?
This is rather interesting. I've never heard anyone pushing the series of events you stated. It's always either "Exodus,Wilderness,Canaan" or just "Canaan". Interesting.
Shalom
Tue Jun 23, 08:49:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Brendan:
Here's a hypothetical question: How would you feel about the laws in The Torah if they didn't have the penalties attached?
Well, that depends on the laws.
But take Leviticus 20:14, for example:
"And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they."
I'd like it better if it said something like this:
"And if a man take a wife and her mother, he should get some counseling (unless the wife and her mother are OK with it, in which case, so am I)."
It's the burning to death part that bothers me. That, and the idea that the two women (who may not have consented to the threesome) are to be burned along with the man. It just seems a bit harsh to me.
How about you, Brandan? Do you we should burn all three to death in this case? Do you think burning people to death is ever a good idea? (I may have asked you this a couple times before. If so I apologize. But I'll probably keep doing it until you answer it.)
Tue Jun 23, 09:18:00 AM 2009
Brendan said...
Steve: A bit earlier I posted my views on the death penalty as a whole.
Yes, it's wrong to burn people to death.
Yes, it's wrong to execute someone for sex crimes
However, the death penalty was, as I stated before, hypothetical. I posted some links on the subject.
Tue Jun 23, 10:05:00 AM 2009
maneater said...
Bredon
Have a look here..
http://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html
There is also the debate that the Hebrews and Canninites were the same peoples.
And relying solely on biblical and priestly archaeology only gives one a bias conclusion.
Where to start when it comes to breaking down the history and answers to your questions...
Well, lets start with the start of desertification.(you can do a quick google search using the words of "the origins of desertification" to learn more)There are even satelite pics online to verify that the sahara desert, where Abrahamic religions evolved, and they weren't always known as abrahamic,(I refer to them as war god religions) as I'm sure you know, was once a lush and plentiful area with lots of water and resources. With the loss of resources, due to desertification, little by little, the people migrated out and into the pagan territories and with them some of their anti-social behaviors. These anti-social behaviors at first blended into the pagan beliefs. But, as their numbers increased, they used force, violence, manipulation, and demonizing of the pagan gods to force their one god belief, even if it was for its own people. Even biblical scholars will tell you that, that is why god calls the worship of other gods "whoring".
Child sacrifice does not show up in history until the later neolithic times and shows up in all the places that desertification has set in, or in the places its migrants have invaded.
And I'm glad you are not in denile about the barbaric behavior of the Hebrews or whatever they were called back then. And even biblical scholars have acknowledged that, YES, the Hebrews did practice child sacrifice up untill Abraham took his son and god stopped him. They claim that is when god finally put an end to it for his people. And my point is that there is no difference between the pagan gods of war and the hebrew god of war, it was the evolution of the god we have come to know today. At first they defeated the Goddesses then they defeat eachother, till the one god reigns supreme and along the way, human, and child sacrifice have been practiced by all the war gods. To blame the pagans and ignore the part your religion has played, is a bit dishonest. And I can't remember where in the bible it say's that his people knew him as other gods, but I know its in there and I know god has had many names and they weren't all Jahova or yeweh or whatever name he is going by these day.
Oh, and, yes, the bible does mention drought and famine and desert, over and over.
So, on a good note I'm saying that the Hebrews behavior became more and more aggressive due to drought and famine.
On the flip side, I'm telling you, that, the god you worship evolved out of the worse human conditions and is a barbaric war god that does not deserve worship and serves no purpose here in the land of plenty, because the horrible side effects of worshipping a war god is the decline of civilized behavior and the desrtuction of the enviroment.
Sorry for the spelling and any misplace commas or whathave ya. I'm rushing and my eyes go all blurry when I read online, so bare with me.
Peace
Tue Jun 23, 12:03:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Thanks Brendan. I'm glad that you think it is wrong to burn people to death and that people shouldn't be executed for their sexual activity.
Do you think God had anything to do with Leviticus 20:14 ("And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they.")?
If so, what?
If not, shouldn't it be removed from the Torah?
Tue Jun 23, 12:20:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Maneater:
While the link does seem to support the theory that the corpses found weren't killed through sacrifice, that does not mean that it did not occur.
Abraham preceded the Hebrews, and the early Hebrews did not originate from the Sahara, nor did any of the Canaanites. Abraham came from modern-day Iraq. In fact, none of the other Abrahamic faiths, all of which came long after the Hebrews, started in the Sahara. If you believe the Bible, then the Hebrews were in Egypt for some time, although if the Bible isn't true, then neither is that, which would all Hebrew connection to any part of Africa (since the only alternative theory is that the Hebrews were really just Canaanites). The theory is not that the Hebrews and Canaanites were once the same people, but rather that the first Hebrews were from the Canaanites.
At the time, there was only one Abrahamic religion. The other religions had nothing to do with Abraham.
The myths involving one god killing another, etc, were present in all creation myths EXCEPT the Hebrew one, which some scholars even believe to be an outright rebuttal of the other nation's myths. The Hebrew creation story/myth/whatever you wanna call it states that from the beginning there was only one God. The other nations have stories of gods fighting until one remains supreme.
The Neolithic times predate the time period we're talking about by a couple thousand years (9,500 BCE)
All of the names people call God in the Bible are names that Jews still use, save for "The name", which is considered to holy, too powerful to use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism
Other than these names, no other names are used in the Bible. Names such as Baal and Molech were names of gods worshiped by other nations. Molech is the god that people supposedly sacrificed children to. Some scholars believe Baal and Molech were the same god, but God in the bible specifically says not to worship Molech.
Shalom
Steve:
I posted 2 or 3 links awhile back to help explain my position better. Again, the death penalty there is hypothetical. Even the "Eye-for-an-eye" line was used in a metaphorical way, in which the perpetrator had to give monetary compensation for their crimes.
Tue Jun 23, 01:19:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Brendan: I posted 2 or 3 links awhile back to help explain my position better.
I'm not interested in links, Brendan. I'd like to know what you think.
Here are my questions again.
Do you think God had anything to do with Leviticus 20:14 ("And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they.")?
If so, what?
If not, shouldn't it be removed from the Torah?
Tue Jun 23, 01:38:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Do I believe God said it?
Perhaps. There are several possibilities that I am able to choose from without resorting to being an atheist, or advocating such a terrible penalty:
1) God didn't say it, but it was handed down orally and was not recorded until much later
2) God didn't say it, the Knesset of ancient Israel fucked up
3) He said it, but did not mean it. It's sort of like in Calvin & Hobbes, when he says "Mom, can I go play outside?" and she says "no, you'll get pneumonia, linger in the hospital for a few months, and die." (Best analogy I could think of at the moment)
Again, these were never meant to be carried out. The later courts of ancient Israel believed that if an execution was carried out more than once within 70 years, then the court is corrupt.
Tue Jun 23, 02:08:00 PM 2009
Baconsbud said...
Brendan where are you getting the info that what he said he didn't mean? I thought he was perfect.
You brought up earlier in a comment that god doesn't tell people what morals they must have. But doesn't telling you what is morally wrong tell you what is morally right? So that free will thing would actually only work if he never said a thing and allowed life to run its course.
Tue Jun 23, 02:44:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Thanks Brendan!
But if God didn't really say it or if he said it but didn't mean it, then wouldn't it be better to just remove it entirely?
From what you've said before, I'm sure you don't think homosexuals should be executed. Yet the verse immediately before the one we've been discussing says they should (Leviticus 20:13). I know there's lots of verbal gymnastics that allows you to get out of it (God didn't say it or he said it but didn't mean it, etc.), but why not just admit that he didn't say it at all and be done with the whole nasty thing?
Do you know of another book that says you should execute homosexuals or burn people to death for their sexual activities?
Tue Jun 23, 02:49:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Baconsbud: Either you misunderstand my argument, or I'm typing things that I don't remember.
What I'm saying is this:
If God changed people's morality, that infringes on free will. If he tells them what's right and what's wrong, it gives them a choice to take his moral advice or leave it.
Yes, I believe at one point I said the point of the Torah was peace, not morality. I shouldn't have said that. Oh well. No changing the past (boy, wouldn't that be awesome, though).
Steve:
I'm pretty sure that if Sarah Palin wrote an autobiography, it would say that. That quick joke aside, doesn't "admitting" something require you to know that to be true? I have nothing to admit. I do not know what happened at Mt. Sinai. I do not know what was said, verbatim.
"Didn't mean it" is something I should not have said as well, as it's a gross oversimplification of my argument. What I'm saying is that it was simply detterent. We can't remove it from the text because that is against Jewish law. I will admit, a list of positive and negative commandments sounds a lot more attractive then having them listed along side their punishments.
By the way, I have completely explained my view of the laws on "homosexuality" in the Torah. Yes, people contest to the idea that the Canaanites sacrificed to Molech in that way. However, there is no evidence to suggest the accounts written about it lied (some claim that it was demonization of enemies, but then why were all the accounts virtually the same?), there is evidence (although not much) to suggest they did. Considering God was pretty fond of David, there's no way the verse is actually referring to homosexuality.
Here's a question: If the Torah was written by kings or priests who only wanted to preserve their own power, than why wasn't the death penalty actually used?
...I can't help but feel this post is missing something. Oh well. I'm sure if it is, one of you will point it out.
Tue Jun 23, 05:31:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Brendan: No, I think we've covered it pretty well.
Thanks for answering my questions directly.
(Can't quite resist another, though.
What do you think about God threatening those who disobey him with having their children eaten by their enemies, wild animals, or themselves? That's about as nasty as a god can get, don't you think?)
Tue Jun 23, 06:46:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
That verse, right there is my #1 "problem verse". I have not heard, nor thought of a satisfactory answer.
I guess deterrent could apply, although this description is particularly awful. Perhaps it could be said that God is justified in threatening them because the people simply were too barbaric to listen without something that awful...
If you think about it, the line sticks out, doesn't it? You don't forget it. Maybe that's just what they needed.
Then again, it's still extremely violent. It's one of the few passages I have a problem with that doesn't have an explanation behind it (at least that I know of).
Tue Jun 23, 09:19:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Thanks again, Brendan.
It bothers me when believers aren't bothered by verses like that. I appreciate your honesty and wish you luck trying to find an acceptable explanation.
Tue Jun 23, 09:44:00 PM 2009
Baconsbud said...
Brendan you said "Here's a question: If the Torah was written by kings or priests who only wanted to preserve their own power, than why wasn't the death penalty actually used?". I am wanting to know how you know that the death penalty wasn't used? If you believe it wasn't used because nothing was ever said about it in the bible then you are making assumptions about it. If you have historical documents you are using I would like to see them.
Wed Jun 24, 01:57:00 AM 2009
Brendan said...
Baconsbud:
The Talmud is a Jewish book that consists largely of commentary on the Bible. It was written between the first and 3rd centuries CE. In it, the rabbis claim that there were next to no executions in ancient Israel (before, of course, it was destroyed).
(Before you google search "Talmud", be warned that there are tons of fake verses that anti-semites use to demonize Jews)
The Jewish court under Roman rule had also officially abolished the death penalty altogether.
Wed Jun 24, 07:41:00 AM 2009
maneater said...
Bredon,
So sorry I was in such a rush yesterday. I have a lot of down time and a lot going on at the same time..not sure that makes sense, but it leads to very hectic moments at inept times.
Anywho, I have been reading this blog for a couple of years know and never posted. I really don't have the patience, but I get tired of believers constantly blaming other religions/pagans of mass child and human sacrifice and the truth of the matter is...it really wasn't that prevelent(not saying there wasn't some, but the numbers are VERY small) and was practiced by their very own, as well as, it is still a part of christianity. What the hell was Jesus? He was YOUR god's child/human sacrifice for the sins of mankind. So, blaming the pagans who may or may not have practiced child sacrifice is dishonest, hypicritical, and is ABSOLUTELY demonizing the pagans and other religions, by making it seem like a common everyday practice of the pagans, but not of the biblical god.
And if the Hebrews came from the Canaanites, does that not make them the same people? Sorry for not detailing it for you in my rush. I tend to be a very simple person. NOT simple minded, I just like to get to the point.
And my point about the hebrews is, that the hebrews don't have a real history. They do not have a land, they driffed in from the desert and every bit of history that comes from the bible, is NOT theirs, but of Sumarian, Canaanan, Asia, Egyption and it all out dates the bible's accounts.
AND,(last one I promise)the Hebrews ABSOLUTELY were polythiestic, but the more drought and famine they indured the more monothiestic they became. Want proof? Open the the fist creation story, it says..Come let US make man and woman in OUR image. There are also many, if not the majority of biblical scholars who will testify to that.
Brendon there are LOTS of theories and hypothisis about where the Hebrews came from and you really cut yourself short just sticking to one version.
Here is another theory that I read.
http://egyptian-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/moses_real_man_or_biblical_myth
This guy has a lot of valid points to his debate.
So, that is all I have to say about this and would just like to get back to being an observer.
Peace
Wed Jun 24, 12:11:00 PM 2009
madcat said...
God is not great afterall.
My mom seems to be a nicer person that god.
She did not kill me when I disobeyed her when I was younger.
Thu Jun 25, 12:05:00 AM 2009
maneater said...
Steve,
My rebuttal to Brendon was never posted. Not sure why?
I really hate typing and have very little patience for it, and nor do I have the time to search for all the research in biblical and archaeological info since my computer crashed months ago and lost all my saved stuff. So, I will post a couple of links to try to clarify my points and keep it brief.
Brendon,
http://www.orgonelab.org/MatriarchyCongress2003.htm
The link is James Demeo's rebuttal to some of the scholars of matriarchal studies and delves deep into the origins of your war god. And your geography is a little off...last I checked, the middle east is under attack of desertification from the Sahara. The Sahara desert is expanding, and there are HUGE promlems in the middle east due to it.
My point about the hebrews is, that they have no real history of their own. They wandered in froom the desert and brought with them their anti-social war god with them.
And another thing...the Hebrews were NOT always monothiestic. Even the bible proves that, as well as many scholars. The Hebrew have had many gods and goddesses. A quick google search on the ancient hebrew gods turns up lots of gods, and some that demanded child sacrifice...much like Jehova did...and isn't that exactly what Jehova did when Jesus was crucified? Was he not your gods child sacrifice?
So, demonizing the non hebrew pagans, who have never been proven to practice such barbaric practices, is dishonest, hypicritical and is a means to demonize the non-hebrew pagans.
Aztec,and incas are not included in this debate, cuz they are way on the other side of the world, and are not mentioned in the bible, but can also be linked to desert behaviorist.
And, boy, I am glad you do not agree with stonings. They are barbaric and any god that demands it or does not condem it, is NOT worth worship!!!
Here is another link just for fun, cuz I find his work very interesting!! And anyone interested in archaeology, anthropology and biblical studies will like it. :)
http://ahmedosman.com/home.html
Peace
Thu Jun 25, 07:56:00 AM 2009
Brendan said...
Maneater:
I responded here in the order that I read your arguments, so it's entirely out of order:
I'm Jewish. I don't believe in Christianity. Ergo, your "Jesus = child sacrifice" theory does not apply to me. "Shalom", which I've been ending my posts with, is Hebrew for "peace".
The Sahara desert is located in Northern Africa. Desertification is a problem in the Mid-East, but the Sahara desert refers to a region in Africa.
You say the Hebrews wandered in the desert. Does this mean the Bible wasn't lying when it said that?
In regards to your link...
Such things were present in every mid-Eastern nation of the time (minus the "genital mutations", and by the way, circumcision has lots of benefits, for example it can sometimes prevent HIV and AIDS). HaShem, the God the Hebrews (and modern day Jews, Christians, and Muslims) believed in, was not worshiped by other nations. Some scholars believe there may have been another nation that did, however the Hebrews attacked it, so that seems unlikely to me.
Doing a google search for "ancient Hebrew gods" brings up a link which describes several gods.
Quick catch: They're all the same God. Every learned Jew knows that God has several names, each one used at different points in the Bible. The multiple names are symbolic of how God is a God of all things, rather than just one aspect of life.
The ancient Hebrews believed in several gods, but only worshiped one, until a king (forgot the name) had them worship multiple gods for economic and political security. The Hebrew leaders until this point actually tried to get people to stop believing in other gods.
The Hebrews NEVER sacrificed children. It's punishable by death in the Torah. Whether or not the Torah is fake, it still stands that the Hebrews never did such a thing.
Ask any Rabbi, they'll tell you God said "in our image" while talking to the angels.
Again, there is evidence that child sacrifice was common in Canaan, and the only evidence otherwise is that when a site was found with dead bodies, most of them were fetuses. It's a pretty weak argument.
If you believe the Bible, the Hebrews are descended from Abraham. If not, they were just Canaanites.
The Hebrews did not worship a "war god". They worshiped a God of everything. They happened to be warlike, just like all the other nations.
The Bible's account of the history of the Hebrews is not taken from other religions. It either happened to the Hebrews, or is a complete fabrication.
I did not say I believed the Canaanites to be the same people.
Fri Jun 26, 10:06:00 AM 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
17 June 2009OMG: A blasphemer is stoned to death
Remember the stoning scene from Monty Python's The Life of Brian? A man (Matthias, Son of Deuteronomy of Gath) is about to be stoned to death for blasphemy. Here's what he says in his own defense:
I had a lovely supper and all I said to my wife was, "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah."
Well, this story from Leviticus is pretty much the same, except here two guys are fighting and one of them blasphemes. It probably looked something like this.
So they bring him to Moses and God tells Moses that everyone must stone the blasphemer to death. So that's what they did.
And they brought him unto Moses. ... And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. ... And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, ... And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses. Leviticus 24:11-23
As Matthias, Son of Deuteronomy of Gath would have said, "Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's next killing: When the people complained, God burned them to death
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/17/2009 01:06:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
5 comments:
matt311 said...
I laughed out loud when I saw the picture you had put up at the top of the post.
Thank Jehovah (kidding) that nobody stones "blasphemers" anymore; if they did, we'd be killing teenage girls left and right for saying, "Oh, my Gawd!" and the like...
Thu Jun 18, 02:02:00 PM 2009
madcat said...
You know I have been challenging the christians about how their God kills people. (I was a christian)
And it frightens me so much that they feel it's right to kill babies and women in wars just because "GOD" tells them to do so.
And then there are those Christians who say it's wrong to kill in God's name. But they are just ignoring all those Bible verses that validate killing in God's name.
I am so regretful that I was a christian, believing in those shit.
Anyway, I found your blog recently and I am from Singapore a baautiful city-state.
Looks like we think the same way regarding this "kind" biblical god and christians.
Thu Jun 18, 11:27:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
Cthulhu is so much more understanding and compassionate than Yahweh.
Fri Jun 19, 08:24:00 AM 2009
Michael Ejercito said...
And it frightens me so much that they feel it's right to kill babies and women in wars just because "GOD" tells them to do so.
Gos is Lord of Lords and King of Kings; He judges what is right and wrong.
Sun Jun 21, 05:27:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
God is Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
Yeah I know, Michael. He has that tattooed on his testicles.
He judges what is right and wrong.
So if he says burning people to death or forcing parents to eat their children is right, it's right?
Sun Jun 21, 06:54:00 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
11 June 2009God burns Aaron's sons to death for offering "strange fire"
Here's a nice Bible story for Father's Day.
And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Leviticus 10:1-2
Aaron's sons offered some sort of strange fire to God, and it pissed God off so much that he burned them to death.
I guess the moral of the story is this: Don't play with fire or God will burn you to death. God fights fire with fire.
But I like Moses' explanation even better. Here's what he said to Aaron right after God burned Aaron's sons to death.
Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. Leviticus 10:3a
God burned Aaron's sons alive so that God would "be sanctified in them" and so that he would "be glorified."
That helps.
Moses warned Aaron not to mourn the death of his sons (by uncovering his head or tearing his clothes) or God would kill him too, along with all the people.
And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people. Leviticus 10:6
So Aaron did as he was told, and watched in silence as his sons were burned to death by God.
And Aaron held his peace. Leviticus 10:3b
In this story, who the biggest asshole: Moses, Aaron, or God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: I revised this post to include the bit about Moses forbidding Aaron to mourn the death of his sons. Somehow I missed that, and I thank Wise Fool for pointing it out in the comments. (If I'd paid more attention to the Brick Testament story, I would have caught that!)
God's next killing: A blasphemer is stoned to death
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/11/2009 12:45:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
25 comments:
Luke said...
Freaking hilarious. The Bible continues to surprise me!
Thu Jun 11, 08:03:00 PM 2009
twillight said...
Moses.
The Lord do not exist, and well, it was "strange fire".
Aron couldn't do anything, and most probably didn't want an argue with his brother who was so arogant and powerful in the stories.
But Moses' reasoning is disturbingly unsympathetic towards Aron.
Fri Jun 12, 01:12:00 AM 2009
Brian_E said...
Well clearly God has got to take the asshole cake on this one. Moses and Aaron are simply going insane trying to figure out how this maniac works, so I don't completely blame them.
Fri Jun 12, 06:38:00 AM 2009
busterggi said...
Why god of course!
He is the asshole thy god, let no other assholes come before him.
Fri Jun 12, 07:50:00 AM 2009
fritistat1 said...
Score another point for god's "love"!
Asswipe.
Fri Jun 12, 12:15:00 PM 2009
I am the wise fool. said...
I'm surprised that you didn't include this little tidbit: In Leviticus 10:6 Moses tells Aaron and his sons that if they mourned for Nadab and Abihu, God would kill them.
I think that provides the answer to your final question right there; and the winner is God.
Fri Jun 12, 09:01:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
Mmmm-mmmm! Nothing like smoked brothers with a side of latkes cooked up by your favorite schizo tribal diety in time for Father's Day!
Jeepers, God was an angry bastard...
Fri Jun 12, 10:48:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Wise fool,
Yeah, I completely missed that! I'll add something about it later today. Thanks for catching that!
Sat Jun 13, 08:01:00 AM 2009
busterggi said...
Does anyone out there know what the apologists use for an explaination of just what was so strange about this fire?
Sun Jun 14, 07:50:00 AM 2009
Brendan said...
busterggi:
I think the Chabad site has a good explanation of it. I haven't really trusted them since the Manis Friedman incident (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1091469.html), but they do a great job of explaining some things. If you search "Nadav and Avihu" on their site, you might find something.
GotQuestions.org also has one, but it's downright awful and doesn't do much for me.
Sun Jun 14, 09:11:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
Brendan,
So I clicked on your link and found the top story for today is about an Israeli rabbi who is calling for OT war against the Palestinians including killing their livestock.
I'll pass on the opinion of these loonies thank you.
Mon Jun 15, 05:18:00 PM 2009
I Am said...
Well, according to the NETBible, there are at least four possibilities as to why God went all Young-Frankenstein's-monster when he saw Aaron's sons' fire.
1) Using coals that weren't from the altar
2) Using the wrong incense
3) Doing an incense offering at the wrong time
4) Entering the Tabernacle at the wrong time
These are obviously perfectly reasonable excuses for God to kill someone! But seriously, you would think if what they did was really bad enough to be killed over, God or Moses would be more explicit as to what Aaron's sons did wrong to prevent it from angering God again in the future.
Maybe you're on to something, Brian_E. Maybe Moses and Aaron have no clue what's going to tick Yahweh off next. Reminds me a little of "It's a Good Life" from the Twilight Zone. Yahweh is like an omnipotent 6-year-old Billy Mumy who will destroy anything when he doesn't get his way or when everyone isn't praising him enough. Since Steve Wells has suggested that the Bible hints that God is (also) a redhead, I think it works well here!
Mon Jun 15, 10:46:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
busterggi:
#1: Happened awhile ago.
#2: I know. I was pointing out that I don't trust Chabad because of that. That's a bit hypocritical on my part, as it's guilt by association, which I do not believe in, although the response by the rest of the rabbis there was lackluster.
Beyond that, Chaim ibn Attar, a rabbi from the 16&1700s, wrote this explanation of the story:
"[Nadav and Avihu's was] a death by Divine 'kiss' like that experienced by the perfectly righteous--it is only that the righteous die when the Divine 'kiss' approaches them, while they died by their approaching it.... Although they sensed their own demise, this did not prevent them from drawing near [to G-d] in attachment, delight, delectability, fellowship, love, kiss and sweetness, to the point that their souls ceased from them."
Tue Jun 16, 09:39:00 AM 2009
matt311 said...
That's disturbing. They were being seduced to death?
"Yahweh, you're trying to seduce me, aren't you?"
Also, I Am: You may be onto something there, as Adam and Eve being banished from the Garden of Eden sounds an awful lot like Billy Mumy sending someone "to the cornfield"... :-S
Tue Jun 16, 04:01:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Well, Matt, while I admit that's funny and, well, a pretty good response that I was stupid to not think of before I copy/pasted 300 year old Torah commentary... I feel obligated to continue (I can never walk away from something unfinished... sorry).
What it refers to is that Nadav and Avihu's souls were drawn to get closer to God. I'm not entirely clear on the details, but I believe they were unable to resist the desire because they were drunk. when they got too close to the fire, the sheer power of God was too much, and their souls left their body, killing them.
As for God being a redhead... Did it really take you this long to figure it out? Of course he is.
Tue Jun 16, 06:39:00 PM 2009
barriejohn said...
I will now amaze you all! I used to be a member of the Plymouth Brethren, and I can tell you that all evangelical Christians really get their knickers in a twist over "Paul`s" exhortation in I Thess. 4, "concerning them which are asleep" (ie dead, deceased, `gone to join the bleedin` choir invisible`, etc!),"that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope..." Now, this is clearly a command from "Paul" forbidding Christians from mourning for their deceased fellow-believers; but they (obviously) find this very human emotion quite impossible to ignore. (What it says about the writer of the original words I can`t imagine!!). Their usual way around it is to quote the verse this way: "That ye sorrow not... as others which have no hope", ie, we don`t mourn as unbelievers do, who have no hope of an afterlife. Sadly, this is not what is being said here at all! The words "sorrow not" represent one word in the original Greek, and well they know it, so the injunction is correct as it stands : "SORROW NOT"!!!
Fri Jun 19, 12:49:00 PM 2009
meesphht said...
As I was perusing the above comments it occurred to me that America has become more bankrupt morally and spiritually than financially. Here's a verse from the Old Testament...
2Ch 7:1 ¶ Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the LORD filled the house.
The fire that was to be used was to be lit by God himself and no other or God is not going to share his glory with another -- especially one of his priests that was to give him glory alone. But this is the problem with people today they don't understand holiness. These sons of Aaron wanted to worship God their way and not God's way.
We see this all the time today so we don't see anything particularly wrong with what they did but they were warned ahead of time and considering all the things that they had seen God to up until that point you would think that they would have just a little bit more sense than to do what they did here.
Le 10:10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;
And this is another reason why these two were devoured by the fire from the Lord. The Lord said that those strange fire or incense shall be offered before the Lord and when he said that he meant it, so when strange fire came in God had no choice but to make that strange fire part of his fire.
As far as not mourning while in the presence of the Lord that is a long-standing commandment that even before Kings one could not appear as a mourner or of sorrow or a heavy heart and yes, the penalty was death. The Bible has plenty of examples and it where family members mourn for one another when they pass away and it's amazing how ignorant people are of something that they are quick to judge when it appears that they have never read that which they judged.
Pr 18:13 ¶ He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
Tue Jul 28, 11:41:00 AM 2009
barriejohn said...
Are you Jewish then, meesphht? The reason I ask is that you seem to be following Old Testament teaching here, and completely ignoring the commands of "The Apostle Paul" in the New Testament! Whoever it was who wrote those words in 1 Thess.4 was specifically instructing New Testament believers NOT to mourn those who "sleep in Jesus". The reason he gives is that the Lord was shortly to return, bringing those souls with Him, and so they would all be reunited - living and dead - for eternity. Hence, any believer who mourned the loss of a fellow-believer was demonstrating his lack of belief in the certainty of the Lord's imminent return. This is all quite clear from the passage in question (it can't possibly be interpreted any other way) and I have preached on it many times myself in the past! Where you get the idea that this does not apply to present-day believers I have no idea!!
Wed Jul 29, 07:47:00 AM 2009
John Notter Jr. said...
Your ignorance is showing. Skeptics always amaze me in their "know it all" foolishness. The strange fire meant that they used flames to offer incense from a source other than the brazen altar. It has a very simple and prophetic message. God accepts no prayer outside of the work of redemption at the cross. Jesus clearly said that He was the way (to the exclusion of all others) the truth (also to the exclusion of all others) and the life (via the cross alone!) All prayer outside of the priestly intercession of the cross of Christ is worthless and is the offering of "strange fire". So how is your heart with the resurrected one. In one thousand years, you will bless God for for hearing Him or you will remember this little note in sadness. "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18
Wed May 05, 08:57:00 AM 2010
Alan Walters said...
Reading some of these comments all I will say is be very careful God is a Holy God and one day soon we will all stand before Him.
If god says we are to come before Him in a certain way then we had better or face the consequences
Tue Oct 26, 01:35:00 PM 2010
Steve Wells said...
... be very careful God is a Holy God and one day soon we will all stand before Him.
If we say the wrong thing, God will burn us to death -- and then he'll bring us back to life and burn us again, forever.
That's quite a God you've got there, Alan!
Tue Oct 26, 01:49:00 PM 2010
Jdasher said...
The thing about God being Holy is, He doesn't need your approval. He doesn't need you to understand why He does what He does. He gives you the choice of accepting Christ as your savior and having a relationship with Him or not, and His judgment is just because you have been given that choice. There are plenty of examples of things in the Bible that are outside of our 21st century human understand, but roasting God and anyone who believes in Him will not change the truth of His word and the choice you have to make for yourself. Your judgement will be just that, yours. I pray you all find Him, and something better to do with your time.
Thu Jun 30, 08:50:00 PM 2011
bshero22 said...
im leaving this forum. there is too much human philosophy, which is always pointless. u want to argue among yourselves about who is right and who is wrong fine, waist your time. But who are you to define what is good and what is evil? Job had his family killed, his business destroyed and his health carried to the doorsteps of death. He had way more reason than any of us to complain about gods decisions. And when he finally got his chance to do it face to face with god...god listend to job, and then....god spoke....and job proceeded to call curses on himself for ever thinking that he should question the will of god. So talk amongst yourselves all you want complaining about god's actions...but when it comes time for you to take your complaint to god face to face....you will be just like job...speechless and embarrassed, in complete awe of the being who gave life to all existence
Fri Sep 02, 10:25:00 PM 2011
keepin8s said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mon Oct 01, 05:34:00 PM 2012
Prakash Abraham said...
This Story also means that God will destroy who does not obey him. He will give time to repent if not then he will act. So good luck to everyone ..!
Tue Feb 26, 03:48:00 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
10 June 2009God's Killings in Exodus: A summary
Here's a summary of God's killings in Exodus. Let me know if I missed any. Killing Event Verse Estimated number killed Cumulative total
1 Hail Exodus 9:19-25 300,000 300,000
2 Egyptian firstborn Exodus 12:29-30 1,000,000 1,300,000
3 Egyptian army Exodus 14:24-25 5,000 1,305,000
4 Amalekites Exodus 17:10-16 1,000 1,306,000
5 God forced Israelites to kill each other as punishment for Aaron's golden calf Exodus 32:26-28 3,000 1,309,000
6 God sends a plague to punish the Israelites (again) for Aaron's golden calf Exodus 32:35 1,000 1,310,000
So in Exodus, there were 6 killing events and an estimated total of 1.3 million or so.
And now on to Leviticus.
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/10/2009 12:24:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
10 comments:
I am the wise fool. said...
In concurrence with Geds' earlier comment on that post, I think you need to up the death toll for the Egyptian army. You've got 600+ chariots, horsemen, and plain infantry too. Somewhere in the 5,000-10,000 range seems fair.
I think that you've got all of the explicit killings. (With all of that carrion and the flies around, the Egyptians possibly would have gotten other potentially-fatal illnesses.) Keep up the good work!
Wed Jun 10, 08:07:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Thanks, wise fool.
I meant to change that number. I'll make it 5,000 and revise the list.
Thu Jun 11, 08:12:00 AM 2009
busterggi said...
You have to list Yahweh as an accessory to Cain's murder of Abel.
Yahweh, being omnicient, knew that snubbing Cain would cause him to murder his brother but Yahweh did so anyway.
What kind of deity doesn't appreciate a nice fruit basket?
Thu Jun 11, 10:43:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
I agree, busterggi, that Cain wouldn't have killed Abel (so the silly story goes) if God hadn't of preferred Abel's animal sacrifice to Cain's veggies. But I am trying to avoid borderline cases. If God had of told Cain to kill Abel, I'd add it to the list of God's killings. But he didn't (or so the Bible says), so I left it off the list.
Thu Jun 11, 11:10:00 AM 2009
RFK Action Front said...
Steve, thank you for all the great work you are doing! I gave you a shout out on my blog yesterday that you can see here:
http://www.rfkactionfront.com/2009/06/completely-fascinating-religion.html
I imagine your research, writing, indexing, and website coding takes tons of time and effort -- but it's really important and it will help make the world a better place. Thank you!
Thu Jun 11, 12:31:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
Okay Steve but I still think Yahweh should have accepted the fruit basket.
Maybe the lack of fiber in his diet is why he's so irritable.
Fri Jun 12, 07:52:00 AM 2009
matt311 said...
Mmmmm, must affect his colon pretty badly, wouldn't you say, busterggi? Perhaps that's why he likes to shit all over the world from time to time.
Anywho, quite the list you've compiled, Steve; however, what about the Egyptian that Moses killed? Shouldn't that one benighted fellow be added to the total?
Fri Jun 12, 10:45:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Matt,
I would add Moses' murder to the list, except I don't see how God was responsible for that one. Did I miss something?
Sat Jun 13, 07:40:00 AM 2009
matt311 said...
Well, Steve, from my experience, most murders in the Bible by "holy" men occur when "the spirit of the LORD" comes upon them, so, yeah, you should probably add this one nameless fellow to the list.
Sat Jun 13, 08:13:00 PM 2009
charles ray loudermilk said...
Got the link from skeptics annotated bible.. did you see the Google ads on their page... priceless. Anyways I think you've really did an amazing Job in defense of believing in nothing. Good work.
Mon Jul 19, 06:07:00 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
06 June 2009What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
OK, I'm not sure about this. Jesus might not have anything written on his testicles.
But he does have something written on his thigh, at least if you believe the Book of Revelation.
And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. Revelation 19:16
Here's what it looks like.
But since "thigh" is a biblical euphemism for testicle, it may be that Jesus has "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" tattooed on his testicles (or more likely, his scrotum).
Wouldn't that be cool?
I'll bet he has "King of Kings" on one side, and "Lord of Lords" on the other.
He's the type.
And it would go well with the rest of his outfit.
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns ... And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood ... And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron. Revelation 19:11-13, 15
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/06/2009 08:59:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
22 comments:
Therine said...
Hahaha. That's just awesome. (I want to ask what Mary Magdalene thinks about those tats but...no.)
Sat Jun 06, 10:19:00 AM 2009
Brian_E said...
Wow, that's scary. So on Judgment Day, you'll know it's Jesus if some scary fellow teabags you and you see writing on his sack. Got it.
Sat Jun 06, 05:38:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
Wonder if the Magdeline has a tramp stamp too?
Sat Jun 06, 05:53:00 PM 2009
ecoute89 said...
He will rule them with an iron rod. Is this a 'gigolo' reference of something ?
Why a horse and why a sword. Why not a Harley Davidson and a shotgun like in Terminator 2 ?
.......... far more scarier.
Sun Jun 07, 04:31:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
Holy shit! The good Rev. has done it again, it seems...
Mon Jun 08, 12:38:00 PM 2009
I Am said...
Maybe this is the way to go when arguing with Bible-believers. "Did you know Jesus has a tattoo on his balls?" ("This I know, for the Bible tells me so!")
If they protest that the mark is on his "thigh", then you'd just ask them do some research on the subject of the meaning of thighs in the Bible and the shared origin of the words "testament" and "testes".
They might never view Jesus or the Testaments the same way!
Wed Jun 10, 12:10:00 PM 2009
Salman said...
you guys are rediculous...you talk of such nonsense about Jesus Christ.
Thu Jun 18, 02:47:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
But the nonsense is right out of the Book of Revelation. You believe in the Revelation, don't you Salman?
Thu Jun 18, 04:45:00 PM 2009
Melissa said...
You do not have permission to put materials from The Brick Testament on the internet. For example, do not put images from the Brick Testament on your own website, ftp site, blog, myspace page, youtube video, etc.
Sat Aug 08, 04:26:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Actually, Mesissa, I do have permission to use images from the Brick Testament on my blog and site. I've put a note in the sidebar to clarify this.
Mon Aug 10, 11:09:00 AM 2009
RR said...
I love this post... Jesus is coming back in style - with tats - and his posse!
I can see it now!
Think Vin Diesel.
Thu Aug 27, 04:49:00 PM 2009
Simon said...
Stop making me like the Bible, dammnit!
Mon Nov 30, 04:27:00 AM 2009
dudeskeeroo said...
If we use the acronym WWJD, surely the same could be applied to the tattoo:
KOK LOL
On his balls people, on his goddam BALLS!
Wed Jun 09, 04:35:00 AM 2010
Mr Kay said...
Most New Testament translations (including most Greek manuscripts) have Revelation 19:11-16 indicating Yeshua will have a "tattoo" on his thigh, as what follows:
And I saw the heaven opened, and there was a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Trustworthy and True, and in righteousness He judges and fights. And His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns, having a Name that had been written, which no one had perceived except Himself and having been dressed in a robe dipped in blood - and His Name is called: The Word of hwhy. And the armies in the heaven, dressed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. And out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should smite the nations. And He shall shepherd them with a rod of iron. And He treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of El Shaddai. And on His robe and on His thigh (or "banner") He has a name written: SOVEREIGN OF SOVEREIGNS AND MASTER OF MASTERS.
The idea that Yeshua would have a tattoo on his thigh or anywhere on His body is in direct conflict with Leviticus 19:28, which states:
"And do not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor put tattoo marks on you. I am hwhy ."
The following was taken from the Explanatory notes under "Thigh" in The Scriptures (TS98) version. It references the problem with Lev. 19:28 and a possible solution to the conflict.
"Thigh: There is no record of any monarch having either his name, or his titles, written in his thigh for John to have come up with this phrase. Here we have a strong indication of Revelation originally being written in Hebrew.
If this word was written in Hebrew, it would have been ragel. It's possible though, that the copiers of Revelation could have overlooked the small extension of the dalet (d), which would have made it a resh (r). If the word was dagel, it would have meant "banner", which makes much more sense than "thigh", because in the latter case two rules are broken:
(1) In Way. 19:28 we are forbidden to make tattoo's on our bodies [Leviticus 19:28].
(2) A person whose thigh was exposed was considered naked. See Mk. 14:51, Shem. 28:42, Way. 16:4. When Revelation was copied it would have been easy to see the Hebrew "d" (d) as a "r" (r), if the former was not carefully written down. F.F. Bruce in the New International Bible Commentary p.1624 says that if one assumes a Semitic original underlies John's Greek, a copyist error might have replaced the Hebrew or Aramaic word for banner, degel, with the word for leg, regel. As the Hebrew script developed, the dalet and the resh, especially from around 700 BCE and onwards looked almost identical. It is also seems that Messiah, when he appeared to his followers He spoke Hebrew, even though they could understand Greek very well (Acts 26:14)."
Fri Nov 26, 06:23:00 PM 2010
djl said...
Dammit! He stole my idea. I was going to get that same tattoo but he beat me to it. I wonder if his tat shows up on the shroud of turin? lol
Sat Feb 12, 09:05:00 PM 2011
jeffrey said...
Well, you can read "The Great Controversy" by Ellen White and get even more confused about the situation of organized religion.
Sun Mar 06, 07:37:00 PM 2011
No said...
Could this tatoo be what catholic priests zealously look for when hiring a new altar boy ?
Tue Mar 15, 07:27:00 AM 2011
Enenennx said...
In case someone swings back through. There is a passage in Numbers 5 which uses "thigh turns out" - the passage concerns a trial by ordeal where a women's "thigh turns out" is the result of drinking a concoction if she is adulterous.
Anyone have any ideas what "thigh" refers to in such a case? Thanks.
Mon Mar 05, 10:35:00 AM 2012
Saved said...
Someoone sure doesnt like me proving them wrong about the thigh issue now do they. I have repeatedly shown it was meant that the writing was on the thigh of his garment ....through various versions of the Bible but someone who is trying to be deceptive and falsely try to led others the wrong way keeps deleting my posts....wow!!!! what a blog site...just for people you agree with your own elementary and rather idiotic thoughts . Coward Coward Coward!!
Mon Apr 08, 06:17:00 PM 2013
Steve Wells said...
You're right, Saved. I don't much like your comments. You've made eight in the last half hour that say nothing at all so far as I can tell. How about making one comment that tells us all you'd like to say about what Jesus has written on his testicles.
Mon Apr 08, 06:27:00 PM 2013
Michael Childs said...
I'm having difficulty finding any reference that shows that "thigh" means genitals; particularly in any biblical sense. In fact, there are a few passages that seem to suggest otherwise.
Genesis 24:2 - One day Abraham said to his oldest servant, the man in charge of his household, “Take an oath by putting your hand under my thigh.
Unless we're suggesting that Abraham has his servants swearing an oath by cupping his balls?
Similar passage:
Genesis 47:29 - As the time of his death drew near, Jacob called for his son Joseph and said to him, “Please do me this favor. Put your hand under my thigh and swear that you will treat me with unfailing love by honoring this last request: Do not bury me in Egypt.
And then there's:
Leviticus 7:33 - The right thigh must always be given to the priest who offers the blood and the fat of the peace offering.
Seems like a strange offering.
So if you could put this claim into context or point me in the direction of where I can understand it better, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Tue Apr 15, 02:05:00 PM 2014
Steve Wells said...
Michael Childs,
Yes, I am suggesting that in Genesis 24 Abraham asked his slave to swear to God while holding Abraham's testicles (or perhaps his penis) in his hand. And that Jacob asked Joseph to do the same in Genesis 47. It was the biblical equivalent of swearing on the Bible.
Here'a a reference: “[T]he word ‘thigh’ is sometimes used in ancient Jewish sources as a euphemism for the penis.” Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, God’s Phallus, p.88.
Tue Apr 15, 02:52:00 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
05 June 2009The great winepress of the wrath of God (How many will Jesus kill with his sickle?)
(Since the Brick Testament just added this story, I thought I'd update this old post by including a scene from and a link to The Son of Man's Bloody Gorefest.)
In a previous posts, I counted the number of people killed by God in the Bible (2,301,427) and the number he plans to kill during the tribulation (3.25 billion). But, according to the Bible, he has even more killing in mind.
And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. ... And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. ... And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs. -- Revelation 14:14-20
Where is God going to find so much blood? How many people would it take?
Well, a furlong is 202 meters, so 1600 furlongs is about 320 kilometers, and a horse's bridle is 1.5 m high or so. If we take the winepress to be circular with a diameter of 320 kilometers, then the total volume is 1.2 x 1014 liters. And since an adult has about 5 liters of blood, that gives us 2.4 x 1013 people.
Which could be a problem, even for God. Where will he find so many people? He's already killed off half of us in Revelation 8:6 and 9:15-18, so (assuming this all happens soon) that only leaves him with a little over 3 billion people to kill. His winepress requires nearly 10,000 times as many. Shucks!
But then, I guess God is God and he can create more people just to kill them. So I suppose that's what he'll do.
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/05/2009 11:11:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
13 comments:
Anonymous said...
According to the dictionary, a lesser use of blood is juice especially when red. Now do the math.
10. The juice of anything, especially if red.
He washed . . . his clothes in the blood of grapes.
Fri Aug 18, 09:17:00 PM 2006
Steve Wells said...
Anonymous said, "According to the dictionary, a lesser use of blood is juice especially when red."
So the blood in Revelation 14:18-20 is really just grape juice? Thanks, Anonymous, for clearing that up.
Sat Aug 19, 11:23:00 AM 2006
zooplah said...
"So the blood in Revelation 14:18-20 is really just grape juice? Thanks, Anonymous, for clearing that up."
LOL.
Sun Aug 20, 08:03:00 PM 2006
Paul Dueck said...
I question your reference of death to God. Every human being that has everlived (with exceptions if you believe in a particular creed) has died. Is God responsible for those deaths? Which deaths is he actually responsible for?
If you are assuming that every death during revelation is God's wrath, why not assume that everyone who dies is killed by God?
Mon Aug 21, 08:51:00 PM 2006
snake712 said...
I'd say that it's just blood without the necessity to kill somebody for it.
Makes no sense, but at least you don't have to kill more people then exist.
Wed Aug 23, 09:37:00 PM 2006
Sarah said...
I like your blog and I like your religious skepticism site.
I think however you are confusing religion and God/dess.
In the Bhagavad Gita, which you haven't covered on your site, one of the last verses is "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me... do not fear."
The ways to do this are given very gently and intelligently, without any threats of hellfire.
And as to whether there is a God or not, the BG talks a lot about this in an intelligent way as well. However I'll make one important point. In nature everything has an originator, creator, or parent. Everything has some origin. I don't care if you believe in evolution or creationism or whatever, there is still an origin of the genetic material.
Many intelligent people who don't believe in God, would laugh at the idea that the Mona Lisa painted itself spontaneously. Yet how much more completely ludicrous, is the notion that the gazillions of vast universes, stars, planets, billions of species, and so much more... all just "painted" itself with no mind behind it?
Many cite suffering and evil as reasons to disbelieve God. This is a no brainer, actually... we were given minute free will, and decided to choose an ego-centric, self-serving existence (this is described in the Bible as the fall of man, and is pretty universal in most religious teachings). This is why there is evil.
The Bhagavad Gita's of God is not dualistic (bad/good, heaven/hell), it is not a punishment/reward system, nor is it absolutist. The BG talks about God's qualities and vastness and the various ways you can approach God... not how you will get your fingers chopped off or you'll get burned in a fire if you don't blindly obey.
I respect all religions but I do not respect how people have interpreted them. And I do not like how many of these scriptures have misinterpreted the Vedas which are way older than the Bible... and infinitely more comprehensive. Most religions are a small fragment of this vast ocean of knowledge, some of which is relevant today and some which is not... JUST like the Bible/Quran/Book of Mormon etc.
Check out my blog.
Sat Sep 09, 09:06:00 PM 2006
Anonymous said...
God has anticipated our skeptical nature, but for the believer He has placed supernatural evidence in the Scripture to confirm his Word. Just take a look at the shape of the Red Sea and the Scripture and it will be clear. The Red Sea is long and narrow. While the Hebrew word for red can mean reed, just keep reading and you will see how that is not God’s ultimate intention. The Scriptures record that God’s enemy’s, “Pharaoh’s chariots and his army He has cast into the sea; the choicest of his officers are drowned in the Red Sea. The deeps cover them; they went down into the depths like a stone”. (Exodus 15:1-5) This is recorded in a song called the song of Moses right after that awesome deliverance. The Song of Moses shows up only once again in Scripture right after the description of the blood from the ultimate fulfillment. Horses again are present. (Revelation 14:15-15:3)
Mon Mar 26, 07:01:00 PM 2007
Xolotl-Tzin said...
Ugh. I wish the book of Revelation had not made it in to the bible. It was debated whether it should be included or not.
The flipside, is that it makes for a great work of fiction. (Seriously, its just some dude's visions. I heard someone once say that its a acid induced vision, lol.) Plus, you get great visions of the evil of Satan. Oohh eerie doom.
Fri Jun 05, 05:48:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
Were the Book of Revelation to be written today, I'm pretty sure its author would be committed to an asylum.
Mon Jun 08, 12:26:00 PM 2009
Cristiano said...
So, we could use the compound interest formula to estimate when the human population would reach this absurd values, and thus estimate when the second comming of Christ would be!
Wikipedia says that the populational growth is actually 1,19% per year, so lets assume it will be 1%, just for the sake of the argument.
The formula is this:
FV = P*(1+r)^y, where:
FV = future value, or 4.8x10^13
P = principal, 6 billion people
r = rate, 1%
y = years, what we want to know
If math serves right, it would be:
4.8*10^13 = 6*10^9*(1+0,01)^y
8000 = (1.01)^y
We have to apply log in both sides to solve this:
log (8000) = log (1.01)^y
Using log properties:
3.90308 = 0.0043213 * y
y = 903,2 years!
So, if my math is right, christians will have to wait another thousand years or so for the second comming of Christ!
Haha, someone warn www.raptureready.com/ that they are wastin their time!
Mon Jun 08, 05:12:00 PM 2009
I Am said...
Cristiano, interesting math. At some point I would have been able to follow it better, but that was years ago. :-)
If you're right that it's about 900 years (maybe a little less since you rounded down for the rate), then it should be spread everywhere around the Christian blogosphere that the second coming won't be anytime soon. That way, Sarah Palin types won't try to get us all destroyed long before then.
Fundamentalists, literalists, etc. use all sorts of calculations from the Bible to determine the age of the Earth, why Noah's Ark supposedly is feasible, etc. Certainly they would take a calculation from Revelation seriously!
Then, after the imminent end times warnings all calm down after this "proof" from the Bible itself, we'd have about 900 years for Christians (and hopefully all religions) to finally realize that God is made up.
Wed Jun 10, 11:53:00 AM 2009
Weemaryanne said...
Consarned math! - it's enough to trip up a deity every time. Including the deity that, uh, invented it.
Love the site, bookmarked.
Sun Jun 14, 02:20:00 PM 2009
joshua said...
"But then, I guess God is God and he can create more people just to kill them. "
Yes, don't forget about the respawning Amalekites. They always seem to be around when great slaughter is needed.
Fri Feb 12, 04:10:00 PM 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
30 July 2009The Chaser's War on Everything: Help me put my son to death
Here are the verses that tell you what to do with a son that curses you:
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. Exodus 21:17
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Matthew 15:4
And here are some verses to deal with that homosexual, adulterous, fortune-telling, hump-backed, dwarf priest with crushed testicles.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:10
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God ... Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken ... shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD. Leviticus 21:16-21
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/30/2009 02:05:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
24 comments:
Baconsbud said...
I am surprised that the cops weren't called on them. The girls reaction to it showed how little she actually knows and I figure you could say that about over 50% of christians in the USA are the same.
Thu Jul 30, 05:30:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
Holy shit -- that was brilliant.
--S.
Fri Jul 31, 01:40:00 AM 2009
twillight said...
You should watch the "eternal sin" video from them too. Would YOU accept the apple from the snake who advertises it?
Fri Jul 31, 06:18:00 AM 2009
Mikey Dred said...
Very funny - but shows how bits can be conveniently ignored by the extremists when it suits them!!
Fri Jul 31, 07:24:00 AM 2009
Markus Arelius said...
Quite frankly more of this line of questioning is required in our public discourse.
Fri Jul 31, 08:40:00 AM 2009
David said...
The majority of the Old Testament is under Mosaic Law. The Law of Moses was strict and prohibitive. Punishment was swift and unambiguous. The law is characterized in the statement - "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." The laws referred to in this (admittedly amusing) clip are from Mosaic Law. Since Christ, there has been a pretty universal "no stoning" policy.
A lot of Christians aren't as familiar with the Old Testament. The New Testament is much more central to the teachings of most Christian sects because most Christians believe that the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ. That's why Christ taught that the new law was turn the other cheek rather than eye for an eye. See also Matthew 22:36-40.
Fri Jul 31, 02:39:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
That's odd David because elsewhere Jesus is supposed to have said that all of Yahweh's laws are to kept in effective right up to every jot.
Jesus must not have known which was right.
Fri Jul 31, 05:22:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
This is the same law as "The rebellious son".
Tractate Sanhedrin, a book of the Talmud, says "'A stubborn and rebellious son' there never was and there never will be such. Then why is it written? To teach, "'Study and receive the reward.'"
(Folio 68b/chapter 8)
It goes onto explain why it was impossible to carry out, and what the purpose of writing something that can never be carried out is.
The Talmud also says (and I'm not sure of the exact piece) that the punishment for cursing a parent is only carried out if it is done in conjunction with HaShem, the parents are dead, and, as in all cases with the law, the person was over 13 (The age when a boy becomes a man in Judaism).
The death penalty in general was extremely hard to carry out, and was only done once in about 70 years in the average Sanhedrin (Any Sanhedrin that carried it out more than once every 70 years was regarded as a "bloody Sanhedrin).
The Biblical death penalty was hypothetical. They used it less than we do today.
Fri Jul 31, 07:30:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
Yeah, david it would seem -- according to your holy book -- the laws of the Old Testament are still binding.
Genesis 17:19
And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Exodus 12:14, 17, 24
And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. ... And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. ... And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.
Leviticus 23:14,21,31
It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations.
Deuteronomy 4:8-9
What nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? ... teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons.
Deuteronomy 7:9
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 11:1
Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway.
Deuteronomy 11:26-28
Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God.
1 Chronicles 16:15
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ... an everlasting covenant.
Psalm 119:151-2
Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
Psalm 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Malachi 4:4
Remember ye the law of Moses.
Matthew 5:18-19
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise 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.
Luke 16:17
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
--S.
Fri Jul 31, 08:13:00 PM 2009
Markus Arelius said...
That Christians keep to this ridiculous canon is equivalent to 21st century doctors allowing bloodletting, boar bile clysters and the use of hemlock as an anesthetic for modern medical procedures.
Why don't Christians and Jews simply discard the "bad" and hold on to what is "good and what works"? What possible moral or spiritual merit is there to be found in these vile passages?
Fri Jul 31, 10:00:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
Nothing, Markus; nothing at all. The Bible is the reason we're all so backwards as a society.
Sat Aug 01, 08:51:00 AM 2009
David said...
To Bustereggi, Sconnor and anyone else who wishes to ask me questions directly, I am glad to respond by further explaining my beliefs when the questions are posed in a respectful and sincere fashion, and I appreciate the opportunity. I do not wish to argue, nor do I feel I need to “defend” my position. I am more than happy to clarify my understanding of the gospel and the scriptures, however.
As with many things in the bible, this principle is not spelled out as clearly as one would like. There is no passage that says “Thou shalt now obey the higher law of the new testament ushered in by the Son of God, as He has fulfilled the purpose for which the Law of Moses was instituted.” Further, some of the terminology is somewhat ambiguous. For example, the first scripture Sconnor quoted refers to the Abrahamic Covenant which is distinct from the Law of Moses and remains in force to this day.
One fairly clear reference to Mosaic Law as a preparation for the higher law instituted by Jesus Christ is in Hebrews 2:19,22.
19 For the law (referring to the Mosaic Law) made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
The old law, the Law of Moses, had strict specifications in all things. The new or higher law, placed a much greater responsibility on the believer to exercise his judgment – using what he knew of the will of God through his own intelligence, the scriptures and the Holy Ghost. Christ illustrates the difference in The Sermon on the Mount:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:27–28). The majority of the Sermon on the Mount is an explanation of this principle: turn cheek rather than eye for an eye, love your enemies, etc.
Sconnor, your second to last reference, Matt 5:18-19, is Christ explaining this. Look to 5:17 to understand. He did not destroy the Law of Moses – He fulfilled it. Obeying the 10 Commandments and the other points of the law wasn’t enough to justify the people (make them clean enough that they could return to live with the Father). Their performances and sacrifices were intended to point them to the great atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and to prepare them to live the higher law of His gospel.
Sat Aug 01, 10:21:00 AM 2009
Ian G. said...
Markus,
I think most Christians and Jews do just ignore that bad and concentrate on what's good. I was raised Catholic and went to church every Sunday until I was 18, and believe me, the readings and homilies never ever touched the vile stuff found in much of the Bible. It was all the sermon on the mount and the good samaritan and the like that was stressed.
And this video just proves that most of those who claim to believe the Bible simply don't know what's really in there. If they did, they'd probably be a lot more skeptical.
Sun Aug 02, 04:32:00 PM 2009
I Am said...
Hilarious and yet sad. It's obvious these people weren't aware of the verses, and don't know what to say or think. The Bible must be right, but these verses are wrong, so...
Thanks for the list, sconnor. I'll definitely refer to it next time this comes up (it came up in the other thread, but I don't want to double-post there). Brendan and David were both posting in that thread as well, so I'd be curious to hear what their response is to these verses, especially the New Testament ones that say the Old Testament law still applies.
Mon Aug 03, 02:08:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
I'm wondering why my comment didn't get posted...
Ian G:
I've never been to a Church before (Except a Unitarian one), but at my Temple we don't "ignore the bad". The subject is usually not talked about at family services, since, you know, there's 5 year old kids there.
Markus:
Atheists accuse us of "picking and choosing". Now you ask why we don't pick and choose.
How the hell would you know what kind of spiritual, moral merit there is in the Torah or Bible? You're not a Christian, and you're not a Jew. And judging by the SAB, most of you don't even know what most passages even mean.
Now, clearly, the proper response to that is that you've read the books and have found nothing of moral or spiritual merit in them.
Clearly, whatever Jews have been doing, it works, since we've survived thousands of years of persecution.
Wed Aug 05, 11:26:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Brendan,
"I'm wondering why my comment didn't get posted..."
Me too. I tried to post all of your comments, Brendan. But I (or blogger) may have messed up somehow. If so, I apologize.
I post nearly all comments. The only exceptions are those that are pure preaching, advertising, or unintelligible.
Wed Aug 05, 12:20:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Thanks, Steve.
Wed Aug 05, 12:32:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
david
To Bustereggi, Sconnor and anyone else who wishes to ask me questions directly, I am glad to respond by further explaining my beliefs when the questions are posed in a respectful.....
I could give a shit. Let me make something abundantly clear -- I do NOT respect you. I consider you an ignorant superstitious delusional christian, who insanely claims to know god's will and character without providing credible objective evidence for your ridiculous claims.
With this said, even if every skeptic, atheist or unbeliever was a frothing at the mouth belligerent disrespectful M-F'er -- this does not make ANY of your delusional claims anymore true. Additionally, even if I am abrasive or you deem me disrespectful -- for whatever reason -- this does not take away from the many germane and salient arguments I pose.
When I encounter asshole disrespectful christians I do NOT retreat with my tail between my legs lamenting I will only engage if they're respectful -- no; in fact I will be relentless in my endeavors reiterating my arguments and offering counter-arguments without having to make excuses.
--S.
Wed Aug 05, 02:37:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
david
As with many things in the bible, this principle is not spelled out as clearly as one would like.
Dumb-ass, infallible, omniscient, omnipotent god -- funny how god is wholly incapable of getting his ALL-important messages to everyone unequivocally.
Good thing we got david's enucleation -- he's got the one and only truth.
Or brenden's or a christadelphian's or a mormon's, or a born-again bapist, or an universalist, or a catholic, or jehovah witness, or pentecostal, or evangelical, or Amish, or Jews for christ or, or, or......oh, you get the point.
There are over 34,000 separate christian groups in the world, ALL with varying and vast interpretations, deciphered from their idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture from the bible, about who god is, what god wants, what is heaven what is hell, how a person is saved, and on and on and on ALL claiming it's biblical and true.
I'll tell you what, david, when christianity has one unified, unequivocal message, that ALL christians agree on, you let me know -- I'll hear back from you in about -- NEVER.
--S.
Wed Aug 05, 10:49:00 PM 2009
David said...
"...funny how god is wholly incapable of getting his ALL-important messages to everyone unequivocally."
Ok, so Christians disagree - given. Does that somehow indicate that God doesn't exist or isn't omniscient/omnipotent? Nope. Granted, if He wanted to make it abundantly clear to you, He could extend his finger and write the 10 commandments on the side of your house. The fact that He doesn't do that is reason enough for you to dismiss Him?
For His own reasons, which reasons I think are fairly easily deduced logically, He doesn't want it to be too easy to find out truth. He puts the responsibility on us to determine the truth to the best of our individual abilities.
Let me further tell you, Sconnor, that christianity does have one unified, unequivocal message, that ALL christians agree on - Mormons, born agains, Catholics, etc. God exists. Man is imperfect. In order to return to live with the father, God sent His son, Jesus Christ to be our savior - to pay the price for our sins that we could not.
Fri Aug 07, 12:28:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
david
Ok, so Christians disagree - given.
1. Ahhh -- thanks for the admission. Given this admission soon you will realize how devastating it is to your feeble beliefs **.
Does that somehow indicate that God doesn't exist or isn't omniscient/omnipotent? Nope.
Oh yes -- yes indeed. More on that below **
Granted, if He wanted to make it abundantly clear to you, He could extend his finger and write the 10 commandments on the side of your house. The fact that He doesn't do that is reason enough for you to dismiss Him?
2. Strawman. You present the argument and then you answer it -- that's fallacious.
3. My reasons for dismissing your god-concept are many and none of them include the bullshit argument of god not writing the ten commandments on my garage -- F-ing ridiculous.
For His own reasons, which reasons I think are fairly easily deduced logically, He doesn't want it to be too easy to find out truth. He puts the responsibility on us to determine the truth to the best of our individual abilities.
4. And besides pulling that out of your ass where exactly did you acquire this information?
5. Furthermore, 2,000+ years ago your god-man jesus sure as hell made it easy for some people to believe in him -- like raising the dead, proving to thomas by showing the holes in his hands thus confirming he was resurrected. It would seem your god-concept is schizophrenic. How come he made it easy for them to know the (supposed) truth?
Let me further tell you, Sconnor, that christianity does have one unified, unequivocal message, that ALL christians agree on - Mormons, born agains, Catholics, etc. God exists.
Ha! -- thanks for the laugh.
6. Silly ole delusional one -- that belief in god is not unequivocal. They ALL present different arguments of his character and will or in other words they all have different definitions of their own god-concept.
7. Whoop-D-doo -- they believe in god. The fact that the all believe in god is meaningless, which in turn renders your argument obsolete. Other religious groups, such as Muslims, Hindus, American Indians, some Buddhists, wiccans, also believe in a divine entity but that doesn't mean their definition of this god is unequivocal.
Man is imperfect. In order to return to live with the father, God sent His son, Jesus Christ to be our savior - to pay the price for our sins that we could not.
8. ** OK -- on to dismantling your feeble argument.
9. Presumably you believe god loved the world so much that he sent his one and onlt son to be tortured and crucified to save us all -- correct?
10. But in order to be saved -- imperfect fallible human beings -- must interpret the one and only truth from scripture (which by your admission is not easy). They must decipher exactly what the criteria is to be saved. In essence your god threw it right back into the hands of us imperfect fallible human beings to save ourselves.
11. Why didn't your omniscient omnipotent sky-fairy take this into consideration?
12. How come your omniscient omnipotent sky-fairy put his ALL-important messages (especially as to how one is supposedly saved) into a book that couldn't get to the masses throughout history because of land barriers, water barriers, time barriers, language barriers, cultural barriers, technological barriers etc?
13. How come your omniscient omnipotent sky-fairy put his ALL-important messages (especially as to how one is supposedly saved) into a book that uses difficult or vague texts and translations, parables, poems, songs, metaphor, dream imagery, switching from literal to non-literal, that could so easily be misinterpreted, perverted or interpreted, so many different ways?
Fri Aug 07, 06:00:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
~continued~
14. How come your omniscient omnipotent sky-fairy didn't take into account that the majority of his earthly children (the ones he loved so much) would be born into another religion thereby dismissing christianity?
15. How come your omniscient omnipotent sky-fairy didn't take into account that their would be skeptics, unbelievers, agnostics and atheists who through critical thinking skills and reason would dismiss his supposed message as untenable?
16. The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be believed only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.' -Robert G. Ingersoll
17. In fact the only ones supposedly saved are just a tiny minority -- the ones who share your beliefs and the certain criteria you deem to be true in order to be saved.
18. So your supposed omniscient omnipotent god-concept who so loved the world and wants to save everyone makes it impossible for the majority of his earthly children to be saved because he was massively incompetent and morbidly negligent and attempted to get his supposed message of salvation to his earthly children with the wholly inferior method of using a fucking book.
19. The Christian’s Delusion Of Salvation
20. God -- who so loved the WORLD and wanted to save everyone -- initiated a plan, of restoration, by sending his son, to be tortured, crucified and sacrificed, to save humanity. Sinful, imperfect humanity -- who couldn't possibly save themselves -- in the end, must pick someones interpretation from a book on how one is supposedly saved and accept and believe in Jesus etc., so they can have eternal life and yet, the other 70% of the world -- at this moment in time -- are other religions, the non-religious, or unbelievers, who are not bible-believing Christians. Didn't God consider his other earthly children, when he put his feeble, plan into action?
21. The other 30% of christians who are supposedly saved, are further reduced to even a smaller minority because presumably there are certain criterion that only certain christians follow. Looks like Jesus' torturous, sacrifice was futile. God's inept, plan is incapable of saving everyone and hinges on the fallible imperfect human beings who couldn't save themselves, in the first place. God’s plan -- in using a spurious book for salvation -- is tragically flawed, wholly inadequate and morbidly negligent. The number of supposed lost souls, who will be tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity is monumentally, mind-blowing. God has failed on a colossal level. This is why your omniscient omnipotent god-concept crumbles to the ground.
--S.
Fri Aug 07, 06:03:00 PM 2009
Brian_E said...
What is this, a British TV show? Anyone have a link to their site, or info on how to watch full episodes?
Sat Aug 08, 12:42:00 PM 2009
joshua said...
Brendan: "The Biblical death penalty was hypothetical. They used it less than we do today."
As the presented says in the video, it would be helpful to have an asterisk next to the hypothetical bits. It's odd that God would set down law that requires a PhD (or whatever it is that you possess) to decipher its truth,
Brian_E,
It's an Australian program on ABC 1 - it sounds British because Aussie TV announcers sound English to American ears.
Check this for more info:
http://australian-nz-tv.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_chasers_war_on_everything_abc1
Fri Feb 12, 02:06:00 PM 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
30 July 2009A killing to end God's killing
This is really a strange one, and I'm not sure what to do with it. Maybe you can help me sort it out. (In any case, this is definitely a story to mark up in you next Gideon Bible.)
It all happens in the first few verses of Numbers 25, right after the story about Balaam's talking donkey.
It begins with the people having sex with the daughters of Moab.
And ... the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. Numbers 25:1
After sex, they ate dinner with them and worshiped their gods.
And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. Numbers 25:2
This angered God, so he told Moses to kill all the leaders and hang their dead bodies up on trees so that he wouldn't be so angry anymore.
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel. Numbers 25:3-4
Now this probably wasn't as bad as the King James Version makes it sound. "Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun" sounds like God told Moses to cut off peoples' heads and hang the heads on trees. That would be kind of nasty.
But no. God just wanted Moses to kill the leaders ("the heads of the people") and hang their dead bodies on trees out in the sunshine so "that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel." That's not nearly so bad, now is it?
I can't tell, though, whether Moses did what God asked. Here's the next verse.
And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor. Numbers 25:5
Moses tells the leaders (judges) to kill everyone who "were joined unto Baalpeor." I don't know if being joined to Baalpeor was having sex with the daughters of Moab or not. But clearly Moses wasn't following orders here. God told him to kill the leaders and hang their bodies on trees; Moses tells the leaders to kill the people who had sex with Moab women. Different thing entirely, I'd say.
Anyway, I guess neither God's nor Moses' plan was executed, because of what happened next.
And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. Numbers 25:6
And then the real hero of the story shows up. Phinehas. He sees the happy couple and sticks a spear through their bodies while they were having sex.
And when Phinehas ... saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. Numbers 25:7-8a
This double murder made God so happy that he stopped killing everyone. You see, while Moses was trying to get the leaders to kill people who had sex with Moabite women and God was trying to get Moses to kill the leaders and hang their bodies on trees, God was also busy killing people with a plague.
So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. Numbers 25:8b-9
Now God had planned to kill everyone, but he stopped with just 24,000 because of Phinehas' holy murder. (Paul said that only 23,000 died in the plague, but how would he know?)
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. Numbers 25:10-11
So you see my problem here, don't you? How many killings do we have here?
God told Moses to kill the leaders and hang their bodies on trees, but we don't know whether Moses followed God's command.
Moses told the leaders to kill whoever had sex with the Moabite women, but we don't know if his order was carried out either.
Phinehas killed the two people having sex, but we don't know whether God told him to or not. (Even though God was clearly pleased by the killing. So much, in fact that he quit killing after only 24,000, when he'd planned to kill several million.)
And how many died in the plague? Was it 24,000 as Numbers 25:9 says or 23,000 as it says in 1 Corinthians 10:8?
So how do we keep score here? At least 24,002 people died (23,002 if we believe Paul), but in how many separate killing events? And should God get credit for Phinehas' double murder?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've decided to count Phinehas' double murder and God's plague as a single killing event. God clearly deserves credit for the plague, of course, but the Phinehas' affair is less clear.
However both Moses and God ordered people to be killed either for either having sex with the Midianites or for allowing them to do so (Numbers 25:3-5), and God was so pleased with the Phinehas' killing that he stopped his own mass murder. So I think God deserves credit for either inspiring or directly ordering Phinehas to impale the lovers while they were having sex.
God's next killing: The Midianite Massacre (Have ye saved all the women alive?)
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/30/2009 08:38:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
16 comments:
missy said...
So the Moabites were neighbors of the Israelites, created when Lot's eldest daughter got freaky with him after the whole Sodom & Gomorrah thing. They're nasty. And the Israelites are getting it on with them as the Lego photo so eloquently shows. And getting it on apparently leads to parties and worshipping other gods, specifically their main dude Peor. And that was getting on the LORD's last nerve, so when they aligned themselves with Peor, he was like "aw, hell no" and orders the leaders hung up in the sun. So Moses tells the judges (not, apparently, the same guys as the heads) to kill everyone who aligned themselves with Peor. The judges go around killing 24,000 people they figure were aligned with Peor. No idea how they figured out who to kill. And why did Moses go so overkill on the LORD's order? Well, maybe he was trying to get some Phinehas type recognition, but old Phin beat him to the punch with his Isrealite gladiator move, killing Zimri (the Israelite) and Cozbi (the Midianite), because if there is one thing the LORD can't stand, it's jungle fever. Or desert fever. Whatever. So the death count for this story is 24,002. You can count it as two events or one, since they stem from the same basic incident. However, two points have to made clear: Moses didn't disregard the LORD, he just built upon his idea. Why make leader jerky when you can kill 24,000? And they were killed more for worshipping Peor than for all the Moab girls gone wild action.
Oh, and no one fell on their face. That makes me sad.
Thu Jul 30, 11:14:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
"Oh, and no one fell on their face. That makes me sad."
FOF!
Thu Jul 30, 11:46:00 AM 2009
twillight said...
The apologist-answer I think could be: 24,000 died in God's plague. 23,000 were killed and hunged up on God's order. 2 were killed to please God, according to the prophecy given in Num.24.17.
But as I looked it up, I found what "Baalpeor" was: it was "Balaam the son of Beor". Beats me why it got disfigured like that, but most probably referrs to the nation of that guy: how the jews dissolved into them.
Thu Jul 30, 01:12:00 PM 2009
geniusofevil said...
Do you think there was a time that these stories ever made sense?
Fri Jul 31, 07:15:00 AM 2009
I am the wise fool. said...
24000 or 23000? What's a thousand corpses between superstitious friends? :-)
But seriously, I think I would side with the original source and claim 24000.
As for the 2, I don't agree with twillight's reference to Num 24:17 above. That speaks of crushing skulls, not impaling bodies.
Instead, I think that the double murder was independent action. I think that God was so impressed by Phinehas' initiative that He decided to stop the plague, thinking that there may just be some cold-blooded, overzealous, God-fearing Jews in the bunch after all.
This story promotes self-policing and vigilant maintenance of religious purity, something which would have been equally important to God as well as leaders of the benefactors of a fictitious religion.
Fri Jul 31, 07:17:00 AM 2009
David said...
Is it possible for God to kill someone as an act of love - as a mercy to that person?
It is understandable that from our modern mortal perspective, these killings seem horrifying. I get that. I think everyone would agree, however, that if there is a God out there, omnipotent and eternal, then His perspective would certainly be very different from ours. As mortals, we think of dying as the end of our own world. However, if you are dealing with eternal beings, their physical death may not be that big of a deal in the whole scheme of things.
I'll use a hypothetical to clarify what I'm saying. Note that I am making (among others) the following assumptions:
1) God loves us, His children, and wants us to be happy and to return to live with Him.
2) Part of our purpose on earth is to learn/do the things that will allow us to return to live with God. That is the path to joy in this world and the next.
3) God gives each of us free will - in particular, the ability to choose right from wrong. Choosing right brings us closer to Him - puts us further along the path.
Now the hypothetical example:
Let's say that God sees his daughter, Jennifer, born in a situation where the circumstances (parentage, culture, etc.) will make it essentially impossible for her to follow that path. Allowing her to be killed could be a mercy, right? It's the counter to the term, "Giving her enough rope to hang herself."
I think that is one example of how God could allow someone to die, even if that death included physical suffering, and it would still be a merciful action of a loving father. Does that make sense?
Fri Jul 31, 01:48:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
Gee David, it sure is neat that Yahweh kills Jennifer like that.
Of course, since she hasn't been 'saved' Jennifer will be spending eternity burning in Hell but that can't be too bad.
Does that make sense?
Fri Jul 31, 05:20:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
I was hoping you'd count these as separate from each other, since I'm not sure my response can fit in one post.
Balaam and Baalpeor are not the same. Baal was a sun god worshiped by several cultures (some scholars identify it as a form of Molech). According to the Talmud, Balaam was a gentile prophet who secretly hated the Israelites and plotted their destruction. He believed that G-d would destroy the Israelites if they sinned enough (he wasn't too clear on the whole "omniscience" thing). The Moabite women were used as part of conspiracy by the Midianites, of which Balaam was their prophet. He was captured during the conquest of Midian. According to legend, he was executed in 4 different ways at the same time. He is mocked in the Talmud as "Without a share of the world to come" and "he who ruined the people".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal
The issues are:
How many actually died, and who's responsible?
Why'd the hearsay deserve death?
Why did G-d reward Phinehas for murder?
I intend to answer these all. By the way, I'd like to point out yet another reason why the King James translation is terrible: You missed that Phinehas impaled the two through their sex organs. Imagine a Jewish kid named Pinchas (Phinehas in Hebrew) asking his parents what his namesake did.
1. According to Abraham Malamat: "The Hebrew word 'eleph' can be translated 'thousand,' but it is also rendered in the Bible as 'clans' and 'military units.'" Do a quick google search for "eleph Hebrew", and you'll have your evidence. Eleph, without the Hebrew rendering of vowels, could also mean "chief". So if 24 "chiefs" died in a "plague", it wouldn't be a literal sickness, as it would be a divine "smiting". It may also simply refer to Moses' orders to execute the people involved, since there's no mention of a plague before this point. Some suggest that the plague resulted as a curse placed on the tent of meeting.
The responsibility is another issue. G-d clearly ordered 5 deaths. Moses ordered a bunch of them. The plague probably refers to a divine "smiting" (I think I'll stick to that terminology), but it may just refer to Moses' purge. G-d is definitely responsible for 5 deaths. He may or may not be responsible for a series of deaths, the number of which is not actually certain. Phinehas is responsible for 2 deaths. Moses is responsible for an unknown amount of deaths, and it may be 24 chiefs/clans/units/thousands or it may not be.
2. It should be noted that political matters in this time period were intertwined with religious matters. Worshiping a god of another nation is the equivalent of betraying your nation in this time period. Because of the depravity of the time period, harsher methods of enforcement were needed than would be today. What is allowed and not allowed in context of the religion is eternal. The punishments depend on the relative morality of the time period. These primitive people didn't understand anything short of carrot/stick, so G-d gave them carrot/stick.
3. There are some ideologies that deserve harsh responses. These ideologies manifest themselves in political and religious forms. The farther back you go, the more extreme these ideologies are and therefore the worse the responses have to be.
The idea here is that when Zimri started doing it with Cozbi in the Tent of Meeting, he had crossed the line into such an ideology. He also betrayed his religion, and therefore, his people, since nations were based around religion.
I'm not saying that these actions deserve death. I'm saying that in that time period, it was the only response that was effective. And yes, Moses said the law is eternal, but don't forget that Moses and G-d are not the same.
Fri Jul 31, 07:48:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
Holy shit. I only knew of Phinehas's terrible race crime; I didn't know there was a plague and massacre beforehand.
Holy crap; God and Moses are mass murderers who promote race hatred! Who could ever believe in such a thing?
Sat Aug 01, 08:44:00 AM 2009
David said...
Bustereggi, no that wouldn't make sense at all. My hypothesis was that God might cause Jennifer to die in order to save her from being essentially forced to do evil by her circumstances. If Jennifer would then "burn in hell", that would not be particularly merciful.
However, I don't believe she would be automatcially condemned. The apostles clearly teach that the work of saving souls continues even after death (1 Pet 18-22). Perhas if she had lived longer, she would have become so hardened and evil that she would not have been able to be saved by that post-mortal preaching.
I don't necessarily believe that this is why all the people died in all the deaths written up in this blog. I just want to see if others can agree that there could be a circumstance in which it is possible for God to kill someone out of mercy to that person.
Sat Aug 01, 10:41:00 AM 2009
Mark said...
Sorry to nitpick, but Gideon bibles don't have the old testament in them.
Sat Aug 01, 03:39:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
david
Now the hypothetical example:
Let's say that God sees his daughter, Jennifer, born in a situation where the circumstances (parentage, culture, etc.) will make it essentially impossible for her to follow that path. Allowing her to be killed could be a mercy, right? It's the counter to the term, "Giving her enough rope to hang herself."
I think that is one example of how God could allow someone to die, even if that death included physical suffering, and it would still be a merciful action of a loving father. Does that make sense?
No, david -- you're full of shit.
God, knowing her circumstances, didn't have to create her in the first place, thereby eradicating any hypothetical physical suffering.
God -- knowing what was going to prevent her from her path (parentage, culture, etc.) -- could have put her on another path, thereby once again eradicating any physical suffering.
God -- being god -- could have an infinite amount of ways to accomplish what he wants to accomplish -- ALL without egregious physical suffering and yet horrendous unimaginable suffering exists.
This is why your imaginary all-loving god-concept only resides in the confines of your limited mind.
--S.
Sat Aug 01, 08:33:00 PM 2009
I Am said...
David said: "Is it possible for God to kill someone as an act of love - as a mercy to that person?"
I would say no. If I, as a non-omniscient, non-omnipotent being, can think of ways to solve situations without bloodshed, then God should be able to do so. Instead, people have to be slaughter and tortured in the Bible. For your example with a Jennifer, what would be a situation that couldn't be solved that wouldn't involve inflicting one of the many ways of torturous death he personally uses or commands in the Bible? I suppose he could painlessly poof her out of existence, but is there a case where causing someone's end is the only possible solution for an all-powerful God?
Brendan, thank you for pointing out the part about the impaling. I recently reread Numbers and missed this as well. There is so much death going on, it's hard to keep track of what's happening.
About the numbers (chiefs/thousands/etc.) issue, I've seen this brought up many times here or on the SAB forums. If most Bible translations say it's thousands, what theological motivation do we have to argue with this? In other words, what does it change to the underlying story whether it's 24 or 24,000? I would think that from an apologist's point of view, if the deaths are justified, they're justified no matter what the number is. I don't understand the desire to try to minimize God's deeds if they are indeed great and/or necessary.
About the fact that these were "primitive people [who] didn't understand anything short of carrot/stick", whose fault would that be? If God created ignorant humans who didn't know how to follow his orders, why should he punish them with death for this? Why not punish himself for making unwise, misbehaving, and unfaithful creatures?
About your final comment that Moses and God aren't the same: over and over again in the Pentateuch, ad nauseum, we hear how the Israelites are supposed to follow God's law. Sometimes God says this directly, usually when he's addressing Moses; sometimes Moses just says it himself. Are you really claiming that God never said his law was eternal, or that if he never did, that Moses wasn't speaking for him when he did? If you're claiming that what Moses says can't be relied upon, then why should we believe any of this since he's apparently the one that relayed the law of God to the Israelites anyway?
I would think God, who smites left and right, would have at least chided Moses for claiming the law was eternal if it wasn't.
Mon Aug 03, 01:47:00 PM 2009
Fawzia said...
Brendan: It should be noted that political matters in this time period were intertwined with religious matters. Worshiping a god of another nation is the equivalent of betraying your nation in this time period. Because of the depravity of the time period, harsher methods of enforcement were needed than would be today. What is allowed and not allowed in context of the religion is eternal. The punishments depend on the relative morality of the time period. These primitive people didn't understand anything short of carrot/stick, so G-d gave them carrot/stick.
Not at all, this intolerance came about only with Judaism & was carried on by Christianity & Islam. The ancient polytheisms tended to be pretty tolerant of additional deities, they were accepted into the pantheon.
For example, the Biblical 10 Commandments have a striking resemblance with the older Papyrus of Ani.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10cl.htm
Note that while there are statements about respecting Egyptian gods & not belittling them, there is nothing prohibiting the worship of neighbouring Hittite or Mesopotemian gods.
This is radically different from the Biblical "jealous" God.
Egypt was also a far more advanced civilization compared to ancient Israel, but none of these ancient polytheistic civilizations had the violent hatred of rival & additional gods which came about with the Abrahamic faiths.
Tue Aug 04, 11:08:00 AM 2009
Brendan said...
I am:
1. Most translations say thousands because eleph means thousand. However, it has more than one definition. Scholars (who, incidentally, know more on the subject than you do) are in debate about the meaning because it could mean a number of things.
Side note: I wouldn't consider myself an apologist.
2. G-d did not create primitive, evil, ignorant humans.
The religions at the time mostly contained myths about how violent gods fought each other and created humans evilly. The Hebrew religion believed that G-d made everything good, and humans fucked it up. G-d created human beings with free will, and they chose to be violent.
3. The only time G-d says the law is permanent is when he's talking about the Passover ritual, working on annual festivals, and the doing work on Yom Kippur. He never says it in conjunction with anything regarding the death penalty.
4. Can you tell me when Moses died?
Fawzia:
1. Wow, really? Jews invented intolerance? That's probably the most antisemitic thing I've heard since "Jews killed Moses" (Of course, Freud said that). Congrats.
Of course polytheism was tolerant of additional deities. That's why it's called polytheism. The polytheists were tolerant of additional gods, sure, but not of other nations.
2. I don't see a resemblance between the two. I see they have some laws in common (ie, no murder, no hurting orphans, no hating the Lord), but nothing else.
3. Please note that we do not have Ancient Egypt's complete law code. There may be plenty of intolerant laws they had that we simply don't know about. We do know, however, that they set up colonies and oppressed foreigners and minorities.
I never said ancient Egypt was less advanced than ancient Israel. If that's part of a case against G-d, then where are the ancient Egyptians now?
Wed Aug 05, 11:06:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Mark said...
"Sorry to nitpick, but Gideon bibles don't have the old testament in them."
Actually, Mark, the Gideon Bibles that are most often found in hotel rooms are the complete KJV, with both Old and New Testaments.
The Gideons also make Bibles with just the New Testament, and these are often distributed at schools, probably to keep the nasty brutality and filth of the OT away from the children.
Thu Aug 06, 09:08:00 AM 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
29 July 2009We should all deface the Bible (Let's start with the Gideons)
Believers are in an uproar about an exhibit at the Glasgow Museum of Modern Art that invited viewers to add their thoughts about the Bible to the pages of the Bible itself. The offer was soon retracted, however, since many of the comments were critical of the Bible.
Imagine that.
No, don't just imagine that. Do it.
The next time you go to a hotel that has a Gideon Bible in its drawer, get out some highlighters and mark the passages that should horrify and offend anyone with any moral sense.
Make notes in the margins, inside the covers, and on the front page. And don't forget to attach a warning label.
There are hundreds of verses that you could highlight, of course, but here's a few to start your Gideon Bible desecration project. (Let me know if I've left out any of your favorites and I'll add them to the list.)
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes. Genesis 19:8
He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. Exodus 21:17
If a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and ... if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. Exodus 21:20-21
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:18
And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. Leviticus 26:29
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
And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel. Numbers 25:4
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 31:15-19
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:20-21
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. Deuteronomy 23:1
When two men strive together on with another, and the wife of the one ... putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her. Deuteronomy 25:11-12
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. Deuteronomy 28:53
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
And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. Jeremiah 19:9
For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. Ezekiel 23:20
Thou shalt ... pluck off thine own breasts: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD. Ezekiel 23:34
Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces. Malachi 2:3
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak ... And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God ... And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword ... and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Revelation 19:13-15
And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. Revelation 19:21
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/29/2009 11:17:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
5 comments:
I Am said...
I think the Bible does a pretty good job of defacing itself through its stories.
I do like the idea of the warning labels (I know FFRF has some, and other places do, too), but I think highlighting verses is a better idea.
A believer might just dismiss the warning label as a devil-inspired prank. But if they see highlighted verses in the Bible, they would probably assume they are "good" verses for them to know and read them. And they will be good verses for them to know, just not in the way they thought...
Wed Jul 29, 12:55:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Yeah, I agree with you I am.
The stickers are nice, but they're easily dismissed by believers as just unfair criticism from those awful atheists.
But highlighted verses from the Bible itself? That's pretty hard to argue with. You either think it's a good idea, for example, for God to force parents to eat their children (Jeremiah 19:9) or you don't. And if you don't, then you've got a problem with the God of the Bible.
Wed Jul 29, 01:06:00 PM 2009
Misty said...
I always thought it would be funny to put up a big jar somewhere that contained various horrific Bible verses in it that people could take with them. The jar would be nicely decorated and would read "Free Bible Verses. Please Take One." People could reach in for their Biblical inspiration and read all sorts of disgusting quotes from the Bible written on pretty paper.
Wed Jul 29, 04:02:00 PM 2009
pilarcruz said...
I prefer cutting the center out of the Gideon Bible and putting a bottle of liquor inside. It makes a great gift.
Wed Jul 29, 04:54:00 PM 2009
Ian G. said...
Speaking of the Gideon's Bible, Christopher Hitchens had a great line about it in a column about "respecting" the religious beliefs of others:
"When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter."
Here's the full column:
http://www.slate.com/id/2171371/
Sun Aug 02, 04:22:00 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
28 July 2009You're in good hands with Moses
OK. This is just another boring massacre. Sorry about that.
You pretty much know the story line by now.
The Israelites were busy killing people and stealing their land, when they came upon King Og and the people of Bashan who fought back.
And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he, and all his people, to the battle at Edrei. Numbers 21:33
Lucky for Moses, though, God was on his side, and God delivered the Bashanites into Moses' hands.
And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people. Numbers 21:34a
God tells Moses to do to them what he did to the Amorites.
(Gosh, I wonder what that was.)
And thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites. Numbers 21:34b
So the Israelites killed king Og.
So they smote him Numbers 21:35a
And his sons.
and his sons, Numbers 21:35b
And all his people.
and all his people Numbers 21:35c
Not a single person was left alive.
until there was none left him alive. Numbers 21:35d
And they took their land.
and they possessed his land. Numbers 21:35e
You're in good hands with Moses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Since Judges 11:21 makes it clear that God delivered the Amorites just like he did the Bashanites, I included both massacres in this killing.
Estimated victims: 2000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's next killing
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/28/2009 08:11:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
3 comments:
Fawzia said...
I'm a former Muslim,I've read both the Bible & the Quran & I hope I'm not biased against any Scripture, but it seems to me that some aspects of the OT are even worse than the Quran!
Of course Muslims will say that the Bible has been "corrupted" so these aren't the original verses!
As if the Quran is this benign book!
Thanks a lot for SAB & Dwindling in Unbelief Steve, after I left my original Islamic theocracy homeland & shifted to another non Muslim nation, I somehow had the idea that the Bible was a much better book!
Now I'm not going to convert to any other faith!
Wed Jul 29, 08:57:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Thanks Fawzia.
I'm glad you're no longer considering believing in the Bible. If people would just take a look at that book before believing in it, they would reject it.
I'm not sure which is worse, the Bible or the Quran. But they (along with the Book of Mormon) are the worst books that I've ever read. It's frightening to think that half of the human population (more than 3 billion people) believes in one or the other.
Wed Jul 29, 09:21:00 AM 2009
matt311 said...
Indeed; it's also frightening that most of them hold ridiculous amounts of power in world politics.
Sat Aug 01, 08:22:00 AM 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
27 July 2009The context of John 3:16
The most popular verse in the Bible by far is John 3:16. Nearly everyone, believer or skeptic, can quote this verse. But in case you've forgotten it, here it is.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
But let's look at it in context.
Just before Jesus (supposedly) spoke these words, he (supposedly) said:
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:14-15
That's right. Jesus believed in the snake-on-a-pole story of Numbers 21, God's 23rd Killing. He believed that God sent fiery serpents to bite and kill the people for complaining about the lack of food and water. And he believed that God told Moses to make a brass serpent and put it on a pole so that those who looked at it would be magically cured. And he was OK with all that.
In fact, Jesus said his own death would be just like that. If you believe in Jesus' magical death, you'll be saved just like the people that had been bitten by God's fiery serpents were saved by looking at Moses' magic snake on a pole.
But what if you don't believe in Jesus' death any more than you do in Moses' magic snake pole? Well, here's what Jesus supposedly said right after the famous words of John 3:16.
He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:18
And, a little later, in John 3:38:
He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
So let's put John 3:16 in context. If you believe in Jesus and in Moses' magic snake pole, you'll go straight to heaven after you die. If not you're going to hell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to matt311 and wise fool for pointing out Jesus' belief in the cruel and stupid story in Numbers 21.
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/27/2009 10:26:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
51 comments:
Monoclelad said...
Just be careful when believing in the magic snake pole. If you believe in it too much then thats a sin and God will smote you good for it.
Tue Jul 28, 08:17:00 AM 2009
apomate said...
I suspect that if I had all your words and actions recorded on a life-length feature film, that I could fairly easily go through it and find a scene where I could edit away events before and after it such that what remains actually looks like a very bad event. Then I splice them together to portray you in a bad light.
In my personal opinion you are making some basic and critical assumptions in presenting your views, but you have not stated them, nor attempted to prove them. If any of these assumptions turns out to be wrong, your presentation collapses. I'll give my impression of one possible assumption, but I'm just guessing: it appears to me that you are assuming that god does not have the moral justification to put someone to death. If this is not the issue, then what precisely is it about the serpent issue (or any of the other "death" issues) that makes you accuse god of being evil?
Tue Jul 28, 06:06:00 PM 2009
I Am said...
apomate, I think you have it backwards. Before this blog post, I had never seen anyone else mention the reference Jesus made to serpent story in Exodus. Why don't people mention the verses right before or after John 3:16?
It's because believers "splice" out verses to portray God and Jesus in a more positive light than the complete text would leave us with.
I grew up a Christian in America and used to attend church as a kid and adolescent (and occasionally now when needed). I considered becoming a pastor. I have heard John 3:16 so many times, I could quote it in my sleep. But I have never heard *anyone* ever say the verses preceding or following John 3:16 out loud, or reference them. Why?
Because Jesus comes out bad when you don't cherry-pick your verses. Either he's seen condemning people to eternal death due to God's wrath (which 3:16 doesn't mention, it puts a positive spin on it by only saying he'll save you if you believe) or he's seen referencing a story where his dad (who is part of the same Trinity as Jesus, and/or who sent Jesus depending on your flavor of Christianity) sent vicious poisonous serpents to kill people, and then told Moses to make a magic stick to save the people he just sent serpents out to kill. And Jesus identifies with this story himself.
Maybe it worked back in the first century, but most modern readers would have problems with taking these serpent verses literally, and many like to gloss over the whole punishment part of Jesus' incomplete saving of humanity. So both of these references are conveniently spliced out, leaving only the middle verse John 3:16, which portrays a kinder, gentler Jesus.
If most believers think it's okay for God to kill people, then why do they skip over these verses, even in the safety of their own churches when they're not out trying to convince others to join? I think it's because they think the parts they cut out are simply bad (or evil, if you prefer).
Wed Jul 29, 12:44:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
apomate
it appears to me that you are assuming that god does not have the moral justification to put someone to death. If this is not the issue, then what precisely is it about the serpent issue (or any of the other "death" issues) that makes you accuse god of being evil?
My problem is why does he cause his earthly children to suffer first: a god who can supposedly blink the universe into existence could also A. not create the people he will eventually hurt or B. blink them out of existence without causing them to suffer in vile unthinkable ways.
Does a god have the moral justification to create his earthly children just so he can cause them to suffer?
Do you condone and worship a god who harms, tortures or otherwise causes his earthly children to suffer?
How can this god be an all-loving benevolent god and still cause his earthly children to suffer in unimaginable vile ways?
I'm reminded of this hideous verse from th OT: 1Sam 15:3 -- The Lord says, Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies.
Many deluded christians have to do mighty back-flips and mental gymnastics in order to condone and salvage their sky-father's vile, sadistic actions by offering bloated rationalizations like the Amalekite children were being sacrificed to false gods, and children living with evil people would be better of dead, blah, blah, blah.
So, lets get this straight, an all-loving, god created these children and babies, knowing they would be abused and suffer egregiously, with evil people, some of them being burned alive, in heinous sacrificial offerings, but still chose to put these innocent children and babies in these vile, unimaginable situations anyway?
And god's only solution to the problem was to rescind his commandment of thou shall not kill, thereby ordering in a barbaric army of men, to destroy everyone, including, pregnant women and innocent children and babies, showing them no pity, using the primitive weapons of the day -- cutting throats, chopping off heads, plunging swords into bellies, bludgeoning and eviscerating, causing some to suffer for hours or days as they slowly died?
How the fuck is this god NOT evil?
Now these same psychotic christians will assert that god gave them life, so he can take it -- BUT why did he have to cause them to SUFFER in egregious unthinkable ways first?
Why would an all-loving, god create and send these children into these horrific situations, in the first place?
And again, why would a god -- who could simply wish the universe into existence -- not just simply wave his hand and make these children disappear into his awaiting arms, forgoing all the immense pain and mass suffering?
--S.
Wed Jul 29, 07:06:00 PM 2009
apomate said...
I am: Yes, you are right - believers are also capable of taking verses out of context to please their taste. But no matter who does the "cherry-picking", they will come to the wrong conclusion - believer or not. I directed my question at Steve because I believe he is doing just that. His conclusions are weak because he is not including the whole picture, and also because he is making assumptions without explaining or justifying them. (Does or does not God have the moral justification to put someone to death?
Sconner: I'm not sure if you are really wanting me to suggest any answers, or if you really are just wanting to express your anger at god. Do you see that you, too, are assuming some things that are not necessarily true: you assume God's motive is to harm these people he created. Certainly creating them so that he could harm them would be immoral. But I believe that examining the whole picture of the Bible will reveal God's true motives as being good. So here again we are back to the same problem: failing to look at the whole picture, and making assumptions we cannot prove.
Fri Jul 31, 04:23:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
apomate
I'm not sure if you are really wanting me to suggest any answers...
Oh yeah, I'm always ready for a big laugh. In fact I'll number them so you can address them specifically. If you choose to NOT address them specifically don't bother at all.
...or if you really are just wanting to express your anger at god.
You're an idiot. (Talk about making lame assumptions)
1. Let this sink into your head, I do not believe in your invisible omni-present personal christian god-concept. Which means I am not angry at him -- do....you...understand?
Do you see that you, too, are assuming some things that are not necessarily true: you assume God's motive is to harm these people he created.
2. My contention is NO one has any credible information about god's will or character. I am merely pointing out the major inconsistencies and contradictions in your particular bible god-concept. Comprende?
3. We know (in the context of the bible) bible-god created these Amakleite children -- right?
4. He knew they were going to SUFFER either by child sacrifice or by his command -- why create them in the first place?
5. Additionally, in a broader sense, god also knows that the majority of his earthly creation is destined to be tortured in the flames of hell; to SUFFER for an eternity. Why create them in the first place?
6. The only thing I can conclude (assume?) is god is a sadistic torturer of souls -- what other reason is there?
Certainly creating them so that he could harm them would be immoral.
8. Certainly, ordering men to cause the suffering of children is immoral too -- correct?
But I believe that examining the whole picture of the Bible will reveal God's true motives as being good.
9. Yes, yes, of course especially if you disregard ALL the repulsive evil occurrences your bible-god commanded or committed and/or disregard the verses that describes god's character as being evil. Or in other words, give bloated rationalizations to protect your sadistic god-concept.
So here again we are back to the same problem: failing to look at the whole picture, and making assumptions we cannot prove.
10. Exactly, your whole god-concept is built on assumptions and your idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture which you can NOT prove is true, with objective evidence. All you have is a definition of a god, fabricated by primitive superstitious sand-dwellers who used god's supposed -- voice as their own -- to give them a bogus senses of authority and a false sense of credibility, which you use to proclaim god's will and character.
11. I'll tell you what apomate, if god exists, then god knows, exactly, where to find me -- he can tell me, exactly, and concisely, everything he needs me to know, himself -- this way, I can be absolutely certain, what god wants from me, and I don't have to rely on some fallible, deluded christian who quite possibly is insane, that makes extraordinary, interpretive claims, he can't substantiate -- M-kay?
12. While you're at it -- why don't you go back to my post above and address each and every one of my paragraphs, specifically. Waiting.......................
--S.
Fri Jul 31, 08:01:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
The whole picture? It just reveals he's a jealous, petty tribal deity; nothing else.
Sat Aug 01, 08:20:00 AM 2009
apomate said...
Well, I started off saying, "I'm not sure...." That is essentially an invitation for you to clarify my question. Why do you call that an assumption?
I made my original post to bring up two issues: namely that Steve is disregarding large portions of the bible in attempting to portray god's character, and that he is making unstated and unproved assumptions in his presentation. If these are true, and I believe both of them are, it would mean his conclusions are faulty.
Some of your statements continue to make an assumption: namely that god is motivated by a desire to cause suffering. How can you prove this motive? The fact that suffering exists does not by itself prove that God takes pleasure in suffering.
And you say there are bible-believers who ignore parts of the bible selectively. My reply is you are right, and those people will come to erroneous conclusions just like you or Steve will if you ignore parts of the bible selectively. The truth or falsehood of your or my statements here does not depend on what "other people" are doing.
(Matt311 - Your concept of the "whole picture" is not what I'm speaking of.)
Thu Aug 06, 07:18:00 AM 2009
sconnor said...
Well, I started off saying, "I'm not sure...." That is essentially an invitation for you to clarify my question. Why do you call that an assumption?
Clearly you have a difficult time digesting simple to read information. You assumed I was angry with god. Pull your head out of your ass and slowly read my arguments and comments before you waste any more time being a dumb ass.
~moving on~
It's painfully obvious you can NOT address the specifics of my arguments (which speaks volumes) so you must resort to the myna bird tactic of repeating your earlier lame arguments.
If you do NOT address the specifics of my arguments you have readily admitted you are incapable of offering a credible defense.
So, either address the specifics of my comments and arguments or F-off
Don't let the proverbial door hit you in the ass on the way out.
--S.
Thu Aug 06, 12:53:00 PM 2009
apomate said...
Yes, there is repetition, and that is because I wish to stay on the subject: I made a post with two issues, and you (and Steve) ignored them and you substituted ten or twenty others, some related and some not (a typical approach on this site). You demanded my attention to your issues, and now you are upset that I didn't treat them. I'm here to address two issues. If you don't want to treat them, then no need to reply.
Thu Aug 06, 05:51:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
apomate said,
"Steve is disregarding large portions of the bible in attempting to portray god's character, and that he is making unstated and unproved assumptions in his presentation."
OK. I give up, apomate. What parts of the Bible do you think I am disregarding and what assumptions do you think I am making?
You ask, "Does or does not God have the moral justification to put someone to death?"
Well, that's hard for me to answer since I don't think the God of the Bible exists. It's like asking me if I think Vishnu has four arms.
I am just listing God's killings as they are described in the Bible. I don't think any of them actually occurred, because imaginary beings seldom kill anyone.
God's killings are only a problem for those who believe God exists. They are especially troublesome for those who would like to believe that the God of the Bible is kind and loving. If you think God is a complete asshole and you're completely OK with that, then I suppose you think it's great that God sent snakes to bite and kill people for complaining about the lack of food and water.
Do you think the Bible God is a complete asshole, apomate?
Thu Aug 06, 08:01:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
apomate
Yes, there is repetition, and that is because I wish to stay on the subject: I made a post with two issues, and you (and Steve) ignored them and you substituted ten or twenty others, some related and some not (a typical approach on this site). You demanded my attention to your issues, and now you are upset that I didn't treat them. I'm here to address two issues. If you don't want to treat them, then no need to reply.
You're a bullshitting liar.
I stuck to the topic and offered counter-arguments and comments you absolutely can NOT address specifically.
If you noticed I went line by line addressing each and everyone of your arguments and comments detailing why I think your god-concept is evil. My contention is fairly simple he causes people to suffer in a myriad of ways for a plethora of reasons including unjust reasons, which I gave examples of --which you ignored.
Now I defy you to go back and address ALL my arguments and comments line by line starting with my first post on this thread: My problem is why does he cause his earthly children to suffer first...
The only time I didn't stick to the topic at hand is when you made fallacious statements like I'm angry with god.
Now either put up or shut up and address the arguments and comments specifically, line by line or get the fuck out of here.
If you spent half the time you do in delivering bullshit excuses to why you won't address them, you would have been done by now addressing my arguments and comments.
We're on to you apomate, you won't address the arguments and comments line by line specifically because you CAN'T.
--S.
Thu Aug 06, 09:35:00 PM 2009
apomate said...
Steve said: OK. I give up, apomate. What parts of the Bible do you think I am disregarding and what assumptions do you think I am making?
Suppose I edited together all the video portions of your life that only show you eating, to try to prove that Steve Wells does nothing but eat, and that he is a glutton. You would say, "Apomate, you left out huge portions of my life!" If I then replied, "All right, Steve, show me what I left out," you might well begin to curse and swear at me or however you react to such answers with something like, "Man, you know very well what you left out - everything but the eating. That's not the real me!"
In reality in your website (regarding the killing) you are not describing the god of the bible. You are describing a god that exists only in Steve's edited video who does nothing but kill, and indeed, I agree with you that the god of Steve's edited video is a horrible figure. I do not know that god.
When I asked you if god had the moral and justifiable right to judge someone and put them to death, you, yourself said that god doesn't exist so you can't answer that question. So you agree that you are not talking about the god of the bible in your posts, but only the god that exists in Steve's edited video. (Similary we couldn't say whether Steve has the right to exercise authority over his property - to prevent trespassing for example - because he doesn't exist as a property-owner in the video tape - only as an eater.)
Are you willing to take on the challenge to prove bad character in the god of the bible (whole bible)? To do so, of course, would require that you allow your debaters to use the whole bible to describe god's character, not just the "edited bible."
Yes, I do know that you don't believe the bible, nor in the god of the bible. But if you intend to attack the god of the bible, you must, for the sake of the attack, get your evidence from the bible, and you therefore must allow those who would defend the attack to also get their evidence from the bible. That is what you are disregarding.
Sat Aug 08, 07:17:00 AM 2009
apomate said...
Myna bird says: I still want to stick with the issue of assumptions, and the issue of using the bible selectively. (By the way, there is a reason for this: unless we resolve these two issues, the other "issues" are meaningless.) So I will address your issue #2 which says:
2. My contention is NO one has any credible information about god's will or character. I am merely pointing out the major inconsistencies and contradictions in your particular bible god-concept. Comprende?
If there is NO credible information available to anyone about god, then how do you intend to prove he is evil? You have no credible evidence. You have constructed an easy (but false) win for yourself: you can quote the bible to prove god is bad. But when I suggested that examining the whole picture of the Bible will reveal God's true motives as being good, you replied back with this statement #2 that there is NO credible information about god available. So, ... you will not allow me to refer to the same bible you are quoting from.
Now, based upon this, you are quite correct: I indeed CAN'T address any of your issues. You've set it up that way. Indeed, you can't prove them either. So why waste our time?
Issues 8-11 we pretty much agree on anyway, so there isn't much to discuss:
8. Certainly, ordering men to cause the suffering of children is immoral too -- correct?
Yes, I agree. (But there's a fish hook in that statement!)
#9. I already agreed with you that for both believers and non-believers, selectively choosing parts of the bible to prove a point will lead to erroneous conclusions.
In #10 you speak of objective evidence. I would say that neither of us has the kind of objective evidence you are referring to.
#11 Suppose god gave you the option to determine how this would take place. In other words, god says to you, "Sconner, what do you want me to do for you so that you are convinced I am who I say I am?" What would you demand of him as solid evidence?
Sun Aug 09, 12:48:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
apomate,
If you posted a video of me eating all the time, that would be strange. But if you showed me murdering millions of people for no reason in 89 separate killing events, that would be worse, don't you think?
I eat several times a day. I'm not particularly proud of it, but I'm not ashamed of it either. So go ahead with the video. I don't mind at all.
The (imaginary) God of the Bible is proud of his killings, apomate. Since you worship him you should be proud of them, too. Why are you ashamed of God's killings?
It's true that since I am trying to document all of God's killings in the Bible, a person that reads my blog might get the idea that the Bible God does nothing but kill. And that's not true.
God does lots of other things like send evil spirits, tell fathers to kill their sons, threaten to spread dung on peoples' faces and force them to eat their children and friends. Stuff like that.
You say that I must get my evidence from the bible, and allow those who would defend the the God of the Bible to also get their evidence from the Bible. And that is exactly what I am doing with this blog. Every killing that I describe is from the Bible, and I would love to see a believer defend God by using the Bible. But so far no one has.
Sun Aug 09, 08:14:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
apomate
Myna bird says: I still want to stick with the issue of assumptions, and the issue of using the bible selectively. (By the way, there is a reason for this: unless we resolve these two issues, the other "issues" are meaningless.) So I will address your issue #2 which says:
2. My contention is NO one has any credible information about god's will or character. I am merely pointing out the major inconsistencies and contradictions in your particular bible god-concept. Comprende?
If there is NO credible information available to anyone about god, then how do you intend to prove he is evil? You have no credible evidence. You have constructed an easy (but false) win for yourself: you can quote the bible to prove god is bad.
1. Read this carefully -- it is abundantly clear you can not digest information: I do NOT believe in your god-concept -- the one you constructed from your own idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
2. There is NO objective evidence that the bible is god's word.
3. I am NOT trying to prove god is evil.
4. When we say god is evil we are referencing your bible and pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies in scripture that are antithetical to your god-concept, being ALL-loving ALL-merciful, benevolent, etc. It is NOT an admission of god's existence; it is NOT an affirmative assertion that god is evil.
5. My contention is: bible-god is a fictional character and this fictional god-character is an evil entity based on his actions and commands in those works of FICTION.
It baffles me why you can NOT grasps this simple notion.
6. So just to be clear I do not believe in your personal christian god-concept. Any argument used against your god-concept is provisional. We are attacking your god-concept by pointing out inconsistencies, gaps of logic or contradictions of YOUR DEFINITION of god that you have fabricated by your idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture and stunted imaginings.
7. Furthermore it should be understood that unbelievers are debating in the hypothetical. For example: "IF" god is ALL-good why does he let children suffer in vile unimaginable ways? Or "IF" god is an intelligent designer why was he morbidly negligent in creating an umbilical cord that can choke the baby in utero that can lead to death or brain damage causing the baby to suffer for the rest of her life.
8. So NOT only do you have objective evidence that the bible is god's word you also have a bible that is inconsistent about god's character and will.
Do...you...understand?
But when I suggested that examining the whole picture of the Bible will reveal God's true motives as being good, you replied back with this statement #2 that there is NO credible information about god available. So, ... you will not allow me to refer to the same bible you are quoting from.
9. Any suggestion that examining the whole picture of the bible will be NOTHING short of a feeble and deluded attempt, to salvage your God's despicable, reputation, with absurd, bloated rationalizations and strained excuses, that try to -- insanely --condone and justify your god-concept's reprehensible atrocities, in the old testament.
Sun Aug 09, 11:58:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
~continued~
10.This is why I concluded; the bible is a spurious, collection of separate, ancient stories, written by differing men, using the -- supposed, voice of god -- so as to give it a bogus sense of credibility, and authority where there was none to begin with, which came together, slowly, over time, that dealt with how a primitive superstitious people understood, what god meant to them, during their own specific, time period and their own specific culture. Anything after that is interpretation, speculation or delusional gullibility, which gets us the perverted ideas, beliefs and agendas of so many christian religions. Your god is nothing but a human construct -- a figment of your imagination, a definition, based on your myopic, interpretation of scripture and flights of fancy.
Now, based upon this, you are quite correct: I indeed CAN'T address any of your issues. You've set it up that way. Indeed, you can't prove them either. So why waste our time?
11. You can't address them because you have NO answer for them -- at least without doing mental gymnastics trying to rationalize your way out of it.
12. What's more, you can't CAN'T address any of my issues because your god only resides in the confines of your limited mind, which you simply made up from your interpretation of scripture and/or you credulously digested spurious information from other so-called religious authorities.
13. In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. -- Mark Twain
Issues 8-11 we pretty much agree on anyway, so there isn't much to discuss:
8. Certainly, ordering men to cause the suffering of children is immoral too -- correct?
Yes, I agree. (But there's a fish hook in that statement!)
14.More mental black-flips? What? -- no elaboration?
#9. I already agreed with you that for both believers and non-believers, selectively choosing parts of the bible to prove a point will lead to erroneous conclusions.
15. What confuses you is: I contend the bible is a morbidly inferior way of trying to get god's supposed ALL-important messages to his earthly children because it can be interpreted anyway someone wants. It's a virtual grab-bag where anyone can interpret or misinterpret it to push any agenda they desire. Your interpretation is just one of the many truth-claims that posit you know how it should be deciphered (looking at the whole picture)
16. Funny how so many christians who have vast and varying interpretations of scripture ALL contend there interpretation of scripture is based on the whole picture and is true also.
Sun Aug 09, 11:59:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
~continued~
In #10 you speak of objective evidence. I would say that neither of us has the kind of objective evidence you are referring to.
17. You are the one making the extraordinary claim that you know god's character and will.
18. You are the one that is required to offer objective evidence for your extraordinary claim.
19. Anyone can make extraordinary claims.
20. I could claim I have an invisible poodle in my garage that grants me wishes. Automatically, you realize it is an extraordinary claim and if I do not present evidence of said claim, you would take the default position of unbelief until when/if I proved it to you or you would think me a lunatic.
21. Or as in another example: you take the default position of unbelief concerning Allah's will and character and the relevancy of Allah's final testament in the form of the qur'an. Why? Because there is no objective evidence to suggest the extraordinary claims of Muslims having any reference in reality -- Which goes the same for your extraordinary bible-drenched christian claims. Comprende?
22. As of now you are a lunatic making crazy unsubstantiated claims. My characterization of you will stand until you are able to supply objective evidence that you actually know god's will and character.
23. I argue that you really do NOT know god's will and character.
24. Again, I contend you actually fabricated an imaginary god-character from your own idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture and flights of imagination -- making unsubstantiated crazy claims that you know god's will and character.
25. I also maintain that there very well could be a god but I deny your particular definition of god, because you have no objective evidence for this god. Furthermore, your god-concept has many inconsistencies in logic, further exacerbated by scripture that contradicts your definition of god.
26. I deny your unsubstantiated (with objective evidence) god-concept that you constructed from your idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
#11 Suppose god gave you the option to determine how this would take place. In other words, god says to you, "Sconner, what do you want me to do for you so that you are convinced I am who I say I am?" What would you demand of him as solid evidence?
27. Doen't matter what I want. God being god should be able to convince my analytical and skeptical mind of his existence but sadly he remains invisible. Funny how invisible and non-existent look so much alike.
28. Again he can come to me so I can be absolutely certain, what he wants from me, and I don't have to rely on some fallible, deluded christian who makes extraordinary, unsubstantiated interpretive claims.
--S.
Mon Aug 10, 12:04:00 AM 2009
apomate said...
Steve,
Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. That illustration about eating was to answer your earlier question to me, "What parts of the Bible do you think I am disregarding?" It makes no difference to this illustration whether it is eating or killing. The answer to your question is, "You've left out everything but the killing." Whatever there is in the bible that might justify the killing is omitted in your presentation.
You said, "...and I would love to see a believer defend God by using the Bible." But I'm not quite yet convinced that you will really let the believer use the bible without declaring it to be of little value, invalid, or insignificant. To my query about whether god has the moral justification to put someone to death you replied:
"Well, that's hard for me to answer since I don't think the God of the Bible exists. It's like asking me if I think Vishnu has four arms."
You have no difficulty using the bible to declare god guilty of immoral killing, but you seem unwilling to use the bible as a basis to determine whether god has the moral justification to put someone to death. That pretty much guarantees you a win in any argument, right? You can use the bible to show god's evil, but not to show anything else.
I am not taking up the other issues you've brought up, because there is no point in addressing them until you are willing to allow me the same liberty that you take with the bible. That would mean you will be willing to accept a defense from the bible without making such escape remarks that essentially imply, "well, just remember the bible isn't true anyway so your argument is not valid."
I am perfectly willing to discuss the god of the whole bible, but on a level playing field.
Tue Aug 11, 07:16:00 AM 2009
apomate said...
I will never attempt to address the quantity of questions you bring up in a single post, so relax and save your time. My feeble mind works on very few issues at a time.
You say:
3. I am NOT trying to prove god is evil.
4. When we say god is evil we are referencing your bible...
5. My contention is: bible-god is a fictional character and this fictional god-character is an evil entity based on his actions and commands in those works of FICTION.
You just said you are not trying to prove god is evil. Yet in number 4 and 5 you "say" god is evil" and you "contend" that he is an evil entity.
Until you admit you are trying to prove god is evil we have nothing to debate.
And according to your words in #4, you are "referencing your bible..."
If you can reference the bible to assert that god-character is an evil entity then you must allow me the same freedom to reference the bible to refute your statement. At this point you do not do this, so indeed I can't address your issues.
So, either we BOTH reference the bible to make our assertions, or NEITHER of us uses the bible to make our assertions.
You may continue to assert the bible is fictitious, and that is fine, but either we BOTH use it or NEITHER of us uses it.
I know and freely admit you don't believe the bible.
Tue Aug 11, 07:20:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
apomate,
You said, "You have no difficulty using the bible to declare god guilty of immoral killing, but you seem unwilling to use the bible as a basis to determine whether god has the moral justification to put someone to death."
I'm not saying that god is guilty of immoral killing. I'm just telling bible stories here. I don't believe any of them. God didn't kill every firstborn child in Egypt, he didn't drown everyone in a flood, or send serpents to bite people for complaining. But the Bible says he did. I'm just saying what the Bible says. I don't believe a word of it.
You can use the Bible to try to show that the Bible-God is morally justified in killing whomever he pleases whenever he pleases for whatever reason he chooses or for no reason at all. Go right ahead and do it right here. It would be great to have a believer try to do that.
The playing field is completely level here, apomate. The believers just don't want to play.
Tue Aug 11, 07:36:00 AM 2009
sconnor said...
apomate
You say:
3. I am NOT trying to prove god is evil.
4. When we say god is evil we are referencing your bible...
5. My contention is: bible-god is a fictional character and this fictional god-character is an evil entity based on his actions and commands in those works of FICTION.
You just said you are not trying to prove god is evil. Yet in number 4 and 5 you "say" god is evil" and you "contend" that he is an evil entity.
Until you admit you are trying to prove god is evil we have nothing to debate.
1. Holy shit! I contend that "IF" there is a god out there -- in the universe -- NO ONE has any credible information of his will or character.
2. I am NOT trying to prove that the invisible entity you think exists up in heaven is evil. please, put that in your memory banks.
3. Your holy book is not a credible source to prove whether or not your god-concept is evil or good. NO ONE has actual knowledge of god. You claim to have knowledge of god but that is from your idiosyncratic interpretation of spurious scripture. It's exactly the same as a muslim claiming to know Allah's will and character from scripture in the qur'an -- comprende?
4. I am saying your book of fiction contends he is evil. This does not prove -- god (if he exists) up in heaven -- is evil it just proves that your holy book contends this -- which is antithetical to your other god claims from the bible (ALL-loving, ALL-merciful, benevolent, etc.)
5. I'm just referencing bible stories. And like Steve, I don't believe in any of them, which would include god's character of being good or evil.
6. I also contend you must offer objective evidence that your holy book is the word of god, which you have not done. Circular reasoning is inadmissible. You contend to know god's character and will because it is in the bible -- the bible is true because it is god's word (that's circular reasoning).
7. Please, please, please, take your time and comprehend what is being said.
I will never attempt to address the quantity of questions you bring up in a single post, so relax and save your time. My feeble mind works on very few issues at a time.
Evidently.
--S.
Tue Aug 11, 11:54:00 AM 2009
sconnor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tue Aug 11, 12:59:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
apomate
Now by all means if you want to have a scripture war -- I'm prepared to go into battle.
But just so you know, this will not prove whether -- the god you believe exists in heaven -- is good or evil.
All it will prove is the bible (fictional stories) have conflicting characterizations of bible-god's character and will.
--S.
Tue Aug 11, 01:09:00 PM 2009
apomate said...
...sorry for the delay.
In my first post I suggested you might be assuming incorrectly that god does not have the moral justification to put someone to death. Your reply was, "Well, that's hard for me to answer since I don't think the God of the Bible exists. It's like asking me if I think Vishnu has four arms."
Then in that same post I asked, "If this is not the issue, then what precisely is it about the serpent issue (or any of the other "death" issues) that makes you accuse god of being evil?" You didn't address this question, but I suspect (based upon the next paragraph) that you would reply to this with, "I'm not saying that god is evil. I'm just telling bible stories here...."
In a later post I commented to you, "You have no difficulty using the bible to declare god guilty of immoral killing,..." and your reply was, "I'm not saying that god is guilty of immoral killing. I'm just telling bible stories here...."
Thus, it appears that you do not really take a position, but only imply your position by the way you pick your bible stories. The only thing I can challenge, then, is that the character of god as you imply it is radically different or even opposed to the character of god as the whole bible actually describes it (all of this speaking of god in his role as a character in the bible). But since you are only implying your position it is hardly worth discussing the matter because that would be rather like trying to nail down a cloud.
So, in the final analysis unless you wish to clarify anything, I'd suggest you are a very clever manipulator of information and able to distort it very effectively to your purposes. But there is nothing for me to defend since I've no interest in discussing issues as undefinable as a cloud.
Mon Aug 17, 06:40:00 AM 2009
apomate said...
Sconner: "4. I am saying your book of fiction contends he is evil. This does not prove -- god (if he exists) up in heaven -- is evil it just proves that your holy book contends this -- which is antithetical to your other god claims from the bible (ALL-loving, ALL-merciful, benevolent, etc.)"
Sconner, Your point number 4 is great, and you take a clear position. I agree that we are not discussing whether the bible is describing a true and living god.
This is the same as if we were debating the character of Tom Sawyer. We would talk about Tom Sawyer's actions almost as if he existed, but all of our comments are in the context of the book, and we would not be trying to prove that Tom Sawyer existed in real life.
One question: you also say in point 6 that I must prove the bible is true. But this is not necessary for point 4. We can talk about point 4 and we will use the bible as our source of evidence, but again in the same sense we would use Mark Twain's book to get our evidence about the character of Tom Sawyer. We don't need to prove that Mark Twain's book was a true-to-life narration in order to talk about Tom Sawyer. So point 6 is totally separate from point 4 and could come later on if you'd like.
By the way, I'm not interested in war. Any discussions I have are with the intent that both parties desire to arrive closer to the truth about something. I expect to learn something from this conversation and from you. I can't speak for you, but if your one and only desire is to do damage, it would almost look like you are taking the position taken by some christians (and atheists can do it too) who act as if: "I've already got my mind made up - don't confuse me with more information."
Do you want to give me a starting place? Where does the bible contend that god is evil? Or shall I make an assumption and start with it?
Mon Aug 17, 06:42:00 AM 2009
I Am said...
apomate, I'm sure Steve can answer for himself if he wants, but since you and I also exchanged thoughts earlier in the thread I wanted to post my reaction.
You said "The only thing I can challenge, then, is that the character of god as you imply it is radically different or even opposed to the character of god as the whole bible actually describes it [...] unless you wish to clarify anything, I'd suggest you are a very clever manipulator of information and able to distort it very effectively to your purposes."
You seem to be saying it is unfair to only point out bad things God does in the Bible, that this doesn't accurately portray God's character, is this correct?
First of all, if you consult skepticsannotatedbible.com you'll see that there are also passages marked as being good. Steve is currently focusing on one aspect (God's killings) and blogging on it.
Second of all, how is directly quoting what's in the Bible (giving the full context of each passage) "distorting" it? If the circumstances and reasons the Bible gives for God killing people is provided, then I don't see how it's distortion.
Lastly, with any person, any character, anything, people have the right to examine the different characteristics individually. If I want to discuss Don Quixote's friendship with Sancho Panzo, I am not also required to discuss his love for Dulcinea.
You could also explore other aspects of God -- for example, maybe you can find verses saying God is also forgiving or loving, when he wants to be -- but it doesn't negate the fact that God is (also) a murderer. It is not inaccurate, unfair, or unjustified to focus on this, just as you would fully explore any other theme (salvation, miracles, etc.). The God in the Bible kills people; it is not manipulation or distortion to explore this.
Mon Aug 17, 11:22:00 AM 2009
sconnor said...
apomate
By the way, I'm not interested in war. Any discussions I have are with the intent that both parties desire to arrive closer to the truth about something. I expect to learn something from...
Relax -- it was just a hyperbolic colloquialism.
Do you want to give me a starting place? Where does the bible contend that god is evil?
OK -- here we go. One, two, three, four -- we're gonna' have a scripture war.
Evil Bible-God.
Consider Andrea Yates: She was the mother who drowned her five children in a bathtub. A heinous massacre where everyone would agree that she was either mentally ill or evil. Can you imagine the scene?
Yates Odyssey. Time Magazine
"On June 20, 2001, when the police reached his modest brick home on Beachcomber Lane in suburban Houston, they found Andrea drenched with bathwater, her flowery blouse and brown leather sandals soaking wet. She had turned on the bathroom faucet to fill the porcelain tub and moved aside the shaggy mat to give herself traction for kneeling on the floor. It took a bit of work for her to chase down the last of the children; toward the end, she had a scuffle in the family room, sliding around on wet tile below a poster that proclaimed the epithets of Christ: SAVIOR, SHEPHERD, BISHOP OF SOULS. She dripped watery footprints from the tub to her bedroom, where she straightened the blankets around the kids in their pajamas once she was done with them.
The kids were still having breakfast when she began. First was "Perfect Paul," the 3-year-old who had been her most joyful and least trouble. He died in seconds, held violently underwater by the mother whose hands had carefully washed his hair so that the soap would not sting his eyes. She carried his soaked body to her bed, tucking him beneath a maroon blanket, his head on the pillows. After Paul, she drowned Luke, 2, and moved on to John, 5. Next she killed their baby sister Mary, whom she had distracted with a bottle so she wouldn't scoot away and hurt herself while her brothers were being killed.
Noah, her firstborn, was the last to die. The 7-year-old left his half-eaten cereal on the kitchen table when Andrea summoned him. Walking into the bathroom, Noah saw his sister facedown in the water, her tiny fists clenched. He asked, "What's wrong with Mary?" and then, according to the account Andrea would give police, he tried to run away. His mother chased him down, dragged the wailing boy to the bathroom and forced him facedown into nine inches of cold water in the tub, his sister's body floating lifeless next to him. Noah came up twice as he fought for air. But Andrea held her grip. She then laid Mary in bed with her brothers, wrapping their arms around the baby. She left Noah in the tub."
Can you imagine? Can you imagine those trusting children as they gasped for air -- only swallowing water into their lungs? Can you imagine the terror sweeping over them as they looked into their mothers eyes through the water? The panic, the fear, in the last minutes of their lives?
Now, all we need to do is go about four pages into your holy book and imagine an entire world flood where your heavenly father drowned ALL his earthly children -- millions of lives wiped out; the devastation of a world flood with massive walls of water -- wreaking havoc. Your god committed mass genocide, unequaled by ALL genocidal manics combined but that is not what I take issue with. Most christians try to condone god's egregious actions by rationalizing, "God created them so he can kill them". Fine go with that insane rationalization -- but why did he have to cause them to SUFFER first? Why did children, babies and pregnant women have to suffer first?
Mon Aug 17, 11:17:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
~continued~
How, exactly were babies and children wicked? Why did they have to suffer the same consequences? Speculating that they were to grow up and become wicked still doesn't answer the question, why did god cause them to suffer?
Drowning is a horrible way to die. And being consistent with what really happens to flood victims who die, then it's safe to say that during the Genesis flood, thousands were crushed by debris, suffering for hours before they died, while others clung to rafts and boats, only to starve to death. Not everyone was wicked and violent, basically your severely, disturbed, and maniacal god -- in an analogy -- burned down an entire orphanage because some of the other kids were bad.
This is not a clean and easy way to die. This is not a scolding where the men women and children could learn from their mistakes, this is not constructive criticism this is mass genocide -- which accomplished NOTHING. Not only did he kill them he made then SUFFER first -- this is not an all-loving god; this is a megalomaniac, evil character who causes his earthly children to suffer.
Presumably your god is omniscient -- why did he create them in the first place? He would've known that he was just going to destroy them anyway? He could have chosen not to create them and/or he could have simply wished them out of existence -- but NO -- your god decided to inflict as much anguish and destruction as he could causing millions of young children and babies to suffer egregiously -- that's fucking evil.
The Deluge: A punishment inflicted on the human race by an all-knowing God, who, through not having foreseen the wickedness of men, repented of having made them, and drowned them once for all to make them better - an act which, as we all know, was accompanied by the greatest success. -- Voltaire
Why did God fill the world with his own children, knowing that he would have to destroy them? And why does this same God tell me how to raise my children when he had to drown his? -- Robert G. Ingersoll
Was the god of the Hebrews so wise that he couldn't think of anything better than flooding the whole earth to kill those evil humans? That's like burning down the barn to kill rats, or using a sledgehammer to debug a rose bush. Even the world's dumbest surgeon doesn't use a guillotine to remove a mole on someone's neck. -- Skip Church
I don't know who the worst sinners are on this planet, but I am quite sure that if a High Intelligence wanted to exterminate them, It would find a very precise method of locating each one separately. Carelessly murdering millions of innocent children and harmless old ladies, and dogs and cats, is absolutely and ineluctably to state that your idea of God is that of a cosmic imbecile. -- Robert Anton Wilson
Mon Aug 17, 11:18:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
~continued~
The first Born in Egypt
Exodus 12:12-13 That same night I will pass through Egypt and kill the first-born son in every family and the first-born male of all animals. I am the LORD, and I will punish the gods of Egypt. The blood on the houses will show me where you live, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. Then you won't be bothered by the terrible disasters I will bring on Egypt.
Now, we'll just forgo ALL the absurdities of this fictional story -- like your bumbling god NOT knowing that the first nine plagues wouldn't do the job or that god was responsible for hardening Pharaoh's heart and that god needed someone to mark -- with blood -- which houses he was to avoid and instead I will shed another perspective that is steeped in personal tragedy.
Bible-god's act of killing children is not the most reprehensible part of this story -- it is the subsequent fall-out, where millions were made to SUFFER their losses; desperately grieving their loved ones.
I can attest, to the anguish and monumental grief of losing a son. My ten year old son --Connor -- suffered and died from a heart attack, related to leukemia (his own blood poisoned him) and everyday; every minute of everyday, the tsunami of grief makes my blood run cold and my heart turns to lead. I breathe the loss of my son -- it's unbearable.
For me it has been a crippling grief, where I lost everything; my job, my friends, and my identity. The egregious pain is parroted in the support groups, I belong to -- some have divorced their spouses, some harm themselves, by cutting into their arms, some drink themselves to death every night, some use illicit drugs to block out the pain, while others, like myself have been institutionalized, in mental hospitals and some parents and/or siblings have even succumbed to the egregious pain and have killed themselves. To this day -- wanting to kill myself -- has become a part of my very existence.(I would also like to add, christains (wrapped in the holy spirit complete believers in god are not immune to the unbearable pain of losing a child and many attend these meetings and suffer in a myriad of ways).
Along with my suffering, my daughter suffers; never to have her big brother in her life, destined to be an only child and emotionally scarred for life. She too suffers everyday, dreading to go to sleep, thinking she will die, like her brother did. She feels her throat closing in and thinks she can't breathe. She suffers with night terrors and also sees a psychologists regularly to deal with her anxieties. After Connor died the spider web of grief grabbed hold of Connor's friends, who also went into deep depressions -- failing grades, loss of appetite, ambivalence and so on. My mother fell apart too -- not only from losing a grandson but also from languishing in my pain. The immediate family was crushed, forever changed and NOT for the better. And this does NOT even begin to describe the unimaginable pain of having your own child die.
This, too, is what god wrought upon his earthly children when he killed the first born of Egypt. So while god was leading his chosen people out of bondage, he left in it's wake a devastation, so great, because hundreds of thousands of families were affected, stricken with incomprehensible grief -- the untold mass suffering, where joy and hope have been obliterated, is massively catastrophic. A god that would do this, is nothing less then, a repugnant, vile, evil, torturer of souls -- a megalomaniac that is both utterly contemptible and thoroughly indefensible.
Mon Aug 17, 11:26:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
~continued~
Job
Also, from my perspective, the story of Job is atrocious and vile. First, the story is a mishmash of two separate stories, that actually contradict each other. I won't bore you with the details, but if you want to read about it, I recommend a book by Bart D. Ehrman, called, GOD'S PROBLEM, How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer.
In the book of Job -- god -- who is supposedly omniscient -- asking satan where he's been -- reeks of an evil fairy tale character, who, in league with satan (adversary), which doesn't make sense, if he's helping god), are on the ultimate, sadistic Punk'd episode, just to fuck with Job.
And why does god want to fuck up the innocent, Job? -- just so he can prove a petty, little point to satan. Is god so insecure that he has to prove his point by making Job suffer? God is the cosmic equivalent to a psycho juvenile delinquent who has an ant farm and on some boring, afternoon, day, decides to take an ant out of it's farm and torture it with a magnifying glass. God is the equivalent of the creepy, little insane kid who hammers to death a puppy.
And after god tortures Job and kills his children (sometimes god and sometimes satan, it's hard to tell, at times, who is doing the torturing) he decides to make everything better, restore the faithful Job to his healthier self and with the compassion of a demented, sick-bastard, he replaces Job's seven sons and three daughters with an entirely different set of children. holy shit -- what kind of screwed-up, deity is this? This is an ALL-loving god? How can the excruciating pain of losing a child be removed by replacing it with another? What is god saying? -- that a child is expendable and then replaceable like a lost wallet or new ants for the ant farm?
Mon Aug 17, 11:30:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
~continued~
What's more, according to your holy book -- god created everything, including suffering and evil. How do your reconcile these attributes from scripture with the god-concept you piece mealed together to form your idiosyncratic definition of this god-character?
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
The Hebrew word for evil is [r or Ra' meaning:
adj
bad, evil
bad, disagreeable, malignant
bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
evil, displeasing
bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
bad (of value)
worse than, worst (comparison)
sad, unhappy
evil (hurtful)
bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
in general, of persons, of thoughts
deeds, actions n m
evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
evil, distress, adversity
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical) n f
evil, misery, distress, injury
evil, misery, distress
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical)
Additionally, in Ecclesiastes 7:14 the Hebrew word for adversity is also [r or Ra'
Ec 7:14 In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him.
Which in plain English means:
When times are good be happy but when times are bad think what it means. God made both to keep us from knowing what will happen next.
And in 2kings and Proverbs the Hebrew word for evil is [r or Ra'
2Ki 6:33 And while he yet talked with them, behold, the messenger came down unto him: and he said, Behold, this evil is of the LORD; what should I wait for the LORD any longer?
He also creates the wicked (the sinners)
Pr 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
The Hebrew word for wicked is [xr and means:
wicked, criminal
guilty one, one guilty of crime (subst)
wicked (hostile to God)
wicked, guilty of sin (against God or man)
Also when studying Judaism you must acknowledge they believe G-d is the Creator of EVERYTHING, which they base on their interpretation of scripture from the Torah http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm
"Everything in the universe was created by G-d and only by G-d. Judaism completely rejects the dualistic notion that evil was created by Satan or some other deity. All comes from G-d. As Isaiah said, "I am the L-rd, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I am the L-rd, that does all these things." (Is. 45:6-7)." http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/index.htm
The bible view is clear, your supposed all-loving, moral, god creates, misery, calamity, adversity, evil and the wicked people who cause evil; SUFFERING is god's fault -- how do you reconcile this with your god-definition, that it is supposedly not god's will to effectuate incomprehensible suffering?
Mon Aug 17, 11:32:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
~continued~
Furthermore, according to the bible -- doesn't this quote, below, from scripture, suggest that god invites unjustified suffering on his earthly children?
1Sam 15:3 The Lord says, Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies.
Many deluded christians have to do mighty back-flips and mental gymnastics in order to condone and salvage their sky-father's vile, sadistic actions by offering bloated rationalizations like the Amalekite children were being sacrificed to false gods, and children living with evil people would be better of dead, blah, blah, blah.
So, lets get this straight, an all-loving, god created these children and babies, knowing they would be abused and suffer egregiously, with evil people (which god created according to scripture), some of them being burned alive, in heinous sacrificial offerings, but still chose to put these innocent children and babies in these vile, unimaginable situations anyway?
And god's only solution to the problem was to rescind his commandment of thou shall not kill, thereby ordering in a barbaric army of men, to destroy everyone, including, pregnant women and innocent children and babies, showing them no pity, using the primitive weapons of the day -- cutting throats, chopping off heads, plunging swords into bellies, bludgeoning and eviscerating, causing some to suffer for hours or days as they slowly died?
Now these same psychotic christians will assert that god gave them life, so he can take it -- BUT why did he have to cause them to SUFFER in egregious unthinkable ways first?
Why would an all-loving, god create and send these children into these horrific situations, in the first place?
And why would a god -- who could simply wish the universe into existence -- not just simply wave his hand and make these children disappear into his awaiting arms, forgoing all the immense pain and mass suffering?
Mon Aug 17, 11:34:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
~continued~
And finally, how could this get any worse for this fictionalized evil charcter out of your holy book?
Why -- the christian doctrine of damnation, where the majority of god's earthly children will be tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity, for what is surely the most heinous of sins (massive sarcasm) unbelief.
Only 30% of the world is christian and out of that 30% -- only a minority will be supposedly saved because they have deciphered the one true correct criteria from their idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture that will supposedly tell us how one is saved, while the majority of god's earthly children, (the unbelievers, the non-religious and All the other religions throughout history) will be tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity.
A god who would save his earthly children ONLY because they had faith in him, while the majority of his other earthly children are damned because they did NOT believe in him, paints a portrait of a deity that is obscenely, petty, unreasonable, unjust and malevolently evil.
And while I'm thinking of it, explain the logic behind a god who preaches, "Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another." Colossians 3:13 ~and~ "Forgive not seven times but forgive seventy times seven." -- Matthew 18:21-22 with a god who will torture you for an eternity simply because someone didn't believe in him?
Ah, yes these are just a few examples of the evil god of the bible; god -- through out the bible -- doled out vile, unimaginable, punishments ( disease, famine, plagues, firestorms, killing millions of bad and innocent people, alike) -- continuous acts of heinous, punishments, which, as we all know, was accompanied by the greatest success (biting sarcasm) You would think after the first 30,000,000 earthly souls god destroyed, by punishing them in the flood and the subsequent bloodletting that never changed the minds of his people, he would have finally come to the conclusion his atrocious, loathsome, ways of controlling a people were morbidly inept.
Mon Aug 17, 11:37:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
~continued~
"The best minds will tell you that when a man has begotten a child he is morally bound to tenderly care for it, protect it from hurt, shield it from disease, clothe it, feed it, bear with its waywardness, lay no hand upon it save in kindness and for its own good, and never in any case inflict upon it a wanton cruelty. God's treatment of his earthly children, every day and every night, is the exact opposite of all that, yet those best minds warmly justify these crimes, condone them, excuse them, and indignantly refuse to regard them as crimes at all, when he commits them. Your country and mine is an interesting one, but there is nothing there that is half so interesting as the human mind". -- Mark Twain
And yet you leave your ethics at the door and condone your god when he commands the murder of innocent children and babies -- throughout the bible -- by having them unmercifully, and unjustly, butchered. You must bend over backwards and jump through hoops -- making strained, illogical, over-rationalized arguments, to justfy bible god's evil actions. Your god is the mother of all hypocrites. I'm confused, should we abide by god's commandment of thou shall not murder or not?
The Almalekite massacre, the flood, Job, The massacre of the first born coupled with, ALL the acts of genocide -- in the bible -- commanded or perpetrated by your god, that caused the inexcusable, repulsive suffering of innocent children and babies and their ensuing deaths, demonstrates, the god of the bible, to be nothing more than a made up entity, painfully constructed by fallible humans. He is a mirror into human behavior, at it's worst. The god of the bible, possesses all the contemptible flaws of humanity, an apathetic monster, who (again) makes all genocidal maniacs, combined, pale in comparison -- a being who should be far above and immune to such abhorrent attributes, and should encompass the best of what humanity has to offer, on a level, at least, equaling the magnitude of the universe but sadly, in the end, the god of the bible is far below us.
--S.
Mon Aug 17, 11:39:00 PM 2009
apomate said...
Hi I Am,
Yes, most certainly we frequently study selected portions in any piece of literature. But I'm saying that Steve's presentation in his blog is not accurately representing god as he is portrayed in the bible. But since Steve only implies these things and does not take a stand on my questions, I cannot really prove anything. But I believe that any well-studied literature student would say that Steve presents a poor analysis of god's character as it is presented in the bible. (I'm not addressing the other website you referred to, just this one.)
Regarding your question, << Second of all, how is directly quoting what's in the Bible (giving the full context of each passage) "distorting" it? If the circumstances and reasons the Bible gives for God killing people is provided, then I don't see how it's distortion.>>
My contention would be that Steve is NOT including context. To understand this very foundational portion of the bible requires that one see where god is coming from and where he is going with these people. That means pretty much taking as context the whole bible from Genesis to Revelation. The god that Steve has invented by his implications is NOT the god that is portrayed in the bible as a whole.
Thu Aug 20, 03:01:00 PM 2009
apomate said...
Sconner, I skimmed but didn't read all your post. For every single bad example you come up with, I'm quite sure I can search newspapers, and magazines and find an equally impressive good example. (Similarly for the quotations.) So if in the end you present 1000 bad examples, I could find 1000 good ones and we will have wasted our time and proven nothing. In other words, quantity will not prove anything at all.
Many of your examples do not address your contention that "The bible contends that god is evil." Events that happen in real life, and quotations from people outside the bible have nothing to do with this contention. So give me a couple examples (pick your best one or two) of where the bible itself contends that god is evil and I intend to show that by considering the whole bible one will find reasonable evidence to suggest that the bible in fact does not contend that god is evil.
I better make it known right now that I don't intend to address every single issue that gets piled up here. I will take on one or two at a time, and after a reasonable time we will leave the matter.
Thu Aug 20, 03:23:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
apomate
Sconner, I skimmed but didn't read all your post. For every single bad example you come up with, I'm quite sure I can search newspapers, and magazines and find an equally impressive good example. (Similarly for the quotations.) So if in the end you present 1000 bad examples, I could find 1000 good ones and we will have wasted our time and proven nothing. In other words, quantity will not prove anything at all.
This has become increasingly tiresome. You fucking skimmed and came away with an erroneous and morbidly LAZY conclusion of my arguments.
Read the whole post in context, because as of now you are wasting our time.
Many of your examples do not address your contention that "The bible contends that god is evil." Events that happen in real life, and quotations from people outside the bible have nothing to do with this contention.
EVERYTHING in my post accurately and specifically addresses my contention that the bible-god is evil. Next time try reading the whole thread.
Again, either you lazily skimmed (which you admit) and did NOT digest the arguments OR you do NOT have the intellectual capacity to comprehend what was written -- specifically how my arguments attack your bible-god's character by equating the evil he committed in the bible with a certain perspective that lends verisimilitude to the bible-stories in question.
So give me a couple examples (pick your best one or two) of where the bible itself contends that god is evil and I intend to show that by considering the whole bible one will find reasonable evidence to suggest that the bible in fact does not contend that god is evil.
NO. Read the whole thread, in context, so you know what the fuck you are arguing against.
I better make it known right now that I don't intend to address every single issue that gets piled up here. I will take on one or two at a time, and after a reasonable time we will leave the matter.
Already with the excuses?
I presented a well thought-out, cohesive, detailed argument that shows exactly why I think the god-character in the bible is evil and you chose to skim it, subsequently coming away with an erroneous conclusion of my position.
I'm NOT here to fuck around. Read (examine thoroughly) the whole thread from beginning to end so you can fully understand my position and so you can give me a detailed rebuttal of ALL my points. If you are NOT equipped to handle a discussion of this magnitude, you do NOT have any reason to be debating me and I'll gladly accept your concession, so you can tuck your tail between your legs and bail, for ALL I care.
--S.
Thu Aug 20, 09:45:00 PM 2009
apomate said...
I remind you of my post on August 11: "I will never attempt to address the quantity of questions you bring up in a single post, so relax and save your time. My feeble mind works on very few issues at a time." --- So I most certainly will not attempt 8 simultaneous posts. (If I did you would respond with 16 more.) Your approach creates only confusion.
So if you are willing to present one issue in a single post I'll address any that you wish to bring up.
The first issue you brought up is a real-life event that is not in the bible. This event shows the horrible evil that humans can do in real life. It does not show that "The bible contends that god is evil" which is the challenge. In this challenge we are talking about the bible as literature and about god as a character in this literature, so our evidence must come from within that same literature. Is this correct, or not?
Sat Aug 22, 08:43:00 AM 2009
apomate said...
Ahh, Sconner I see one source of confusion I didn't notice before. We started out with the topic "The bible contends that god is evil." But now that topic has changed to "...why I [Sconner] think the god-character in the bible is evil." [from your second to last paragraph] These two topics are NOT the same. Indeed I'm sure that everything you wrote probably does address the second topic very carefully. But it does NOT address the first one, which is the topic I agreed to.
Sat Aug 22, 08:59:00 AM 2009
sconnor said...
apomate,
I remind you of my post on August 11: "I will never attempt to address the quantity of questions you bring up in a single post, so relax and save your time. My feeble mind works on very few issues at a time." --- So I most certainly will not attempt 8 simultaneous posts. (If I did you would respond with 16 more.) Your approach creates only confusion.
Excuses, excuses, excuses -- in the amount of time you have used ballyhooing about how detailed and cohesive my arguments are, you could have been at least half way through them by now. You are spending ALL your time telling me why you can't address my arguments. Your lack of intellectual prowess and/or your inability to address my arguments are not my concern, If you can't handle it -- I could give a rat's ass. I have used this approach on several sites, in many debates and there was NO confusion.
So if you are willing to present one issue in a single post I'll address any that you wish to bring up.
Nope. I presented ALL my issues -- if you are incapable of starting at the beginning, addressing those issues one by one -- it's hardly my concern.
The first issue you brought up is a real-life event that is not in the bible. This event shows the horrible evil that humans can do in real life.
Exactly. Tell me something I don't know -- you little time waster you.
It does not show that "The bible contends that god is evil" which is the challenge. In this challenge we are talking about the bible as literature and about god as a character in this literature, so our evidence must come from within that same literature. Is this correct, or not?
My contention is: in the bible -- god is an evil character. Just because you came away with a different understanding is again NO concern of mine.
I used events in this literature to show exactly why I felt the god of the bible is evil and shed light on those events by challenging you to go deeper into the reality of these events to understand how these people SUFFERED. I did this by giving real-life examples so it would lend a certain verisimilitude to the events in the bible.
This is my approach; these are my arguments; and they are well within the parameters of contending the bible-god character is evil.
So spare me you blubbering bullshit excuses and put up or shut up.
Ahh, Sconner I see one source of confusion I didn't notice before. We started out with the topic "The bible contends that god is evil." But now that topic has changed to "...why I [Sconner] think the god-character in the bible is evil." [from your second to last paragraph] These two topics are NOT the same. Indeed I'm sure that everything you wrote probably does address the second topic very carefully. But it does NOT address the first one, which is the topic I agreed to.
The topics are the same; you are just splitting hairs so you can use it as a feeble excuse as to why you'll bail.
When you say, "the bible contends god is not evil" it is also an admission why you [apomate] thinks the god-character in the bible is not evil.
Again, there is ample support from the bible as evidenced by god's atrocious actions and the immense, unimaginable SUFFERING that ensued -- I just put it in the context of reality, where we can know exactly how these poor abused characters, in the bible, actually SUFFERED at the hands of the evil bible-god.
Again, put up or sod off -- you whiny excuse-monger.
--S.
Sat Aug 22, 12:39:00 PM 2009
apomate said...
Very well, amigo. I will not bother you anymore. Thank you for your reply.
Sat Aug 22, 02:40:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
apomate
Very well, amigo. I will not bother you anymore. Thank you for your reply.
...and thank you very much for wasting my time. (sarcasm)
Well, of course, you're going to tuck your tail between your legs and jump ship -- your deluded myopic, understanding of the bible is seen through the rose colored glasses of christianinty and when push comes to shove, the EVIL bible-god character; the sadistic torturer of souls; the one who caused the unjust, misery and morbid SUFFERING of his earthly children is thoroughly indefensible.
This coupled with you being easily confused, unprepared and overwhelmed with my arguments just goes to show you -- you're desperately out of your league.
Don't let the proverbial door hit you in your incompetent, whiny excuse-laden ass on the way out.
Back to your bunker of bibles and rose colored christian glasses where you can bask in morbid ignorance, wallow in deluded superstitious explanations of the world and where you can willfully ignore that your stretched-thin rationalizations can NOT -- in ANY WAY -- justify or condone god's vile evil actions in the bible.
May reason pull you out of the deep dark mucky swamp of christianity.
--S.
Sat Aug 22, 08:53:00 PM 2009
apomate said...
Well, I'm sure not going to leave your additional assertions without comment. But
I'll be brief.
Yes all humans look through colored glasses. I know of no exceptions.
And yes, it is not difficult to overwhelm someone - but that doesn't mean you have the truth. It may well be an immense pile of unproven opinions, theories, assumptions, and false logic that makes it exceedingly difficult to find truth.
There are three issues you are ignoring.
1) You assume without proof that it is evil for god to end someone's life. The bible as literature gives the character god in the bible absolute justification to give life and take it away. Can you show anywhere that the bible condemns god for taking away life?
2) You fail to see that much (though not all) of the suffering that bothers you is man's own choice. In almost every case man had both ample warning AND the option to avoid the suffering, but opted instead for his selfish desires. But you absolve man of all responsibility for his decisions and indeed blame god for mans decisions. (Shall we blame Henry Ford for all the deaths that have been caused by automobile accidents?)
3) You assume without proof that all suffering is automatically evil. There are abundant examples in the bible as literature and in real life as well of suffering that brings about maturity of character, or in other cases prolongs life. I'm willing to suggest that we all NEED to suffer to some degree or we would be extremely self-centered and totally spoiled rotten.
(I agree that causing suffering just to see suffering, that killing just to kill are not justifiable. But no one has proven that god is doing this, and in fact there is evidence to the contrary. When god takes the life of some person in the bible it is ALWAYS justified, and is NEVER simply god killing only for the sake of killing.)
Think about these things, Sconner, before you reject them. They address many of your questions.
Tue Aug 25, 07:04:00 AM 2009
sconnor said...
apomate
And yes, it is not difficult to overwhelm someone - but that doesn't mean you have the truth. It may well be an immense pile of unproven opinions, theories, assumptions, and false logic that makes it exceedingly difficult to find truth.
Waaaaaaaaaaaah -- more excuses. More time wasted.
Curious, notice how you make this accusation but you NEVER specifically addressed ANY of my arguments to show that they were just an immense pile of unproven opinions, theories, assumptions, and false logic that makes it exceedingly difficult to find truth.
1) You assume without proof that it is evil for god to end someone's life. The bible as literature gives the character god in the bible absolute justification to give life and take it away. Can you show anywhere that the bible condemns god for taking away life?
Dip shit -- if you ACTUALLY read my arguments; if you could ACTUALLY read, you would comprehend that NONE of my arguments are claiming god is evil because he took away the lives he created.
2) You fail to see that much (though not all) of the suffering that bothers you is man's own choice. In almost every case man had both ample warning AND the option to avoid the suffering, but opted instead for his selfish desires.
Doesn't explain why god still caused millions of INNOCENT people to suffer in unimaginable ways.
But you absolve man of all responsibility for his decisions and indeed blame god for mans decisions. (Shall we blame Henry Ford for all the deaths that have been caused by automobile accidents?)
Strawman. Should we blame Hitler because he ordered the unjustified brutal killing and egregious morbid suffering of god's chosen people?
I contend that god is more evil than hitler and I argued that -- you know the ones you completely IGNORED.
3) You assume without proof that all suffering is automatically evil. There are abundant examples in the bible as literature and in real life as well of suffering that brings about maturity of character, or in other cases prolongs life. I'm willing to suggest that we all NEED to suffer to some degree or we would be extremely self-centered and totally spoiled rotten.
I didn't assume anything. I specifically addressed the stories in the bible where bible-god caused the unnecessary evil suffering of his earthly children -- the arguments you chose to ignore like a little bitch and decided to vomit up bullshit strawman now to diverge from my germane and salient arguments.
As for your bullshit "suffering builds character argument" -- it just another strawman and can -- in no way -- be used against the arguments I presented against the evil bible-god. In the examples I provided he wasn't using suffering to build character or prolong life. Give it up; you got NOTHING. You are floundering in a sea of bullshit.
Tue Aug 25, 11:21:00 AM 2009
sconnor said...
~continued~
(I agree that causing suffering just to see suffering, that killing just to kill are not justifiable. But no one has proven that god is doing this, and in fact there is evidence to the contrary. When god takes the life of some person in the bible it is ALWAYS justified, and is NEVER simply god killing only for the sake of killing.)
None of my arguments had ANYTHING to do with god killing for the sake of killing. ALL my arguments were about bible-god causing the unjustified, mass, unimaginable, vile suffering against his earthly children.
Think about these things, Sconner, before you reject them. They address many of your questions.
They did NOT address shit. Not ONE of my arguments were addressed, specifically. In every case you completely missed the major tenants of my arguments and you did an end-around to skirt my points.
The cold hard fact of the situation is you can NOT specifically address my arguments because what your evil bible-god did by causing his earthly children to egregiously suffer, is thoroughly INDEFENSIBLE.
Your mode of operandi is revealing: because you could NOT specifically refute the arguments I presented you had to resort to one bullshit strawman after another completely diverging and misrepresenting my premise -- this speaks volumes.
Again, either address my arguments, specifically or fuck off.
--S.
Tue Aug 25, 11:25:00 AM 2009
apomate said...
I have now finished reading your 8-post message of last week.
First, I am indeed sorry for the suffering and loss you and your family experienced in the death of your son, Conner. I can now better understand a little why you feel what you do, but because I have not been through any experience like that I obviously cannot know what you have suffered through.
I do wish there was something I could say that would be an encouragement to you, your daughter, your mother, and the others you mentioned that were deeply affected. Suffice to say that I do hope you all succeed in finding a way through your grief and that perhaps during this time you can be of comfort to others.
Second, you raise some worthwhile and interesting points about the flood. I have thought much more about the matter. You said: "In the examples I provided he wasn't using suffering to build character or prolong life." The more I think about your statement and about the flood, the more I begin to challenge your statement and to suggest that perhaps god in fact DID intend for the flood to have a "character building" effect -- both for the immediate survivors and those who lived after them. (I also challenge your assertion that god's actions in the book of Job weren't for character building - but that is a separate issue.)
Thu Aug 27, 07:01:00 AM 2009
sconnor said...
apomate
I have now finished reading your 8-post message of last week.
Too bad you didn't do this at the get go -- it would have saved tons of time and it would have alleviated ALL your whiny excuse making and fallacious arguments that had NOTHING to do with the specifics of my actual arguments.
First, I am indeed sorry for the suffering and loss you and your family experienced in the death of your son, Conner. I can now better understand a little why you feel what you do, but because I have not been through any experience like that I obviously cannot know what you have suffered through. I do wish there was something I could say that would be an encouragement to you, your daughter, your mother, and the others you mentioned that were deeply affected. Suffice to say that I do hope you all succeed in finding a way through your grief and that perhaps during this time you can be of comfort to others.
I appreciate your empathy in the matter, but I was not soliciting it. I used this particular real-life anguish to give the stories (the first born in Egypt story in particular) a certain verisimilitude, which again you simply can NOT refute.
Second, you raise some worthwhile and interesting points about the flood. I have thought much more about the matter. You said: "In the examples I provided he wasn't using suffering to build character or prolong life." The more I think about your statement and about the flood, the more I begin to challenge your statement and to suggest that perhaps god in fact DID intend for the flood to have a "character building" effect -- both for the immediate survivors and those who lived after them. (I also challenge your assertion that god's actions in the book of Job weren't for character building - but that is a separate issue.)
Oh man -- again you are floundering,; desperately reaching for straws.
You do know what it means to construct a strawman? You do comprehend it is a fallacious tactic?
You are constructing a strawman because you can NOT address the specifics of my arguments, so now you must make up another bogus argument and attack that.
You have added your own speculative interpretation of "building character" that has NOTHING to do with the story contextually nor does it address my arguments specifically. In a desperate effort to salvage your god-concept's reputation, you have simply pulled this out of your ass, offering conjecture over the actual context of the story. These stories in NO way deal with building character -- outside your rather limited speculative imagination.
You now -- in essence -- are offering a fallacious argument: "what god really meant by causing the mass suffering of his earthly children is............"
Again, you got shit.
Furthermore considering your strawman: inconclusive non-evidence; nothing but guesswork reasoning about "character building": If this were to be the case (which it is NOT) then you just painted a portrait of your god-character as an evil sadistic torturer of souls.
You are telling me god is using suffering -- heinous, vile, unimaginable mass suffering -- as a tool? -- where his earthly children egregiously suffered so supposedly Noah and his family's and others character could be built? Countless millions suffered in unimaginable ways just so someone could have their character built?
Are you fucking NUTS?
If god is using suffering as a tool then that god should be held in contempt for his repugnant actions.
I mean -- would you give one of your children a disease causing him to suffer egregiously, so your other child could have his character built? This questions is rhetorical.
Would you maliciously drown your one child so your other child's character could be built? This questions is rhetorical.
Now for fuck's sake -- BAG the bullshit STRAWMEN and go back to the beginning and address my arguments specifically, one at a time, without your incessant bullshit diverging tactics. Waiting......................
--S.
Thu Aug 27, 01:38:00 PM 2009
apomate said...
Thanks, but no thanks. I've said what I wish to say, and seen what I came to see. I'm not up to the war, so I'll concede that to you. Peace to you.
Thu Aug 27, 06:21:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
apomate
Thanks, but no thanks. I've said what I wish to say, and seen what I came to see...
...which is: the morbidly evil god-character -- from the fictional stories of the bible -- caused the unjust, vile MASS suffering of his earthly children as established by my arguments which you could NOT refute, specifically.
I'm not up to the war, so I'll concede that to you.
No; you're not being honest with yourself -- It's painfully, obvious, you can NOT refute my germane and salient arguments, specifically.
The mind virus of christianity still has it's leash on you, which keeps you shackled to your romanticized version of your god-concept, where you must bury your head in the sand like an ostrich, ignoring the specifics of my arguments and make feeble excuses and bloated rationalizations to condone your god's evil actions and salvage his malignant, vile reputation.
Now the only question is: will you ever be honest with yourself and admit that what I wrote above is tenable?
An extraordinarily good read on the subject of suffering and the bible is: GOD'S PROBLEM -- How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer by Bart D. Ehrman
I'm not sure why I suggested this book to you -- It will be a hard read, with your head buried in the sand and all.
May reason find you.
--S.
Thu Aug 27, 09:40:00 PM 2009
LEWE said...
Everyone has bias. Only when we admit this can we have a profitable conversation. When you mentioned that John 3:16 is very often spoken out of context, you made a categorical mistake which painfully admitted your bias. You quoted John 3:18, without first mentioning the verse before it, which distinctly puts IT IN CONTEXT. Verse 17 of John 3 establishes God's nature driving principle, that he does not take positive action to condemn, but rather to save. This verse 17 establishes verse 18, without it 18 is an incomplete thought. The curious thing about man is that we spend our lives in self-condemning action and then blame God for the consequence. This is our pride.
P.S. notice that I did not quote verse 17. I think there is too much non-didactic mudslinging going on nowadays. "go and learn what this means" - Matthew 9:13
Fri Feb 08, 03:14:00 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
23 July 2009God sent fiery serpents to bite the people for complaining about the lack of food and water
When it comes to this Bible story, there are only two kinds of believers: those who have never heard of it, and those who are embarrassed by it.
Here's the story.
The Israelites began to complain about the lack of food and water.
And the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way. 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. Numbers 21:4-5
So God sent fiery serpents to bite the people.
And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people... Numbers 21:6a
And many of the people died.
... and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Numbers 21:6b
Then the people apologized to Moses and God for complaining, and they asked Moses to do something to get rid of God's nasty fiery serpents.
Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. Numbers 21:7
God told Moses what to do. Make a fiery serpent out of brass (they had lots of that lying around) and put it on a pole. Then when a bitten person looks at it, he or she won't die. (Only God could come up with a plan like that!)
And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. Numbers 21:8
So Moses made a brass snake and put it on a pole. And it worked just like God said it would.
And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived. Numbers 21:8
Now that's a lot more entertaining than a damned holy war massacre, isn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is a believer who is actually proud of this story, I'd love to hear about it. The rest of you can just go on being embarrassed by it.
Well, I guess there are some believers that like this story, since it is highlighted in the Green Bible. I bet that's because it has snakes in it. God loves snakes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's next killing: Phbinehas' double murder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/23/2009 07:18:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
43 comments:
busterggi said...
Um, Yahweh, no one was complaining about you, they were complaining about what a lousy leader Moses was. I know he was your pet kiss-ass but don't you think this was a bit of an overreaction?
Fri Jul 24, 06:02:00 AM 2009
Matt said...
I love reading your accounts of God's killings. Keep up the good work.
Fri Jul 24, 08:50:00 AM 2009
Randy said...
I think that you need a running scoreboard at the top of your page. Like a McDonalds' sign. "Over one billion killed"
Fri Jul 24, 10:18:00 AM 2009
Cristiano SamZZ said...
Another great one Steve, but it's not numbers 24, but numbers 21.
Fri Jul 24, 11:37:00 AM 2009
Misty said...
I always thought this was a weird one. So much for the 2nd Commandment which forbids the creation of graven images.
Also, God hates golden calves to be sure, but brass snakes are cool. Why? A feminist theory of this myth might say that's because a calf represents a more feminine symbol of the divine since cows produce milk and calves are fed upon milk. Humans who worship bovine images worship feminine deities, whereas humans who worship serpentine images worship masculine images since the snake is quite phallic. The Israelite religion is very male-centric. Another theory of this myth might say that calves were associated with Baal, an older Hebrew god whom the Israelites were trying to disassociate themselves from. But what of the snake? A remnant of Eden? A fascinating myth, so long as a person doesn't believe it to be fact. Such a literal belief would be the real biting, fiery snake!
Fri Jul 24, 02:07:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
I was going to respond to each "killing" at the summary for the book, but for whatever reason, I felt compelled to comment here.
You seem to think you are either "proud" or "embarrassed" by something. That's ridiculous. This is one of the stories that I really couldn't care less about. Of course I've heard it (read it, too), and I'm not "embarrassed" by it. I've never been "embarrassed" by a Bible story. Disgusted, yes (conquest of Midian, conquest of Canaan, etc), but those are all other stories for another time.
When you get a story like this, you can approach it as a reformist, conservative, or atheist.
The atheist sees the story and says "That's bad. All they did was complain. They didn't deserve to die."
The conservative can approach it a couple ways:
The first is the "You can't question G-d" way. This is a terrible method, because it's simplistic and narrow-minded. The second way would be "Perhaps there are deeper reasons and the people who died actually got what they deserved". In the latter, one could argue that G-d is entitled to kill anybody, because he knows what their deepest thoughts, emotions, etc are.
The reformist approaches this in a couple of ways, too. One is "Well, the Torah is fictional stories based on real stories". I don't like this method because it brings up the question of "What's real, and what isn't?"
The other method for a reformist, and the one that I favor, is "The Bible was written by human hands and therefore occasionally ascribes events to G-d that might not have actually been divine acts." This view believes that the Torah and bible (Or at least the OT, which is what Jews believe in) were compiled from existing documents, although these documents were recorded at the time of the even, or close to it. In this view, this story would've been written by a bystander (Unless G-d and Moses don't know their pronouns). If a bunch of people were complaining about G-d and Moses, and all of a sudden, a bunch of snakes bit them, wouldn't tribal religious fanatics believe it to be the wrath of G-d?
In this view, the way it happened would be:
People get killed by snakes. Moses prays. G-d saves a bunch of people. Everyone thinks G-d smote them for complaining.
This is only a problem for literalists (or, perhaps, atheists who would like to paint up the G-d of the Bible as cruel).
By the way, the area in which they were traveling in this story has an abundance of snakes.
Fri Jul 24, 02:36:00 PM 2009
Markus Arelius said...
Snakes! Seriously?
You do have to admire God's angry, raging alcoholic-like whims. I wonder, you know, after everyone is supersaturated with snake venom, whether he suddenly awakes from his dark side rage and asks the question...."Gee, did I really do all that?".
Snakes? Come on! Why not bring in some sharks with freaking LazerrRR Beams on the Heads?
Fri Jul 24, 02:41:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Thanks for the correction, Cirstiano, I've changed the chapter reference to Numbers 21.
Fri Jul 24, 03:07:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Oh, so you don't think it actually happened, eh Brendan? I guess you're not really a believer then. (You just pretend to be.)
And you you're OK with the Torah saying that God sent fiery serpents to bite and kill people for complaining about not having food and water. The Torah has lots of vile, stupid stories that never happened in it, and this is just one of them. You're not embarrassed by it all.
Is there anything in the Torah that you do believe in, Brendan? Or do you just pretend all the way through?
Fri Jul 24, 03:15:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
I figured someone would say that. I suppose you've never been to a Reform synagogue before. That's pretty much what they believe. Or are you calling reform Jews "pretenders"? I find that kind of offensive, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who would. I did not say I didn't believe it happened. In fact, it most likely did happen. I was questioning the involvement of G-d. You don't have to be a literalist to be a "believer".
I'm really not sure how to respond to this second part here. The Torah actually cites its sources (As does much of the Bible). You can't say none of it ever happened. I guess I could buy the argument that the first 10 generations are completely habricated (I believe this is the figure I read recently), but the Torah reports on things outside of the Israelite kingdoms. The Israelites would have no knowledge of these things.
This is what I *do* believe, Steve:
Bereishit is compiled from several documents. The accuracy of such documents is something that I am not 100% certain of.
Shemot is a recording of actual events by various people (scribes?).
Vayikra is a recording of Moses speaking things which G-d told him. It was recorded by scribes.
B'midbar is a record kept by a large group of scribes.
D'varim is a record of sermons which Moses gave shortly before his death. There is a possibility that it was fabricated by King Josiah (he was recorded as having "found the book of Moses"), but I don't believe that.
Beyond the Torah, Yehoshua and Shoftim were recorded by various scribes, and compiled into single sources during the United Monarchy. Shmuel, Melachim, and Divrei Hayamim all appear to be compiled of documents written during the United Monarchy. They were compiled into documents after the destruction of the first temple. Beyond that, everything, with the exception of Iyov, was written at the times they are supposed to have been written, by the people who supposedly wrote them. Iyov is something I've never been to sure about, and nobody ever has been. The Talmud records rabbis having mixed opinions as to the authenticity of Job, and that was 2,000 years ago. Are the rabbis of the Talmud "pretenders", too?
Misty:
The snake is not being "worshipped". A few hundred years later, Israelites began worshipping the statue, so it was destroyed. The remnants of the statue have been uncovered through archeaology. The idea is that the snake catches the eyes of the people, and they look up, to G-d.
Fri Jul 24, 04:24:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Brendan,
You said, "I did not say I didn't believe it happened. In fact, it most likely did happen. I was questioning the involvement of G-d."
You believe that it happened? You believe that God sent fiery serpents (snakes, guinea worms, whatever) to punish the people for complaining about not having enough to eat and drink? That many of the people died from the bites? And that God told Moses to make a serpent out of brass so that when people looked at it they wouldn't die from the bites of the serpents that he sent to kill them for complaining? Is that what you believe, Brendan?
I don't believe that you believe any of these things happened. You don't believe it any more than I do. You are just pretending. And you can't even admit it to yourself.
Is there someone who really does believe this story? A believer who is proud of God for the way he behaved in Numbers 21:4-8? Who is glad this story is in the Bible?
If so, please tell us about it.
Fri Jul 24, 04:49:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Again, Steve, your comment is filled with ignorance that's downright offensive to Reform Jews. The Union For Reform Judaism's commentary of the Torah asserts the same thing (actually, it goes even further).
Why would I "pretend" to be religious? That's a downright stupid thing to say.
In fact, I told you exactly what I believe truly happened in this incident. Maybe if you tried reading my comments...
Fri Jul 24, 04:55:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
You're not pretending to be religious, Brendan. You're pretending to believe in Bible stories that you know aren't true. And you're glad they're not true, because if they were, it would mean that God is a monster. And you'd prefer to believe that God is (more or less) good.
Did God send the serpents to punish people for complaining about the lack of food and water, Brendan? Did he tell Moses to make a brass serpent to magically heal the people after they were bitten? Did he stop killing people when he saw the brass snake?
If you can't answer these questions with an unequivocal "Yes", then you don't believe this Bible story actually happened. (And, therefore, the Bible is lying when it says that it did.)
Fri Jul 24, 05:51:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Again, Steve, I'd like to point out that this is the belief of Reform Jews.
But since you think you've got me trapped, I'll bite. Let's say every single "killing" happened exactly as the Bible says. That doesn't make G-d a monster. I've read pretty much the entire "cruelty" section of the SAB (as well as the "insults to homosexuals" and "insults to women" sections). People do terrible things in the Bible. But G-d? G-d's "killings" all have rational explanations (in at least 2 cases I've seen, no one actually died, but I'll get to that later). Since there isn't a complicated answer to this story, specifically, I reinterpreted it based on the words of my rabbi.
But I'll play your game here: If it actually happened exactly the way the Bible says, then perhaps the people were on the verge of attacking and killing Moses. It is a Jewish belief that it is permissible to kill someone if that person is attempting to kill another person. If it didn't happen the way the Bible says, the Bible didn't "lie". Again, I have never believed it to be the inerrant word of G-d, and therefore it wouldn't be a "lie" so much as a "mistake" by the Israelite scribes.
Even the Bible stories that I find disgusting I believe happened. The massacre of the Midianites has got to be the most gruesome Bible story ever. I believe it happened.
I did not pretend to believe this story the exact way it was written to have happened, but I am open to the possibility that it did occur exactly the way it was written.
Fri Jul 24, 07:05:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
So Brendan, just what does Reformist mean?
That you can decide what's true & false in the bible by whether or not you personally like it?
That you can interpret the bible to mean what you like rather than what it says?
That belief & faith are just buzzwords for personal preferences?
Fri Jul 24, 07:39:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
You know, the only time I found this mentioned in a positive light in church was in reference to John, chapter 3, where Jesus compares himself to the brass snake (don't know why; he just does).
In hindsight, not the best thing in the world to be comparing yourself to if you're the "Prince of Peace" (wink, wink).
Fri Jul 24, 07:40:00 PM 2009
I am the wise fool. said...
This may not apply to Brendan, given that he is Jewish, but let's not forget that the Bible asserts that Jesus believed in this story too!
John 3:14
"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up," NIV
In fact, it seems that Jesus not only believed in the story, we see that the concept behind it was central in God's plan for mankind, a "shadow" of things to come.
That is what I call a menacing shadow! :-)
(I also find it increadibly ironic that the snake was used, given that Christianity associates serpent symbols with Satan.)
Sat Jul 25, 07:31:00 AM 2009
Misty said...
Brendan, You wrote: Misty:
The snake is not being "worshipped". [sic]
However, I think there is indication that it was being worshiped. John 3:14-15 says "Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, in order that everyone who has faith may in him have eternal life." Jesus is being compared to Moses' snake. Jesus is clearly someone who is worshiped by the writer here. So, if he is worshiping Jesus, he clearly understands the snake to be an object of worship as well, and is using that snake to illustrate Jesus' divinity and life giving power. Even if you do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, you can see from the writing of one who considers him to be divine that Moses' snake was also considered divine, and an object of worship. If Jesus is "just as" or equal to Moses' snake in the wilderness, then that snake was surely an object of worship.
This may be objectionable to folks who would never worship snake statues today, but it is in the Bible, both the Hebrew and New Testament. And it seems to have been perfectly acceptable back then, despite the prohibitions against graven objects, and gods other than Yahweh.
Sat Jul 25, 01:13:00 PM 2009
Ian G. said...
There are motherf'n SNAKES in the motherf'n desert!
Someone needs to make a movie about the Book of Numbers starring Samuel L. Jackson.
Sat Jul 25, 05:35:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
I'm not sure if this comment went through last night, but since it isn't up after 24 hours, I'll assume it didn't go through (that happens sometimes).
Again, Steve, I'd like to point out that this is the belief of Reform Jews.
but let's say every single "killing" happened exactly as the Bible says. That doesn't make G-d a monster. I've read pretty much the entire "cruelty" section of the SAB (as well as the "insults to homosexuals" and "insults to women" sections). People do terrible things in the Bible. But G-d? G-d's "killings" all have rational explanations (in at least 2 cases I've seen, no one actually died, but I'll get to that later). Since there isn't a complicated answer to this story, specifically, I reinterpreted it based on the words of my rabbis.
But I'll play your game here: If it actually happened exactly the way the Bible says, then perhaps the people were on the verge of attacking and killing Moses. There is a Jewish belief that it is permissible to kill someone if that person is attempting to kill another person.
Also, if I didn't really believe the Torah & Bible, why would I be defending it?
Sat Jul 25, 08:59:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Also, to add to that last comment, the way I phrased my beliefs about this story, the Bible wouldn't be "lying" so much as the scribes recording it would be "mistaken", since I do not believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of G-d.
Sat Jul 25, 09:01:00 PM 2009
madcat said...
Great job in opening up the christians' eyes.
They need to start to see how Yahweh and his people were so vicious.
Ya like so idolatry is wrong but if YAHWEH or his beloved followers do it then it's OK?
MURDER, rape, stealing are all immoral but if YAHWEH does it, it's all good?
What a sick god.
Sat Jul 25, 11:22:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Brendan,
"I did not pretend to believe this story the exact way it was written to have happened, but I am open to the possibility that it did occur exactly the way it was written."
OK. So you don't know whether you believe it or not.
God might have killed the people who complained about the lack of food and water by sending serpents to bite them. Or he might not have.
God might have told Moses to make a brass serpent to cure people from the the serpents' bites. Or he might not have.
And the people who were bitten by the serpents might have been cured by looking at the brass serpent that God told Moses to make. Or they might not have.
You're 100% OK with it whatever happened.
It might have happened or it might not have happened. You believe it either way, with equal fervor. (Do you believe that it both happened and didn't happen, Brendan?)
Sun Jul 26, 08:36:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Misty:
I'm Jewish. I don't believe in the NT.
Wise Fool:
The NT claims several OT events are precursors to Jesus.
busterggi:
"Reformist" means that you are allowed room for interpretation. You have a problem with it only because it stands in the way of your "Bible is cruel" ideology.
Steve:
I am open to the possibility that it happened the way it is written. I don't believe it did. I am 100% OK with it if it happened the way the Bible says it did. I am 100% OK with it if I didn't. In regards to this story, I believe that G-d may or may not have sent the snakes. I believe everything else happened the way it says.
As I explained, I don't find it cruel if G-d sent snakes after a bunch of people, because if he did it would have been to stop them from attacking Moses.
Sun Jul 26, 09:49:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
""Reformist" means that you are allowed room for interpretation."
So I was right, you pick & choose to believe the parts you like & ignore the rest.
Thank you for an honest answer.
Mon Jul 27, 05:34:00 AM 2009
Brendan said...
busterggi:
"Pick and choose" is a line that's been recycled over, and over, and over again. Try coming up with original material.
I don't "pick and choose", especially not the way Penn & Teller (and Jack Black, etc, etc, etc) say it. I acknowledge that all these things are there. I talk about them.
Going through the Bible, I don't say "Hmmm, I don't like that, therefore I don't believe it." I happen to think this story in particular could've happened differently than it was written. No, if I find something I "don't like", I try to figure out what the meaning is and why it's there. Being allowed to interpret isn't "Picking and choosing", it's being rational. The book is somewhere around 3,000 years old. Interpretation is completely justified.
Mon Jul 27, 09:10:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Thanks matt311 and wisefool for pointing out Jesus' belief in the silly snake-on-a-pole story of Numbers 31. I've added a note in the SAB to John 3:14.
Mon Jul 27, 09:55:00 AM 2009
Misty said...
Brennan, you wrote:
I'm Jewish. I don't believe in the NT.
You don't have to believe in the NT to see that the folks back then worshiped the snake. The point I made was not that you had to believe in the NT or the Christian Messiah, but that Jesus, an object of worship, was compared to the snake, a previous object of worship. See the relation? Brennan, neither do I believe in the NT as anything other than an interesting collection of myths, just as the Hebrew Bible is. However, I can clearly read those myths and see which objects written of are considered objects of worship. Moses' snake is one of those. Read the story again. I'm not attacking you, just challenging you to read the story for what it is.
Mon Jul 27, 03:38:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Misty: The statue was actually destroyed in the 7th century BCE because too many people were worshiping it.
In regards to the story, Rashi wrote:
"Our Rabbis said, Does a snake cause death or life? However, when Israel looked heavenward and subjected their hearts to their Father in heaven, they would be healed, but if not, they would waste away."
Interesting side note that I just noticed, Rashi also says:
"Heb. עַלנֵס, on a post, perche in French. Similarly,“and like a flagpole (וְכַנֵּס) on a hill” (Isa. 30:17);“will I raise My standard (נִסִּי) ” (ibid. 49:22);“raise a banner” (נֵס) (ibid. 13:2). Since it stands high, and serves as a signal and is to be seen, it is called נֵס (a sign)."
The purpose is simply to draw attention.
Mon Jul 27, 04:10:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
Brendan, Brendan, Brendan, you can use levels of rationality or likliness to pick & choose what you believe but you're still picking & choosing.
Just be honest and admit it.
Mon Jul 27, 04:11:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Busterggi:
Why don't you get your own damn lines? The phrase "pick & choose" has been beaten to death.
I use rationality to interpret. Interpreting is different than the concept of "picking and choosing", in the sense that "Picking and choosing" is simply denying that there's bad things in the Bible, where as interpretation is used to determine why they're there. There's a major difference between the two, and besides, I've even said that I'd be open to the possibility that it did actually happen. If that's "picking and choosing", then I must be the worst "pick & choose"-er ever.
Mon Jul 27, 05:32:00 PM 2009
Markus Arelius said...
If I interpret what someone has said or written, I'm explaining the meaning of it, or translating it for others to understand what was written or said. I'm not necessarily answering the question why they said or wrote it.
We read this passage and it's pretty easy to interpret what happened and some meaning or underlying main idea from it. For example, what I gleaned from it is: Question God and you will suffer dire consequences.
Got it.
That's one thing. Now the question why. Why did God kill these people (men and women) who were complaining about lack of food and water and do it in such a horrifying manner (by poisonous snake bite)?
How are we to apply and use this passage in modern day 21st century life?
It just comes across as pointless fear mongering to me in the form of "Believe in God or else bad things will happen to you".
So are there any good reasons to believe in God other than blackmail?
Mon Jul 27, 10:02:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
brendan,
No, if I find something I "don't like", I try to figure out what the meaning is and why it's there. Being allowed to interpret isn't "Picking and choosing", it's being rational.
Your not being rational; you're rationalizing -- there's a massive distinction. I wonder if you can discern that distinction?
--S.
Mon Jul 27, 11:46:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Markus:
Go back and read all my comments again.
I'll make it easy for you and give you the answer again:
A bunch of restless, pissed off, primitive people are getting mad at Moses. Perhaps on the verge of rebellion, which would end in the murder of Moses. Without Moses, they'd have no leader and would surely die in the wilderness.
G-d saved the Israelites by sending snakes after some of them.
And your gleaning- that's not true at all!
You're supposed to question G-d! Think of Abraham and Moses both question G-d on moral grounds, and they were among his favorite people on Earth. Job also questioned G-d, and G-d wound up siding with him in the end.
Sconner:
I suppose in a way you might be right. That doesn't mean it isn't rational to interpret things.
Tue Jul 28, 10:37:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
You've come a long way, Brendan!
First you say you're not sure what to think. But you're 100% OK with it whatever happened.
"In regards to this story, I believe that G-d may or may not have sent the snakes."
Now you think it happened just like it said in the Bible.
"G-d saved the Israelites by sending snakes after some of them."
Tue Jul 28, 11:08:00 AM 2009
busterggi said...
Brendan is just reinterpreting as he goes along.
Its happened when he wants it to have happened and didn't happen when he doesn't want it to have happened.
That's what make it a miracle.
Tue Jul 28, 11:44:00 AM 2009
Brendan said...
Actually, Steve, my position is no different than before. I suppose my last comment wasn't very clear, but I was just explaining to Markus how it could have been a completely justified action. I had done that already, but since Markus missed it, I figured I'd re-post it. Markus asked "why" G-d may have done it, and since he wouldn't take my answer (at least I assume, since he was attacking my "interpretation" stance), I offered another possibility. I still believe it didn't happen, and I'm still 100% fine with it either way.
Tue Jul 28, 01:07:00 PM 2009
Misty said...
We all interpret. Modern literary theorists say that a person cannot read a passage without interpreting it. But, for this conversation, how about this question: is there a difference between interpretation and speculation? If something is not written in the Bible, for example, the idea that these Israelites were going to possibly kill or attack Moses, is that idea an interpretation of the story, or is it speculation? What do you think?
Tue Jul 28, 01:17:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Yes, Misty, you could say that. But think about this:
They're primitive people. Moses himself, however close to G-d, is still just a tribal leader. It's clear that they're all angry, and therefore violent.
It is speculation, yes, but it is based on knowledge of human behavior, and the time period. People today still kill leaders in rebellions. You don't think in 1300 BCE that angry, frustrated people would attack and kill their leader if they weren't satisfied? They still do it today!
Tue Jul 28, 04:21:00 PM 2009
David said...
* I'm a believer. I knew of this account in the bible, and I'm not ashamed of it. You can see my comment in the 25th killing for more background.
"The Israelites began to complain about the lack of food and water."
Seriously? They walked across the bed of the Red Sea as if on dry ground, and they want to know why Moses freed them from bondage in Egypt? Moses didn't do it. God did. That miracle wasn't enough to give them faith in Him. They needed to overcome another trial. He gave them one. It worked (for the time being).
"...we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us."
Naturally, the symbol of the brass snake was a type or foreshadowing of the coming of Christ. Looking to Him can save us from our spritual wounds the way looking upon the snake healed the israelites of their mortal wounds.
There are two ways that we can develop our faith: 1) humble ourselves 2) the Lord can humble us. The lesson here is that the former is much preferable to the latter.
Fri Jul 31, 02:14:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
david
There are two ways that we can develop our faith: 1) humble ourselves 2) the Lord can humble us. The lesson here is that the former is much preferable to the latter.
Riiiiight! So much for free will. Worship me and do what I say or I will cause you to suffer beyond your most horrendous thoughts.
God: If you don't have faith in me I'm going to cause mass suffering; I'll wipe you out with revolting plagues, natural disasters and animal attacks; I'll commit mass genocide that makes ALL genocidal maniacs pale in comparison. AND -- If you commit the most vile of sins (NOT BELIEVING IN ME) I will have you tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity. Oh and BTW I love you.
Your bible god-concept is a sadistic torturer of souls who is so petty and insecure (his poor little feelings were hurt -- po wittle baby) he will cause mass suffering and/or will torture the majority of his earthly children in the flames of hell for an eternity simply because they perpetrated the most vile heinous of sins: (massive sarcasm) UNBELIEF -- rejecting your delusional concept of god.
Your bible god-concept is patently insane and has no reference in reality.
--S.
Sat Aug 01, 08:55:00 PM 2009
God is Love said...
God stopped protecting people from the firey snakes because they didn't allow Him to becuase of unbelief in Him. Not being One who forces Himself on anyone, the snakes were a consequence of Israel's choice not to let Him protect them.
If you are writing about God as one who creates evil schemes for people, then you are not writing about the God of the Bible.
Jeremiah 29:11 lets us know what God thinks and plans for us (read it and you'll understand God better in relation to your life). God wanted to keep on saving these people from the snakes, but couldn't unless they asked Him to (see the brass serpent made).
This story is all about God and His mercy towards us. Like He raised up the firey brass serpent to save people from the snake venom, He raised up Jesus for us on the cross to save us from sin.
Be careful not to represent God as something that He isn't.
Fri Sep 07, 06:24:00 PM 2012
Joseph & Laralyn said...
Moral of this story: If you decide to follow God, stop your bellyaching and whining and decide to trust Him. Don't halfway do this! That's how hypocrites happen. In the middle of your complaining about how life is bad (after He's taken you out of slavery where you were being beaten, overworked, and literally killed), you may discover that it can get worse. God's protection moves with His purpose. If you are following Him and in the place He has scheduled you to be, you are protected. But one of the Hebrew words for complain is "loon" which means to obstinately stop and lodge overnight. So while the protective covering of God was moving, His pouting followers decided to stubbornly sit down and feel sorry for themselves, rather than to simply ask Him for what they needed. When that happens, we are unprotected. Interestingly enough, I Cor. 10:10 says, "Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer." That word destroyer is Olothreutes (ol-oth-ryoo-tace’) a ruiner, that is specifically a venomous serpent. So, complain if you like about what I write. I will have faith that He will provide and protect.
Sat Aug 10, 04:39:00 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
22 July 2009The Massacre of the Aradites
Don't you just hate God-assisted, holy war massacres? I do. They're so damned boring.
But we might as well get used to them because God likes them. A lot. There are about 50 holy war massacres on the list of God's 135 killings in the Bible. So there's just no way to avoid them.
Here's what happened in this one.
King Arad heard that the Israelites were coming, so he fought against them when they tried to invade his land.
When king Arad the Canaanite, which dwelt in the south, heard tell that Israel came by the way of the spies; then he fought against Israel, and took some of them prisoners. Numbers 21.1
So the Israelites asked God for help, promising to kill everyone in several cities.
Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities. 21.2
God didn't have to think about this one. Here's how he responded.
The LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites. 21:3a
So the Israelites, with God's help, killed everyone in several Canaantie cites.
And they utterly destroyed them and their cities. 21.3b
I'm glad we got this one over with. It was pretty boring, wasn't it?
God's next killing will be better, I promise.
The Bible doesn't tell us the population of the Aradite cities. So I guessed there were 3 cities, each with 1000 people, for a total of 3000 victims.
God's next killing: God sent fiery serpents to bite the people for complaining about the lack of food and water
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/22/2009 07:11:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
6 comments:
busterggi said...
Now what was it the Aradites were guilty of that was so bad Yahweh felt they had to be erased from the face of the Earth?
Oh, right, they were breathing.
Que evil!
Thu Jul 23, 01:22:00 PM 2009
madcat said...
Used to be a christian and now I find yahweh totally ridiculous.
Buddha did not have to spread Buddhism by war and bloodshed.
And yahweh, who is aparently ALMIGHTY, had to resort to killing to spread his commandments.
By the way, where are you from? US? or Singapore?
Thu Jul 23, 05:24:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
Wow. Not your average Sunday school story, eh?
Fri Jul 24, 07:35:00 PM 2009
VioletVal said...
To understand why God helped destroy the Canaanites, you have to look back to Genesis 15:12-16. God had promised Abraham that his descendants will receive the Promised Land, but He mentioned that their would be a 400 year delay, because "only then will the people who live here be so sinful that they deserve to be punished." If the Israelites did not destroy the towns, the wicked acts the Canaanites were practicing, like killing people as sacrifices, would continue and the Israelites might start doing those wicked acts when they moved to the country. Here is a commentary on the book of Numbers: http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/numbers-21-36-lbw.htm
Sun Oct 25, 12:23:00 PM 2009
joshua said...
@ violet: "If the Israelites did not destroy the towns, the wicked acts the Canaanites were practicing, like killing people as sacrifices, would continue and the Israelites might start doing those wicked acts when they moved to the country."
That makes complete sense: the Canaanites were sacrificing humans whereas the Israelites promised to sacrifice entire cities (And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities. Numbers 21:2), so Yahweh, in true bloodlust form, endorsed the Israelite's bid.
This is also much more convoluted than simply appearing to the Canaanites and telling them to call off whatever they were doing that was so unsightly in his eyes.
Because Yahweh's logic can always be explained by bloodlust + convolutedness = optimal course of divine intervention.
(btw the word verification is "skiess" - I wonder if I'm supposed to watch out for giant hailstones now?)
Fri Feb 12, 02:46:00 PM 2010
joshua said...
I also couldn't help but look up violet's easyenglish.com bible, and it had the following fantastic commentary for verses 4-9 in Numbers 21:
Verse 4 The king of the country called Edom had refused to allow the *Israelites to travel through his country (Numbers 20:14-21). So they had to go round it. This delayed them on their journey to the *Promised Land. Also, the route was difficult. So the people became impatient. The *Hebrew word for ‘impatient’ in this verse meant also ‘to become angry’. And it meant that the situation was depressing them.
Verse 5 The *Israelites complained to Moses again. They said the same things that they had said before (Numbers 20:4-5). But what they said was not true. They did have food. They had the *manna that God had provided daily. But they were not grateful for it. The *manna was a gift from God. It was *angels’ food’ (Psalm 78:25). But the *Israelites insulted it. They *rejected the way that God was *blessing them. Also, they *rejected the plan that he had for them to enter the *Promised Land.
Verse 6 So God punished them. He sent poisonous snakes among them. The *Hebrew word for ‘poisonous’ meant ‘something that is burning’. Probably, this referred to the feeling of pain when the snakes bit. But also this word referred to the *angels that serve God in heaven (Isaiah 6:2). *Angels are God’s servants. They take messages from God to people on the earth. So this word emphasised that God had sent the snakes himself, as a punishment.
Verse 7 However, on this occasion, the people soon apologised. They realised that they had *sinned against God. And they were genuinely sorry. They asked Moses to pray to God. They wanted God to remove the snakes.
Verses 8-9 But God did not remove the snakes. Instead, he provided a way to cure every person whom the snakes had bitten. But each person had to do something. They had to look up at the *bronze snake on the pole. If they did this, they lived. If they did not do this, they died.
This story is very important for *Christians. Jesus referred to it when he was talking about his death (John 3:14). People lifted Jesus up on a *cross. He compared himself with the *bronze snake on the pole. *Sin is like poison. Everyone is born with a desire to *sin because Adam, the first man, did not obey God (Genesis chapter 3). This *sin causes death to our spirits. It does not allow us to live how God intended us to live.
God did not remove the snakes; and he does not remove all *sin from the world. Instead, he provided a way to cure every person from the results of *sin. And, like the *Israelites, we have to do something. We have to look at the *cross. We must believe that Jesus died on our behalf. Then he will forgive all our *sins. He suffered the punishment that we deserve.
Every *Israelite had to look at the *bronze snake themselves. Nobody else could do this on another person’s behalf. In the same way, every person must *believe in Jesus on their own behalf.
This sure sounds like easyenglish is endorsing the worshipping of idols and figurines. The best part is that they "had to do something" which was to "look up at the bronze snake on the pole." All delivered as though it is the most reasonable set of instructions you had ever heard,
Fri Feb 12, 02:51:00 PM 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
18 July 2009And they fell on their faces (FOF)
When I was writing about God's last killing (His 21st, for those keeping score), I noticed that people were often falling on their faces (especially when they saw the glory of the Lord). So it got me thinking. This seems to be something that people in the Bible often do. But how often?
Well, I found 33 FOF events in the Bible. But my favorite is this one, from the Book of Ezekiel.
And I saw ... the appearance of his loins....
This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.
And when I saw it, I fell upon my face.... Ezekiel 1:27-28
Well, if I saw God's loins, I'd probably fall on my face too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a response to this post from The Pathway Machine.
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/18/2009 10:18:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
10 comments:
twillight said...
On the link of FOF-events you misspelled Ezekiel to Ezekel a lot.
And thx for this good work, just reading your favourite I fell upon my face(es).
Sat Jul 18, 01:59:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Thanks twillight. I think I've got that corrected now.
I fall on my face a lot when it comes to spelling.
Sat Jul 18, 02:12:00 PM 2009
Lún Ghẻ said...
LOL. I have been reading this blog for a while . Love your blog.
Sat Jul 18, 03:24:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
Maybe it was so he wouldn't start laughing?
Sat Jul 18, 04:24:00 PM 2009
nullifidian said...
What exactly is falling on one's face?
Sat Jul 18, 06:05:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
I think it's bowing really low so that your head touches the ground, like the Muslims do five times a day.
Sat Jul 18, 06:25:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
On second thought, I came to that conclusion, too, but when I first read it, it made me think of spinning on one's toes and collapsing in a comedy pratfall. Imagine Moses doing that!
Sat Jul 18, 07:04:00 PM 2009
lynn's daughter said...
I just want to say that I love your blog - I love that you use humor to dispell the anger that sometimes exists between believers and atheists. I love the Legos, too.
Mon Jul 20, 08:33:00 AM 2009
joshua said...
The most amazing thing is that God is simultaneously himself as well as all of his divine sperm, for the (gamete) Son is one with the Father.
Fri Feb 12, 02:54:00 PM 2010
Shee-un said...
Glory of the Lord is actually his personal flying vehicle (probably typical flying saucer). Just imagine what ordinary ppl of 2000 BCE would do if they saw a UFO landing in front of them? Yes, they would FOF!
P.S. Yep, I support the view that god of the OT is human-looking extraterrestrial. It just makes sense.
Wed Sep 07, 09:27:00 PM 2011
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
16 July 200914,700 killed for complaining about God's killings
In case you haven't been following along, here's what has happened so far in Numbers 16.
Korah and his companions question Moses' leadership, saying "Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?" (vv. 1-3)
Moses falls on his face. (v.4)
The glory of the Lord appears to the congregation.(v.19)
God tells Moses to get out of the way because he's going to kill everyone. (vv.20-21)
Moses and Aaron fall on their faces. (v.22)
Korah, his companions, and their families are buried alive. (vv.27-33)
God burns to death 250 men for burning incense. (v.35)
So, as you might expect, the people who had witnessed all this were pretty freaked out by now.
But on the morrow all the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the LORD. (v.41)
Then "the glory of the Lord" appeared and God tells Moses he's going to kill everyone (again).
Behold ... the glory of the LORD appeared.
...
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment. (v.42-45a)
I think you can guess by now what Moses and Aaron did next.
They fell upon their faces. (v.45b)
Then Moses told Aaron to burn some incense to try to stop God from killing everyone. But God's plague had already started.
And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun. (v.46)
But the incense burning worked, sort of, anyway. (Sometimes God will stop killing if you burn incense; sometimes he'll burn you to death instead. He works in mysterious ways.) But not before 14,700 had died in the plague.
Now they that died in the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred, beside them that died about the matter of Korah. (v.49)
So in this chapter, God threatened to kill everyone twice, but settled for killing 14,962 instead in three separate killing events (a dozen or so buried alive, 250 burned to death, and 14,700 killed in a plague).
But don't complain about it or he'll kill you, too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's next killing: The massacre of the Aradites
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/16/2009 08:08:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
11 comments:
busterggi said...
Ya know, it seems to me that the peoples NOT chosen by Yahweh had a much better time of it.
Less wars.
Lesss plagues.
Less miraculous disasters.
No wonder the Hebrews kept backsliding to Ba'al or Astarte, they didn't keep killing their chosen.
Thu Jul 16, 09:54:00 AM 2009
twillight said...
I like your tale-telling. I wish all people could tell these stories the same way. This "and after that they fell upon their faces" is so absurd, though noone bothered noticing until now.
Thu Jul 16, 12:32:00 PM 2009
Seriously Soulless said...
21th? Doth thomone have a lithp?
Thu Jul 16, 12:48:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Thanks seriously soulless,
I doubt if I'd have ever caught that thilly misthake.
Thu Jul 16, 05:55:00 PM 2009
jfior said...
I just ran across your blog recently...great stuff...keep up the good work....the OT's silliness is too much to bear
Fri Jul 17, 10:18:00 AM 2009
Randy said...
Steve, you asked two postings ago, but it bears repeating;
Where are the apologists?
Fri Jul 17, 07:20:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
They are embarrassed, Randy.
Bible believer are deeply embarrassed by God's killings in the Bible, but they can't admit it, not even to themselves. So they either have to pretend that they are proud of God's killings (Go God Go!) or hide their feelings about them as best they can and say nothing at all. Nearly all believers take the latter approach.
Fri Jul 17, 08:09:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
...or, they can just not teach them to the next generation at all, leading to hordes of Bible-thumpers calling such allegations "lies; that's what they nearly did with me, before I caught on and actually read the Bible.
The priests at my parish were more interested in teaching about the "seven gifts of the spirit", or some extrabiblical nonsense like that...
Sat Jul 18, 07:00:00 PM 2009
I Am said...
I think this blow-by-blow accounting of God's murders is a wonderful tool to show how horrible the God of the Bible really is.
Although I can see apologists trying to defend some killings by God here and there, it's just staggering how many of them there are. It's simply indefensible.
Unlike apologists, the average believer doesn't regularly consult the Bible. All a believer would have to do is hear about a few of these stories, probably disbelieve they are in the Bible or think they are taken out of context somehow, but if they are convinced to actually check it out for themselves, I bet it would really make many of them question the god they thought they believed in.
Tue Jul 21, 09:10:00 PM 2009
Markus Arelius said...
You are really pulling back the curtains here on parts of the Bible that rarely, if ever, get playing time on Sunday in Christian churches. Normally, pastors cherry-pick a few biblical passages here and there that align well with their sermon's main idea, be it regarding finances, marriage, "love thy neighbor", secrets, worldly vices, dealing with non-believers, etc. Hell, I could cherry pick some great Shakespeare quotes and bring down the house in laughter on Sunday.
The problem for me has always been how convenient this cherry-picking has been, and how disingenuous believers are about the true contents of the Bible.
How can Christians discount the shear brutality of these events you're sharing with us, or admit that they are true, and then somehow suggest that every ounce of the brutality surely awaits non-believers in hell?
I just don't get it.
In the end, God should have just said "you're all saved" and gotten on with his golf game. Why allow a bunch of monkeys to torture you're own monkey on a cross? Why would God expect and trust these tribalistic cro-magnons to get his "message of love and forgiveness" right down pat, and then disseminate it correctly across the planet?
You're doing the right thing to expose these never-discussed Biblical verses for what they are:
Born of bronze-aged stupidity.
Thu Jul 23, 12:29:00 PM 2009
Timothy said...
Anyone else see Cthulu in this section? You happen to survive the killings, and then decide that most of those people didn't deserve it and voice your disdain, and then you're killed. Maybe they should have just shut up and tried to ignore Yahweh and probably gotten away with a few thousand more Israelites when everything was over.
As for Markus Aurelius: there's also a segment of the Christian population who don't see anything except what Jesus said as having any relevance. They don't see the OT as being part of the Holy book, or is just history of Jesus' chosen.
Tue Aug 11, 10:43:00 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 2009Mr. Deity and the Book
They don't even like to talk about the bad things they said you did in that book. They're embarrassed by it, too.
Have you noticed how few responses there are lately from believers to the God's Killings posts? I wonder if that's because they're embarrassed by it, too.
(If a Christian blog or website would like to respond to the God's Killings posts, I'll link to them from Dwindling in Unbelief and the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.)
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/15/2009 09:25:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
4 comments:
Brendan said...
Recently I haven't left comments because:
1. I've always felt Numbers is quite a violent book and have never put in the necessary time to analyze it.
2. I've been busy AND lazy.
3. I figured I could wait until your end-of-the-book rap up.
4. I've been lazy.
But I suppose I could leave some.
Wed Jul 15, 01:52:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
Busy and lazy, eh? Quite the combo.
Sat Jul 18, 06:56:00 PM 2009
Markus Arelius said...
I haven't left any comments because:
1. You've proven repeatedly that the Bible is about as barbaric as it gets, is not a suitable guide for human morality, is a ridiculous document to organize our lives around, and that the documented deeds of wholesale slaughter by God are completely indefensible.
2. I've been busy AND lazy.
3. I figured I would wait around until some other Christians show up with considerably more knowledge than me to blow your heathenistic criticisms of God and the Bible right out of the water.
4. I've been lazy.
But I supposed I could leave some.
Thu Jul 23, 08:15:00 PM 2009
Strappado said...
I didn't find any other suitable place to post this, so here goes:
I'm an avid reader of Skeptics Annotated Bible and found it interesting with all the relevant links below each chapter. I was puzzled to see, however, that there's absolutely no apologetic response at 2 Peter 3:4. In my opinion, it's an absolute gem. Being the last book to be written in the bible (as far as I know), it's fascinating that it contains an accusation against Jesus. It's a direct reply to Jesus' promise that he would return within this generation etc.
So, it completely bypasses this whole "generation does not mean generation", and practically all other apologetic attempts to explain away the promise of Jesus. Of course, it opens up a new one, with "a day is like a thousand years", but that is a piece of
cake, once "Peter" answers pretty straight forward instead of using the apologetical tactics we all have become accustomed to.
So, I'd be interested if Christians do have answers to this.
And keep up the good work!
Tue Nov 17, 12:39:00 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
13 July 2009250 burned alive for burning incense
In his last killing, God showed whose side he's on by opening up the ground and burying alive the leaders that opposed Moses (along with their families). And it made quite an impression on everyone.
All Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also. Numbers 16.34
But they were safe, at least for the moment, because God had his mind on other victims.
Remember Moses' original plan for dealing with Korah's rebellion? He told him and his associates to burn incense before the Lord and let God choose who is holy.
This do; Take you censers, Korah, and all his company; And put fire therein, and put incense in them before the LORD to morrow: and it shall be that the man whom the LORD doth choose, he shall be holy. 16.6-7
But then God came up with the burying alive thing and the censer-swinging, prayer contest was put on hold.
In the meantime, 250 of Korah's followers did as Moses asked and burned some incense. So God burned them all alive to teach them a lesson or something. (If you do what he says he'll burn you to death?)
There came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense. 16.35
At least I don't have to guess the number of victims this time.
God's next killing: 14,700 killed for complaining about God's killings
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/13/2009 10:58:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
5 comments:
busterggi said...
Don't obey Yahweh, he kills you.
Obey Yahwe, he still kills you.
Just can't win with Yahweh.
Tue Jul 14, 05:04:00 AM 2009
matt311 said...
Does that mean you just can't lose without Yahweh? If so, I'm in!
Tue Jul 14, 08:35:00 AM 2009
I Am said...
I guess this would be classified under collateral damage. It wasn't the fault of those 250 people, but when Yahweh's angry, people must die.
busterggi and matt311, your comments reminded me of a quote by Norm from the show Cheers.
"Women, you can't live with them...pass the beer nuts."
So why should we bother to try to do out what Yahweh wants if he might kill us anyway?
Yahweh, you can't live with him... pass the beer nuts.
Wed Jul 15, 08:45:00 AM 2009
wombat said...
I wonder what kind of incense it was. Smelly? May be its a typo, should be incest. thats it, mystery solved. Its INCEST. They got toasted because they were burningwith incest.
Thu Jul 23, 04:13:00 AM 2009
jeremiah x said...
Moses told them to burn incense just as Moses and Aaron did, and let God decide who should prevail. The basic idea was "ok, you do what we do and we'll see who Yahweh decides is right."
Korah and his followers weren't killed for burning incense. They were killed for rebelling against God's chosen leader, and therefore, rebelling against God himself.
Yahweh brought the Israelites out of Egypt only days before. His intention was to make them into a pure and godly nation. Being God, he could (and still can) decide who should be included or not. There are hundreds of warnings throughout the bible that the wicked will be punished. This is simply the earliest example.
Talk about completely missing the point. But I suspect you intentionally overlook the obvious logic to suit your godless purpose.
Tue Aug 06, 01:35:00 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 July 2009The opposing party is buried alive (along with their families)
Our story begins with Korah and his companions confronting Moses. Here's what they say to him.
Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD? Numbers 16:3
So what do you suppose Moses did when he heard this? Well, he fell on his face, of course. (People are always falling on their faces in the Bible.)
And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face. Numbers 16:4
And (while still on his face) offers this ingenious plan.
This do; Take you censers, Korah, and all his company; And put fire therein, and put incense in them before the LORD to morrow: and it shall be that the man whom the LORD doth choose, he shall be holy. Numbers 16:6-7
So they're going to have an old-fashioned, incense-swinging, prayer contest, where God picks the winner. How cool is that?
And they took every man his censer, and put fire in them, and laid incense thereon, and stood in the door of the tabernacle of the congregation with Moses and Aaron. Numbers 16:18
But before they start swinging their censers, God in all his glory showed up.
And the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the congregation. Numbers 16:19
So God, Moses, and Aaron call a time out to talk things over.
And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment. Numbers 16:20-21
Remember how, just a couple killings ago, God threatened to kill everyone for complaining? Yeah, well, he's back at it again. He tells Moses and Aaron to stand back and get the hell out of the way because he's going to kill everybody.
So what do you figure Moses and Aaron do when they hear that? Well, they fell on their faces, of course.
And they fell upon their faces... Numbers 16:22a
And (while still on their faces) try to talk God out of it (again).
...and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation? Numbers 16:22b
And it seemed to work again, too, since they came up with a new game plan.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the congregation, saying, Get you up from about the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.
...
So they gat up from the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every side: and Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood in the door of their tents, and their wives, and their sons, and their little children. And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me
...
If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men; then the LORD hath not sent me. But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD. Numbers 16:23-30
So God and Moses arrange this test. If Korah and his companions die a normal, natural death, then God didn't send Moses. But if they (and their families) are buried alive, then Moses is God's special friend.
The test proved to everyone that God is Moses' special friend (and that they should get the hell away from him before he buries them alive, too).
And it came to pass ... that the ground clave asunder that was under them: And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up.... They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also. Numbers 16:31-34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's next killing: 250 burned to death for burning incense
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/12/2009 08:37:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
6 comments:
twillight said...
I vote on 2 child per family, as jewish families (especially leader's families in the Bible) are always bigger.
Sun Jul 12, 11:01:00 AM 2009
I am the wise fool. said...
Isn't it funny how when Moses and Aaron convince God to do something right (punish only those responsible), God still goes the extra mile to do something wrong (punish the innocent families).
Sun Jul 12, 04:38:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
Even when Yahweh actually showed up in person he wasn't worth worshipping.
I don't think we're missing anything now when he only shows up on grilled cheese sandwiches & such.
Sun Jul 12, 05:37:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
Seems like God would support the mullahs and Chinese dictators in their squelching of free speech, as well.
Sun Jul 12, 07:19:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Yeah, you're right, twillight. Two kids per family is probably more realistic. Maybe I should bump it up to 16.
Mon Jul 13, 08:19:00 AM 2009
Brendan said...
Numbers 26:11 says:
"But Korah's sons did not die."
(Richard Elliot Friedman's New English Translation of the Torah)
So apparently "their households" doesn't count children. In fact, descendants of Korah wrote several of the Psalms.
Wed Jul 15, 02:08:00 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
07 July 2009A man gathering sticks on the sabbath day
This one is pretty simple.
A man is caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.
While the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day. Numbers 15.32
The people ask Moses what to do about it.
They … brought him unto Moses and Aaron … because it was not declared what should be done to him. 15.33-34
God tells Moses that everyone must stone the Sabbath breaker to death.
The LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones. 15.35
So that's what they do.
All the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. 15.36
Immediately after the stoning, God gets down to some more important business -- like instructing the people on how to make fringes on their garments.
The LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue. 15.37-38
You see, God wants us to put fringes on our garments so that when we see the purple fringes we'll say to ourselves, "Oh yeah, I'm supposed to follow all of God's laws."
It shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them. 15.39a
That way, when we see someone working on the Sabbath, we'll remember to stone him or her to death, on the spot, instead of following our own heart.
That ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes. 15.39b
People who follow their hearts seldom stone people to death.
God's next killing: The opposing party is buried alive (along with their families)
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/07/2009 08:22:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
9 comments:
Brian_E said...
But if I walk around in a garment with purple fringes, then everyone will think I'm gay, and they'll stone me to death because of Leviticus. You just can't win!
Tue Jul 07, 02:59:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
When I was a couple of decades younger I used to work regularly for 13 days straight, only had every other Sunday off.
Yahweh worked for 6 days and had to crash.
Damn, I must have been in better shape than him.
Tue Jul 07, 05:29:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
You know, that poor guy could have been gathering sticks for his family! You stone him, just like that?
Were this to happen in modern times, somebody would get some serious jail time.
Tue Jul 07, 09:47:00 PM 2009
I Am said...
The purple fringes illustration reminds me of Towelie from South Park! Not that I condone such things, but I don't think there was a prohibition against getting high on the Sabbath, was there?
matt311, in modern times, they apparently just attack people who work on the Sabbath these days instead of stoning them. A female Australian reporter was repeatedly assaulted (spitting, screamed at, kicked or hit with something heavy) for using a tape recorder on the Sabbath.
I guess that's better than being killed, but some orthodox Jews still believe that anyone (including non-Jews) breaking the Sabbath should be punished.
Wed Jul 15, 08:17:00 AM 2009
James said...
Yeah... some things are tough. What is curious (& really quite marvelous) is that some things are tough on purpose...& are meant to divide, particularly to divide the proud from the humble.
Pride demands a logical & satisfying answer even in regard to things that are not so immediately accompanied by understanding. Pride is impatient & wants an answer now for difficult matters, unwilling to invest time & energy that is required.
Humility brings about a tender attitude that consists of patience, & a sincere willingness to be teachable. It stems from a meek perspective that "I am careful how much confidence I place in how I see things, for after all I really know so very little of all that could be known."
& these things are so especially true when it comes to the things of God. It is an elementary principle that God resists the proud, but deals generously with the humble. One of the things He deals generously in is understanding.
Oh, the "poor" proud & blasphemer! Always learning & never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
So the proud are confounded. & arrogantly dismiss the validity & beauty of the ways of God. & this is their just "reward" for their pride: they don't understand the ways of God. Of course, the proud will probably not see that as a consequence... as God's wrath being dealt out to him.
You might find John 6:22-69 quite interesting. Especially 54-61. Although I do fear that in giving you this passage it may give you more ammunition. But perhaps... perhaps it may have a more profitable effect.
To close out, I can imagine that maybe you will surmise my comment here with the response that I am coping out & that I don't have a good explanation for your issues. Well, that would certainly be convenient for you so as to avoid taking to heart the truth of what I have shared.
Tue Jan 26, 02:07:00 PM 2010
Steve Wells said...
James,
"What is curious (& really quite marvelous) is that some things are tough on purpose...& are meant to divide, particularly to divide the proud from the humble."
Oh I get it! And you're right it really is quite marvelous!
Only humble people stone people to death for saying "Jesus Fucker" or whatever. Proud people don't. It's as simple as that. Thanks, James!
Tue Jan 26, 02:24:00 PM 2010
Open Eyes Productions said...
I believe that this man picking up sticks could have been trying to tempt God, or put God to the test.
He probably knew the law very well except took it lightly and didn't care. Keep in mind that these people had no excuse for ignorance in this situation, they were alive and saw and knew of many miracles that were done through Moses.
Also, keep in mind that God was establishing a holy people, and was giving guidelines for everyone to follow, or they will face the punishment for sin. So many people ask these days,"Why doesn't God strike people down with lightening the moment they do something bad?," it's because of his mercy, and patience toward us and our unbelief. That man would've known very well of the law and consequences for breaking it. God was the Government of the people. How many of you complain about how politians always lie, be thankful that when God commands something he means it; He can not lie.
So now that this is established, just imagine what the people would have thought if God went back on his word? This man who broke the sabbath took the gamble and was caught in it, and was an example to the people how serious sin is. God gave him clear warning, and what we know about God's character is that he did not want that person to die, however that person put the Lord to the test and he does not lie.
These are my thoughts, hopefully you can see it the way I do, because it's all for your benefit to know Jesus Christ and be forgiven for your sins. God Bless you all!
Thu Aug 09, 04:07:00 AM 2012
Mark van der Heijden said...
Assuming that these people 'took' the man (you could say the 'arrested' him) and stoned him the very same day, I'd argue that they 'worked' a hell of a lot harder than the poor stick gatherer. Heck, even Yahweh violated his mandatory day off by issuing his swift judgement.
Mon Sep 23, 01:59:00 PM 2013
Mark van der Heijden said...
Assuming that these people 'took' the man (you could say the 'arrested' him) and stoned him the very same day, I'd argue that they 'worked' a hell of a lot harder than the poor stick gatherer. Heck, even Yahweh violated his mandatory day off by issuing his swift judgement.
Mon Sep 23, 01:59:00 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
06 July 2009The Parable of the Good Gay Guy
Can you imagine a modern-day preacher coming up with a parable about the good gay guy? (Iranian, black man, atheist,etc.) Most people would find that pretty offensive, since it implies that there aren't many good gay people. Why then aren't we also offended by the parable of the good Samaritan?
Here's a video that makes the point better than I ever could.
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/06/2009 09:49:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
6 comments:
busterggi said...
Probably because just about zero % of Christians realize that Samaritans were a people, not just a noun.
Then again lots of Christians I've known have no problem talking about 'a good Jew' when referring to someone of Hebraic ancestry that they know and don't completely hate.
Mon Jul 06, 01:27:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
Okay, that was actually pretty funny. Now, let's see them do the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman in that vein; it'd be even funnier!
Mon Jul 06, 07:43:00 PM 2009
Dreadful Rauw said...
Well, to be fair, the parable doesn't mention a "good" Samaritan, just a Samaritan. Any Anti-Samaritan bigotry was placed there by the listener, not by Jesus. Dude didn't get to choose the colloquial names for his parables.
Mon Jul 06, 08:47:00 PM 2009
twillight said...
Well, first Jesus mentiones people from who you'd expect to help the beaten man, then clearly someone who you wouldn't.
Jesus mention the samaritan as someone who you wouldn't expect help from (samaritans are not jews, priests and levites are).
The question here is, as it is a parable, why Jesus didn't say "some commoner" (instead of someone from the clergy class) or "a third man" or something, but specificly pointing on a samaritan.
And that tells something about Jesus ;)
Tue Jul 07, 02:52:00 PM 2009
I Am said...
Very funny clip! I just recently was introduced to That Mitchell and Webb Look by someone on Atheist Nexus, and they have a few other atheist/skeptic skits:
Godless comedy
Homeopathic A & E
Good points, twillight. It's obviously implied that a Samaritan wouldn't be expected to be good. If Jesus was trying to combat the prejudices of his listeners against Samaritans, he could have easily come out and said not to be prejudiced against them, or not to judge people based on their race/nation/etc.
Instead, it sounds more like Steve said in the OP, that a good Samaritan is a rarity.
Wed Jul 15, 08:09:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Yeah, those are great videos, I am. I hadn't seen the Homeopathic one before. Thanks for that.
I hope they make more!
Wed Jul 15, 09:13:00 AM 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
04 July 2009Ten scouts are killed for their honest report
OK this one requires a bit of explanation.
The story begins in chapter 13 where Moses sends out 12 scouts (one from each of the tribes of Israel) to check out the land of Canaan.
Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan ... And see the land, what it is, and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they be strong or weak, few or many. Numbers 13:17-18
So the twelve spies go and do that.
When they get back, Caleb says
Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it. Numbers 13:30
But the other ten (the Bible doesn't say what Joshua said) disagree.
The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. Numbers 13:32-33
So Caleb (and Joshua?) say it would be easy to take over the land of Canaan, while the other ten say it would be hard, since the people that live there are giants. (The scouts were like grasshoppers in comparison to them.)
When the people heard the reports, they believed the giant story and were a bit discouraged. So they decided to elect a new leader and go back to Egypt.
And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night. And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness! ... And they said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt. Numbers 14:1-4
Joshua and Caleb try to talk them out of it.
And Joshua ... and Caleb ... rent their clothes ... saying, The land, which we passed through to search it, is an exceeding good land. If the LORD delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land which floweth with milk and honey. Numbers 14:6-8
But the people weren't buying it. They didn't want to fight any damned giants. So they decide to stone Joshua and Caleb (with stones).
All the congregation bade stone them with stones. Numbers 14:10
And then God gets involved. He tells Moses that he's sick of their whining, so he's going to kill them all. He'll smite them with the pestilence and then make some better people to replace them. People who wouldn't whine so God damned much.
And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? ... I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they. Numbers 14:11-12
But Moses talks him out of it. He says the Egyptians will hear about it and say that God couldn't get the people to obey him so he had to kill them all. How would that look to the neighbors?
And Moses said unto the LORD, Then the Egyptians shall hear it ... And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land ... Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness. Numbers 14:13-16
So God decided not to kill everyone. Not yet, anyway. But he says that he'll make sure that all their carcasses rot in the wilderness (at least all those that are over 20 years old).
Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward which have murmured against me ... But as for you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness. And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years ... the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die. Numbers 14:29-35
And that would have been the end of the story, except that God was still pissed off about those ten scouts, even though they were just doing their jobs ("To spy out the land of Canaan ... And see the land, what it is, and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they be strong or weak, few or many."). So he killed them in a plague.
And the men, which Moses sent to search the land, who returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up a slander upon the land, Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the LORD. Numbers 14:36-37
But God isn't quite finished yet. To further punish the Israelites for whining and plotting against Moses, God will send the Amelekites and Canaanites to smite them.
Ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD ... Then the Amalekites ... and the Canaanites ... smote them. 14:43-45
(Since the Bible doesn't say how many Israelites were killed by the Amalekites and Canaanites, I'll just add another 100 to God's total -- along with the ten honest spies -- for a total of 110.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This killing is highlighted in the Poverty and Justice Bible. Here's how they put it.
Ten of the men sent to explore the land had brought back bad news and had made the people complain against the Lord. So he sent a deadly disease that killed those men, but he let Joshua and Caleb live.
This verse was highlighted because it shows God's justice. If you bring back bad news, God will kill you with a deadly disease.
God's next killing: A man gathering sticks on the Sabbath
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/04/2009 11:44:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
6 comments:
J. said...
God is supposed to be all-knowing, yet Moses, a mere mortal, had to talk some sense into God in order to save the Israelites from his wrath. So much for God's alleged omnipotence and forgiveness too.
Sat Jul 04, 10:00:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
I don't think I ever learned about the second half of this story (the part with all the killing) in church, but, hey; you learn something new every day...
Sun Jul 05, 08:20:00 AM 2009
Markus Arelius said...
I really appreciate this blog and for illuminating the true words written in black and white in the Bible, our trusty guide for morality.
"So he killed them in a plague".
While it's very interesting to tally up the God-inflicted deaths on this blog, it seems to me that the real horror behind these deaths is being completely lost.
10 deaths here. 40 deaths here. 1,000 deaths there. Did God go for a 2 point conversion to add insult to injury after he scored all of these touchdowns?
I'm not sure how one makes these Iron Age death counts sound less like a stock report. One suggestion might be that we collectivley begin to read these posts and then imagine ourselves as "surviving eyewitnesses" to these very events.
I think about what it must have been like to watch these individuals die of plague or heavenly fire or drowning by some heavenly spirit. The fear would have been unimaginable.
These people were more than numbers. They were virtually all uneducated, primitive, dumb asses, to be sure. But they were also defenseless women, children, elderly, infirm, husbands, wives, sons, daughters and grandparents.
Watching an innocent bystander die of a plague by the hand of God is one thing.
But imagining that same victim to be your own wife, husband, son, daughter, mother or father, is entirely different.
For example, if I witnessed such a horrifying event first hand, I would live my life in utter fear of this god. Any worship I would offer him would be fear-based and not true fealty. I would worship for fear of repercussions. Nor would I genuinely ever love this God. Instead I would hate him with every fiber of my being for what he did (kill my loved one) and especially for the cruel and painful method he selected to do it.
What a horrible waste of 35 years (Iron age life expectancy) of existence that would have been.
Mon Jul 06, 09:38:00 AM 2009
VioletVal said...
At first I thought God was punishing the ten men for doing what they had been asked to do--reporting what they saw in Canaan--and the punishment seemed unjust. But then I reread the last two paragraphs of Numbers 13 and realized that God was not punishing the men for giving bad news. He was punishing them for instigating the complaints among the Israelites by spreading rumors. They did not have faith in God and they spread their lack of faith throughout the camp. So God was punishing the men for their lack of faith. He was going to destroy the other Israelites as well for the same reason, but decided against it.
Sat Oct 10, 10:53:00 AM 2009
joshua said...
Steve,
"People who wouldn't whine so God damned much."
has to be one of the greatest puns of all time.
Fri Feb 12, 03:23:00 PM 2010
Danny said...
Markus:
It would seem logical that fearing a wrathful God (Specially one that has such a short Patience) would've been the logical thing to do. But it isn't the case with the jews, they've just witnessed God killing quite a few because they disagree with Moses, and yet they still complain. These are indeed very brave people, very stupid people or very exaggerated people (and these deaths didn't occur exactly as described but to instill fear in those who read but not those who really were there).
Thu Apr 15, 06:33:00 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
26 August 2009Has God forced you to eat any of your children lately?
Me neither, and I don't know why.
God was very clear about it in Deuteronomy 28. If you don't follow all of his laws, he will force you to eat your children.
Here are just some of the things God promises to do to you if you don't follow his laws.
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: Deuteronomy 28:15
Thou shalt betroth a wife ... 28:30a
... and another man shall lie with her. 28:30b
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 will rejoice over you to destroy you ... 28:27, 63
The LORD shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head. 28:35
The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart. And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness. 28:28-29
And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away. 28:22
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. 28:53
All these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee. 28:45
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/26/2009 09:13:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
37 comments:
matt311 said...
Heh. I love the bit of God nonchalantly drinking the coffee over the guy he's destroyed; "eh, another day, another death".
Wed Aug 26, 03:31:00 PM 2009
Baconsbud said...
LOL I wonder if we will hear again how Deuteronomy isn't the word of god but mans attempt to change it. I have never really read much of the bible and have to thank you for pointing out much of it for me.
Wed Aug 26, 04:50:00 PM 2009
Markus Arelius said...
Wow! George Romero, eat your heart out! (an omnipotent pun!)
And yep, definitely another day at the office for God. Had to have been a Monday.
"The best part of wakin' up....."
Wed Aug 26, 09:14:00 PM 2009
danielomcclellan said...
Baconsbud-
This rhetoric was pointed at specific groups of pre-exilic Israelites, specifically those that refused to recognize the centrality of the Jerusalem temple, the exclusive hegemony of the Levitical priests, and the transcendence of Yahweh. It was most likely written after the destruction of Jerusalem, using the events of that siege and deportation as ad hoc punishments which were put, as prophecy, into the mouths of earlier Israelite figures.
The problem with averring that the same warning is over us today is that these warnings were directed at Israelites, not at everyone in the world. In the Second Temple Period these prophecies were thought to have been fulfilled by Babylon, and after 70 CE they were again thought to be fulfilled in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. Since the appropriate socio-political contexts no longer exist for these consequences to play out, no one really accepts that they were meant as perpetually hanging over the heads of Jews.
This is a fun little game for people who don't know much about the Bible or the world of the ancient Near East, but it, again, only applies to the most fundamental of religious traditions. It's also pretty juvenile once you understand the origin and function of this particular brand rhetoric.
Thu Aug 27, 12:07:00 PM 2009
RR said...
How do people buy into this nonsense? I am always amazed...
Thu Aug 27, 04:33:00 PM 2009
Ulysses said...
danielomcclellan
On one level it is irrelevant whether the threats were leveled at just a few un-submissive disobedient jews or the whole human race, the threats are outrageous and express an authoritarianism and sadism that is only found in the hearts of the most contemptible humans. That you smugly defend it is obscene.
Thu Aug 27, 07:35:00 PM 2009
Ian G. said...
Well, I know I've worn clothing woven from multiple fabrics recently (heck, I just went to a job interview the other day in suit of wool and silk) and I had a nice ham sandwich for lunch.
None of this stuff that God promises to do happened to me. Strangely, I'm not particularly worried that he's just biding his time.
Thu Aug 27, 10:09:00 PM 2009
danielomcclellan said...
Ulysses-
I am not defending anything, I am explaining. I'm surprised that I have to point out the distinction. At the same time, you're appealing to presentistic and reductive moral perspectives. Your lack of ability to adequately contextualize these ideologies really precludes you from judging their acceptability on the proper terms.
Your modern sensitivities don't approve, but you've never been a Bronze Age pastoralist next door to a militarizing village, or the chief of a city which survives or dies based on the viability of standard socio-religious ideals. For instance, Egypt's intermediate periods, when poverty and chaos overcame the single most stable economy of the ancient world, came about in large part as a result of the failure of the ideology of kingship.
There's far more at work in these situations than you will ever be aware, especially if you keep up these ridiculous caricatures and this silly polemic.
Thu Aug 27, 10:41:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
No Dano, we're aware that these old books were writen for specific audiences.
Its the believers who don't realize it and continue to take those books seriously and try to force the rules & outlook in them onto people in vastly different circumstances today.
Of course, as you know those books weren;t written for people today I don't see why you think they are pertinent at all.
Fri Aug 28, 07:41:00 AM 2009
Ulysses said...
danielomcclellan,
You were defending, and you defend even more in latest reply. When you admonish people for criticizing something and try to give reasons for why people should not criticize, that is defending.
"Presentistic" and "reductive" moral principles? How did you determine my morality from that small little comment I made? Regardless of your presumed omniscience and also your presumed epistemic superiority, how does condemning the behavior of the god of the bible express presentistic moral principles?
By presentistic I gather you mean by present/modern standards. That implies that a) there is some great universal consensus of what "modern" morals are b) I share those morals c) during the time of these events being discussed there weren't people who would have condemned the acts as contemptible. Of course, a-c are all false. There are many conflicting moral views and standards in the present. I have many peculiar moral views and grounds, especially relative to standards and views that are probably most common. There have been conflicting moral views and standards throughout human history and in [just about] every human society.
There is no lack of adequately contextualizing the events; that is just a way for you to justify your acceptance of them. Just as there is no missing contextual data that would make me more accepting of American slavery, or Hitler's Final Solution, there is no missing data that would make me more accepting of Jehovah's threats, murders, and genocides. You are just like a abused spouse who tells her/his friends that the behavior of the abuser would be understood if they just knew how sweet he/she really was. Just some missing data.
And I haven't a clue why you thought what I said was reductive. Please elaborate.
You don't know what my "sensitivities" are. What I sense from you though is just some environmental determinist BS, placing no responsibility on the unique desires, decisions, and beliefs of the individuals involved and the culture that those constelattion of non-environmental factors created.
And what caricature or polemic am I supposed to stop keeping up? That was my first comment.
You are welcome to present the information you think exonerates the threats Jehovah makes in the passages quoted. In fact, I invite you to. Please, let us know the circumstances--in the time they were made--that make the threats acceptable to you. I mean, beyond the information you have already provided, because that wasn't sufficient to make me less disapproving toward them.
Fri Aug 28, 07:48:00 AM 2009
sconnor said...
danielomcclellan
It's also pretty juvenile once you understand the origin and function of this particular brand rhetoric.
Right -- we get it. The ancient people of Yahweh used god's supposed voice -- as their own -- giving themselves a bogus sense of authority to manipulate the masses and to push agendas during their own specific, time period and their own specific culture.
--S.
Fri Aug 28, 11:34:00 AM 2009
Tom said...
Mdanielomcclellan
So now in order to understand the bible, one has to have lived in the bronze age and know as much as you do about Egypt's intermediate periods?
I thought the bible was the infallible/inerrant (take your pick) "word of god". Jesus himself says in Matthew 5:17-18
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
I thought the bible was for all time. A document to guide us, to turn to in times of trouble, etc. Now I learn that it was just for certain people at certain times. Can you please enlighten me as to what parts of the bible are currently in effect? Are the 10 commandments still to be obeyed? How about Adam and Eve? How about Genesis?
The idea that you think you can "explain" it is unbelievable. Your response to Ulysses is the MOST arrogant, self-aggrandizing puff piece I've ever read. You must be real proud of yourself. Can anyone stand you? Do you have any friends other than overpompus blowhards like yourself?
Fri Aug 28, 03:32:00 PM 2009
Markus Arelius said...
Danielo,
You keep referring to the fallacy of applying "presentistic and reductive moral perspectives" and the inability of the layman to place these ancient ideologies (and atrocities) in the proper and timely context. You say you're not defending these events, but merely explaining them in their appropriate context.
I understand your position to a certain degree: Since we'll never again be the way we were, because experiences impact and change civilizations over time. Therefore, we can never "describe" historical events adequately, nor learn from them fully because our perspective and the situational context of the events will never be quite the same. However, at such point history fails to instruct, because excuse after excuse can be submitted for why things played out the way they did, and that nobody has any business nor authority to review or critique them.
Since I didn’t live among nomadic Near East pastoralists, I cannot recognize how pervasive and acceptable the practice of stoning people to death really was. Since I didn't live in 19th century Ukraine, I can't possibly judge the moral acts of the merciless Jewish pogroms by the Tsar’s forces. Because I didn't live in Nuremburg in November 1938 I can't possibly conceptualize, let alone apply an opinion to, the worldview of the Nazis. Since I was never a middle-age pastoralist in mainland China during the 13th century, I can't possibly understand and appreciate the necessary expansionist policies (and wanton brutality) of Gengkis and Kublai Khan. Since I didn’t live in Mississippi in the 1920s and 1930s I can’t possibly comprehend the socio-economic and cultural pressures that “inspired” poor white Bible-belt agriculturalists to lynch tens of hundreds of black Americans.
What you're imploring here is beyond obvious. OF COURSE our modern day sensibilities are very different than a bronze age Jewish pastoralist! But this doesn't disqualify anyone in the 21st century from "describing" the punitive practices inspired by God in the Bible of stoning family members and loved ones as “brutal and contemptible acts”. This level of criticism (and ridicule) is particularly valid today because we have all around the United States, Danielo, millions of Christians and Jews claiming that these biblical verses are not only 100% true but 100% divinely inspired.
Aside from that, we cannot help the position in space and time we currently occupy. We can try hard to appreciate cultural and social-economic pressures of a certain epoch, but this appreciation is always limited and will never be perfect. And modern day perspectives on these Biblical verses may change in the future. But for now we must, and do, describe all documented and historical events as best we can. And sometimes those descriptions rub dogma defenders and previously held perspectives the wrong way. A good example of this is what many modern day Turks are still saying this very decade: The West will never fully understand the intricate circumstances surrounding the “so-called” Armenian genocide (Turks today still insist genocide never took place).
I would think as a critical and learned historian you would be the first to recognize how your issuance of “free passes” gets us all no where fast. History should be explained. It should also be open to critique.
You come across as someone who is quite use to talking down to other people and very sensitive to those who ridicule faith. That’s your choice. Thank you for your scholarly expertise on the Near East and its cultures, but you’ll excuse me (and presumably many others) if I allow the book of Deuteronomy to speak for itself.
Fri Aug 28, 08:44:00 PM 2009
Ian G. said...
What I think danielomclellan is saying is that the Bible is an anachronism that has no relevance to modern human societies.
Sounds about right to me.
Fri Aug 28, 09:19:00 PM 2009
Timothy said...
Regardless of the target audience for these silly and sadistic warnings, people living today believe the Bible is "The Word" and is to be believed, revered, and followed.
That is the scary and tragic part of the entire Judeo-Christian myth machine.
Sat Aug 29, 02:52:00 PM 2009
danielomcclellan said...
busterggi-
I think they're pertinent because ancient history, and specifically ancient Judaism, is my career.
Ulysses-
Please quote the line where I defend the threats.
sconnor-
I made no statement regarding anything related to God being involved in this text.
Tom-
Yes, to understand the Bible you have to be able to contextualize it, otherwise you're just retrojecting your own personal worldview into the literary remnants of a phenomenally alien worldview. That's not going to teach you anything about the ancient world.
And no, the Bible is not infallible or inerrant. Read what I say before you accuse me of such juvenile worldviews.
Markus-
Rather poor reductive and emotive reasoning. Associating these things with much more modern examples of genocide and ethnocentrism may make you feel more angry about them, but you're again misapplying presentistic perspectives to much more ancient ideas.
Ian-
It certainly has relevance to people who want to know about the ancient world. If you don't that's your prerogative, but don't speak for others who do.
Timothy-
You're addressing only the most fundamental of Judeo-Christian viewpoints, as I pointed out earlier. That's not where I'm coming from.
Mon Aug 31, 02:55:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
danielomcclellan
I made no statement regarding anything related to God being involved in this text.
You said, This rhetoric was pointed at specific groups of pre-exilic Israelites, specifically those that refused to recognize the centrality of the Jerusalem temple, the exclusive hegemony of the Levitical priests, and the transcendence of Yahweh. (emphasis mine)
My statement still stands:
The ancient people of Yahweh used god's supposed voice (hegemony) -- as their own -- giving themselves a bogus sense of authority to manipulate the masses and to push agendas during their own specific, time period and their own specific culture -- agreed?
--S.
Mon Aug 31, 05:06:00 PM 2009
edna said...
Danielomcclellan is either an atheist anthropologist making a subtle academic point about the audience the bible was written for or the stupidist christian since...well...take your pick.
If you're the former, we take your point. The bible is arachnaristic nonsense that had some value for bronze age goat herders. If you're the latter, you're defending your god's morals by conceding that the bible is arachnaristic nonsense.
By the way, I know that an arachnid is an out-of-date spider.
Mon Aug 31, 08:23:00 PM 2009
danielomcclellan said...
sconnor-
My statement pointed to the author's position regarding priests and God, not mine. Your statement does not stand. I made absolutely no comment about the involvement of God in the text.
edna-
Thanks for the uninformed guesses. I have a bio up at my blog. You're welcome to check it out if you want to know who I am, but if you have specific issues with my statements please address them directly and I'll be happy to respond. "You're stupid!" isn't really an assertion I think merits a response.
Mon Aug 31, 09:28:00 PM 2009
Ian G. said...
danielomclellan
"It certainly has relevance to people who want to know about the ancient world. If you don't that's your prerogative, but don't speak for others who do."
It has value as an academic exercise, no doubt, but that's not what I'm disputing. I'm disputing that it contains morals and wisdom that are applicable to the 21st century world.
Tue Sep 01, 02:09:00 PM 2009
danielomcclellan said...
Ian-
The Bible certainly contains a number of moral and didactic discussions relevant to today's world. It has many more that are not, but it's not at all devoid of contemporary relevance.
Tue Sep 01, 04:07:00 PM 2009
Baconsbud said...
danielomcclellan I have a question for you. I am wondering if you go to the christian websites that are teaching the bible as most christians learn it? Ok more then one question. If you do, do you explain to them that they are wrong in the way they are being taught the bible? The reason I ask is that most christians I know would look at you like a fool with some of your views of the bible.
This blog and others tend to interpret them as it seems most christians do, other then most of us see it as evil acts while the christians see it as good acts.
What kinds of responces do you get from the more extreme christians when you explain they have been mislead in how the bible should be interpreted?
I really am interested in answers to these questions.
Tue Sep 01, 05:12:00 PM 2009
danielomcclellan said...
Baconsbud-
First, I don't go to any websites that teach the Bible, and the only websites I visit that are Christian-oriented are the occasional Christian blog. Second, I don't think you can even begin to judge what "most Christians" learn. I don't think you have exposure to more than a few generalized Christian perspectives.
To answer your question, though, when I come across fallacious or uninformed opinions, Christian or otherwise, I point them out. For example, in another post on this blog someone insisted the Septuagint did not instruct parents to kill their children, but to report them. I corrected that person. The Septuagint does tell them to kill their children. On my blog I evaluate a number of common theist and non-theist claims.
I hope it comes as no surprise to you that I really couldn't care less what most Christians you know think. I understand the Bible quite well, and neither theist nor non-theist dogmas really matter to me.
I disagree that "most Christians" interpret killing or eating your children as "good acts." You're welcome to dispute that if you wish, but I'll have to ask for more than anecdotal "I know some Christians who said that" evidence.
I generally don't deal with extremist viewpoints on either side of this question, but if I do engage them, I get the same kind of responses I'm getting from the extremists on this blog: "You're stupid." (It's amazing how dogmatism manifests itself so consistently on opposite ends of this ideological spectrum.) I promise you, though, I'm neither stupid nor uninformed when it comes to the Bible. If anyone would like to challenge that, I would be more than happy to oblige.
Tue Sep 01, 10:39:00 PM 2009
Ulysses said...
Tom,
Yes, do you think that daniel loves to smell his own farts too? The pompousness is palpable.
Markus,
I, by the way, think your comment was an example of excellent reasoning. I think Daniel has his head so far up his ass that he can't objectively see good reasoning.
danielomcclellan
"I promise you, though, I'm neither stupid nor uninformed when it comes to the Bible."
I don't think many people here think you are uninformed when it comes to the Bible. Sounds like you sleep with it under your pillow. I don't think people would consider you stupid for how well you would do on Bible Jeopardy, but they might think you are stupid for how you approach the Bible. From your about me on your website, it is difficult to really deduce what sort of Christian you are, or whether you are at all. BYU? Does that mean you are mormon? Do you believe there is a god? And do you believe that this god was actively involved in at least inspiring the bible? Will you answer those questions?
" "You're stupid!" isn't really an assertion I think merits a response."
Do you think "you're juvenile" or "silly" warrants a response? You do a really shitty job of "describing" things. Might want to work on that. "Juvenile" is a condescending insult.
"And no, the Bible is not infallible or inerrant. Read what I say before you accuse me of such juvenile worldviews."
Oh,so much contempt for those worldviews. And you just express yourself to describe, of course.
"Please quote the line where I defend the threats. "
Well, why settle for a line? Your first few posts were a defense of those threats. Anyway, here is a line where you defend them:
"I am not defending anything, I am explaining. I'm surprised that I have to point out the distinction. At the same time, you're appealing to presentistic and reductive moral perspectives. Your lack of ability to adequately contextualize these ideologies really precludes you from judging their acceptability on the proper terms. "
Regardless of your own mistake of categorization--you are in fact defending--here is a time you defend. You clearly say that I should not judge because of some lack of data--which implies that if I had the appropriate data, I would judge differently. That is to say, these things being judged would not be judged so harshly; thus, your defense is that the data you have would render the rhetoric uncondemnable. Somehow, because of what you know, that the rest of humankind does not, the rhetoric would be excusable.
Defend 1. to ward off attack from; guard against assault or injury (usually fol. by from or against)
2. to maintain by argument, evidence, etc.; uphold
You have done both. By claiming that my judgments are presentistic you are nullifying their validity; by nullifying their validity the rhetoric is effectively defended from my judgments. Have I held your hand enough?
And you still havent given me that missing data I asked for. You are being juvenile.
Wed Sep 02, 01:55:00 PM 2009
danielomcclellan said...
Ulysses-
Call me pompous if it makes you feel better about not knowing as much about the Bible, but I'm still right, and you still cling to a woefully inadequate view of the Bible and its socio-religious context.
As to your questions, I believe there is a God, and I see far less of his direct hand in this world than many others. I think many people involved in the production of the ideas that became the Bible were inspired to one degree or another, but I don't think any literary unit of the Bible comes to us as a direct and unencumbered revelation.
In my scholarship I am agnostic. That is to say, in my research I don't approach any religious question with the notion that theology, revelation, or faith is going to bear at all on it. My professional analysis of the Bible and cognate literature treats it all as of equally human origin. I do not say I am professionally atheistic, because I do not militate against theism, I just don't address it.
Moving on, I never said "you're juvenile." I said this game was juvenile. My exact words were:
"This is a fun little game for people who don't know much about the Bible or the world of the ancient Near East, but it, again, only applies to the most fundamental of religious traditions. *It's also pretty juvenile* once you understand the origin and function of this particular brand rhetoric."
I also never called you silly. If you intentionally misrepresent me again then we're done here.
Moving on again, I did not defend anything. Again, I was explaining. That my explanation happens to side with a more informed and less vitriolic view of the Bible does not defend, it explains. The semantic masturbation that follows fails to support your assertion. I am explaining the world behind the Bible, not defending the Bible. The Bible is a flawed human product, and I have no reason to defend its transcendence.
I'll thank you to save the impotent posturing. I didn't see any "missing data" request, although I'm not reading any sentences that contain petty insults, so I may have missed it. If you wish me to read it please reiterate, and without the cursing. If you can do that I'll be happy to respond. If not, you forfeit this debate and we're done.
Wed Sep 02, 04:13:00 PM 2009
Ulysses said...
danielmcclellen
"Moving on, I never said "you're juvenile." I said this game was juvenile. My exact words were..."
And you complain about me engaging in semantic masturbation? So, I guess your correction has made your comment 5% less pretentiously insulting. Congratulations.
"I also never called you silly."
and
"There's far more at work in these situations than you will ever be aware, especially if you keep up these ridiculous caricatures and this silly polemic."
No, you just called my comments silly. Always the semantic masturbating with you. And of course, even better, you implied that I was somehow incapable of becoming aware of some situations that you were.
" If you wish me to read it please reiterate, and without the cursing. If you can do that I'll be happy to respond. If not, you forfeit this debate and we're done."
Read what? And I don't recall ever cursing. Mind pointing out when I cursed? Please don't misrepresent me.
I think I've asked you for the data that you think would render all the judgments you have considered presentistic void two times so far. I ask again: You have repeatedly said that my judgments are groundless because I lack some knowledge about the socio-religious context of the statements quoted by the OP. Again, please let us have that data so we can all discover if that data does in fact change my judgments.
"Call me pompous if it makes you feel better about not knowing as much about the Bible, but I'm still right, and you still cling to a woefully inadequate view of the Bible and its socio-religious context."
No, really, I don't care if you could beat me in Bible Jeopardy. I have other things in my life I feel are more valuable than the irrelevant minutia of the bible. Like semantic masturbation.
And right about what? Because this discussion is about more than details about what the Hebrews ate on mondays. It is more about what sort of information would alter my moral judgments, and what sort of information ought to alter my moral judgments. Two things that have little to do with the bible. Which might be why you are having such a hard time understanding me; maybe your knowledge ends when the bible ends.
"I am explaining the world behind the Bible, not defending the Bible."
Good, then you shouldn't have any problem with people criticizing it. Oh wait, you think thats juvenile. Hmm. You are as confusing as the bible.
Lets just agree to disagree.
"The Bible is a flawed human product, and I have no reason to defend its transcendence."
Yes, why defend its "transcendence" when in another paragraph you assert it!
As you say : 'I think many people involved in the production of the ideas that became the Bible were inspired to one degree or another'
Which means.. well... that you think the bible is transcendent... to one degree or another. Wouldn't want to misrepresent you. Unless, of course, by "inspired" you don't mean inspired by a god. And just mean inspired by, like, the Marquis De Sade was inspired.
So, question you have not answered:
Data that would render my judgments void. You have made a big stink about how my presumed ignorance makes me unqualified to pass judgments about the bible, but you have yet to provide any data that supports your assertion.
Oh, and what is this posturing of mine you are so contemptuous of?
"I didn't see any "missing data" request, although I'm not reading any sentences that contain petty insults, so I may have missed it."
And one more question... how could you know a sentence has petty insults in it if you didn't read it? :/ Thats so silly!
Wed Sep 02, 08:55:00 PM 2009
danielomcclellan said...
Ulysses-
There is a large and important difference between criticizing an argument and criticizing a human being. One is legitimate argumentation, and one is a fallacy. I am not splitting hairs, I am showing that I did not commit a fallacy, as you have done.
"And I don't recall ever cursing. Mind pointing out when I cursed? Please don't misrepresent me."
Here (1:55 PM): "You do a really shitty job of 'describing' things."
Don't pretend you're being objective and respectful in this argument. You most certainly are not.
"Yes, why defend its 'transcendence' when in another paragraph you assert it!"
I've never asserted the Bible's transcendence. I told you not to intentionally misrepresent me again. You refused. I'm not interested in a debate with someone who's only going to lie to make himself feel like a bigger person. Good day.
Thu Sep 03, 07:58:00 AM 2009
Ulysses said...
Danielomccllan
"Here (1:55 PM): "You do a really shitty job of 'describing' things."
Dang. The one time I cursed, I said shitty. That is what you are all butt-hurt about? Have something against poo? Remember I was just criticizing an argument and not a human being. Do you think calling something "reductive and emotive" is anymore acceptable, when not providing any support, than calling something shitty? I don't know, I think I might think the former is worse. What do others in this discussion think?
"I've never asserted the Bible's transcendence. I told you not to intentionally misrepresent me again. You refused. I'm not interested in a debate with someone who's only going to lie to make himself feel like a bigger person. Good day."
Now you are just desperately trying to get out of the debate and having to provide that data we all have been waiting for. You forgot to quote the rest of what I said:
"Which means.. well... that you think the bible is transcendent... to one degree or another. Wouldn't want to misrepresent you."
If you ever feel considerate enough to have a conversation with someone who isn't going to bow to your superiority complex, I will be around, patient and accepting of your juvenile pomposity. Maybe you will have that data to support the argument you have been repeatedly making. Since you failed to provide your evidence, I'll just assume you have forfeited and accepted defeat. I win by default!
Good day to you too!
Oh, and:
"Don't pretend you're being objective and respectful in this argument. You most certainly are not. "
Never said I was being respectful. You haven't earned my respect. I am being objective as the topic warrants on the other hand. And you are doing a shabby (i.e. shitty) job of being respectful yourself; you lost that adjective when you rode in on your high horse calling things juvenile.
Thu Sep 03, 09:11:00 AM 2009
sconnor said...
My statement pointed to the author's position regarding priests and God, not mine. Your statement does not stand. I made absolutely no comment about the involvement of God in the text.
What does that have to do with anything? Who cares that it's not your position. I want to know your position -- is my statement tenable?
"The ancient people of Yahweh used god's supposed voice (hegemony) -- as their own -- giving themselves a bogus sense of authority to manipulate the masses and to push agendas during their own specific, time period and their own specific culture -- agreed?"
...it please reiterate, and without the cursing. If you can do that I'll be happy to respond. If not, you forfeit this debate and we're done.
awoooooooooo, awooooooooooo! -- the fucking profanity police, again.
It's nothing but a convenient ploy; a lousy whiny-ass excuse to bail (because a person's virgin ears are burning) at an INFORMAL debate on a web site.
There's NOTHING wrong with using curse words as emphasis words or describing words to convey something in an informal discussion, which danielmcclellen arbitrarily condemns as "off-limit words" because it chaps his (ass) sensibilities, because he deems them offensive. Waaaaaaaaaaah!
--S.
Thu Sep 03, 11:27:00 AM 2009
danielomcclellan said...
sconnor-
If you want a response then please refrain from ejaculating profanity at me in your post. If you can't express yourself intelligently then your opinion is really meaningless here.
Thu Sep 03, 07:03:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
If you want a response then please refrain from ejaculating profanity at me in your post.
Curious -- you are able to respond to posts that have profanity in them -- hmmmm?
If you can't express yourself intelligently then your opinion is really meaningless here.
Oh -- odd? -- aren't you the one clamoring on about fallacious arguments? Well, one can express themselves intelligently and still use profanity.
I, also, noticed you could not respond to the relevancy of my intelligent post, in relation to it being an informal area where people use profanity as emphatic descriptive words.
I can understand if the discussion digressed into nothing but profane attacks and belligerent name-calling but as the late great George Carlin said, "Profanity is just another spice in my stew" and the last I checked I live in a country where I can express myself with profanity -- even coupled with germane, intelligent arguments.
Again, your arbitrary condemnation of profane words is just a bullshit ploy for bullshit selfish reasons. I could give a rat's ass if you don't respond to me.
--S.
Thu Sep 03, 09:32:00 PM 2009
Ulysses said...
Danielomcclellan,
"sconnor-
If you want a response then please refrain from ejaculating profanity at me in your post. If you can't express yourself intelligently then your opinion is really meaningless here."
What would you prefer he ejaculate at you? I doubt many people would mind if you left. If your virgin eyes are damaged by the language here, perhaps you would be better off somewhere else. Just engage in the discussion and stop posturing as a poor persecuted scholar. You are wasting space by trying to demand that others show you personal consideration when most of your comments have been condescending and consisted of worthless bible trivia.
What Sconnor wrote was intelligently expressed and meaningful. Keep the pretentious bullshit for your unfortunate students. If you can't answer criticisms of your argument and rather spend most of your mental energy bitching about other peoples' choice of language and how they aren't showing you deference, then your opinion is really meaningless here. If you expect us to put up with your ridiculous underhanded pretentious insults, the least you could do is tolerate the (very) occasional "profanity" like "shitty." Don't be a douche.
Thu Sep 03, 10:43:00 PM 2009
danielomcclellan said...
I guess no one is interested in an intelligent conversation here. You just want to assert your right to act like a high school kid, even if it means intentionally forfeiting a debate. Well played. You lose.
Sat Sep 05, 09:13:00 AM 2009
matt311 said...
danielomcclellan, I've read the Bible; hell, I used to believe in it, but I certainly don't think it's divinely inspired just because a few verses quoted out of context sound just peachy. See the light of reason, mate.
Ulysses, let's give the man some time to explain his arguments; once we get down to name-calling, it's not long before Godwin's Law gets invoked, and you know what that means...
Sat Sep 05, 06:57:00 PM 2009
sconnor said...
I guess no one is interested in an intelligent conversation here. You just want to assert your right to act like a high school kid, even if it means intentionally forfeiting a debate. Well played. You lose.
Oh; what a devastating blow from a pompous ass who indulges in self-proclaimed wins.
Whatever will we do without your super-genius pretentiousness, keen intellect and sage insight? Ohhhhhh, the humanity!!!!!
--S.
Mon Sep 07, 09:44:00 PM 2009
Ulysses said...
daniel,
"I guess no one is interested in an intelligent conversation here. You just want to assert your right to act like a high school kid, even if it means intentionally forfeiting a debate. Well played. You lose."
Still waiting for the evidence for your argument.
Thu Sep 10, 07:18:00 AM 2009
YSY said...
This passage is one of those that makes you wonder. When people were reading this, how many of them looked up and went, "What the hell is this?"
Or even worse, how many people read this part of the Bible and thought, "Yes, this is a good god we follow."
Mon May 03, 10:56:00 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
26 August 2009A Biblical Solution to the Health Care Crisis: Faith-based medicine (for Republicans)
(Re-post for the current health care debate)
A few years ago Garrison Keillor suggested a way to solve our health care crisis, and it's even more relevant today: impose faith-based medicine on all Republicans. That would reduce, by at least a third, the total US health care cost, while encouraging (okay, requiring) the religious right (and those who go along with them) to practice their faith.
Here's how it would work (with biblical justification, of course).
Sick republicans would ask their religious leaders to pray for them (and maybe get anointed with Crisco oil).
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. --James 5:14-15
Or, if they choose, they can try touching their religious leader's handkerchief or something.
So that from his [Paul's] body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them. -- Acts 19:12
But under the faith-based medical plan, Republicans would not be allowed to go to a doctor. Because God is insulted when they trust science more than faith.
And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians. -- 2 Chronicles 16:12
As Garrison Keillor said
Let them try faith-based medicine, let them pray for their arteries to be reamed and their hips to be restored, and leave science to the rest of us.
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/26/2009 08:44:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
11 comments:
Vincent said...
Sheer brilliance. I nominate this as the best idea of the year.
Sun Sep 03, 05:03:00 PM 2006
jake3988 said...
I concur. And... There's plenty of other versus to support this too.
Mon Sep 04, 07:52:00 AM 2006
godisajokeDOTcom said...
Steve, you are brilliant. How ever did you find all these verses to support your arguments? I mean, I know the BLB source, but you have to know what you're looking for in order to find it. Your grasp of the Bible is nothing short of encyclopediac. I bow to you, sir.
Thu Sep 14, 08:17:00 AM 2006
Anonymous said...
"When I see an amputee's arm grow back as a result of prayer, I will become an instant believer. All their other alleged miracle cures are fakes."
Bernard Tarmin, 2000
Thu Sep 14, 08:47:00 PM 2006
twillight said...
Isn't this a re-post?
Wed Aug 26, 08:53:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Yes, twillight, it's a re-post. I thought it might be relevant to the current health care debate.
I've added a note to say it is a re-post. Thanks.
Wed Aug 26, 09:04:00 AM 2009
matt311 said...
Makes sense to me; screw the Republicans! Let them have a taste of their own medicine... that being, none at all!
Wed Aug 26, 03:28:00 PM 2009
Ian G. said...
I like where Keillor is coming from, but I'd tweak it to ensure that anyone who disbelieves in evolution should abandon all modern medicine, since modern medicine is based on our understanding of biology, of which we would have none without evolution.
Of course this likely means Keillor and I are covering the same ground, but I'd just like to make it more explicit.
Thu Aug 27, 10:05:00 PM 2009
b6en said...
The left is always screaming "Tolerance" but this is the sort of intolerance that they really practice. I suppose that the left would have the Republicans pay for all of these programs as well? Steve - I've been reading your "Skeptics Annotated Bible" and I must say that you clearly don't get it at all. Far from being "encyclopedic" you take everything out of context and ridicule it. The preaching of the cross would seam foolish to you.
It is very obvious to me that Pelosi, Obama, Reid and company care much less about health care than politics and controlling everybody's lives. Of course they want to screw the republicans out of their money so they can give paybacks to all their union, pro-abortion, ACORN, welfare, etc... support team. Oh yeah - and Keillor is an idiot.
Wed Nov 04, 11:41:00 AM 2009
Matt said...
It is very obvious to me that Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other churches care much less about humanity than politics and controlling everybody's lives. Of course they want to screw the gullible out of their money so they can give paybacks to their clergy, missionaries, anti-gay, censorshiop, forced prayer in schools, etc. support team. Oh, and you're an idiot.
You made this post very easy. Thanks for the template, b6en.
Fri Dec 11, 11:15:00 AM 2009
Talisman said...
Has anyone ever heard of this website, The Sealed Portion. NON Mormonite- LDSifile
http://www.marvelousworkandawonder.org/tsp/index.htm
It is the Best work I have read, I spent 1 year on my mission in the bible belt of Virginia , I belive that the mormon church is Pure Evil. I believe that Brigham Young Shot Joseph Smith. and that JS did indeed translate the BOM I also am asking anyone to Challenge Christopher Mark Nemelka's Work. It is very interesting and he does not charge a anything for his works.
I also Believe the Christopher Mark Nemelka Translated the Sealed Portion.
However becoming an aithiest after leaving the church I would like a second opionion
Thx
✩★
Wed Mar 17, 07:49:00 PM 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
19 August 2009All the men, women, and children in 60 cities
I suppose I could call this God's 30th to 89th killings, since there must have been 60 separate killing events. If God did the killing himself, he could have done it all at once. But he was relying on people to do his killing for him, so it must have taken some time. First the Israelites had to go to city 1 and kill all the men, women, and children that lived there, then on to city 2, and so on up to the 60th city. But since the Bible lumps all 60 killings together, I will too.
The Bible doesn't spend a lot of time on these killings. Only 4 verses.
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. And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. … And we utterly destroyed them, we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Deuteronomy 3.3-6
(The story is also told in Numbers 21:33-35.)
Although God is proud of all of his killings, he is especially proud of killing King Og and his people, since they were the last of the giants. Og, for example, had a bed that was 13.5 feet long!
For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead … nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man. 3.11
Here's what Moses says when he's encouraging Joshua to carry on God's killing tradition.
Thine eyes have seen all that the LORD your God hath done unto these two kings: so shall the LORD do unto all the kingdoms whither thou passest. Ye shall not fear them: for the LORD your God he shall fight for you … For what God is there in heaven or in earth, that can do according to thy works, and according to thy might? 3.21-24
And Moses has a point here. What other god has killed as many as the God of the Bible?
(Since the Israelites killed everyone in 60 cities, I put the death toll at 60,000.)
God's next killing: The Jericho massacre
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/19/2009 08:46:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
9 comments:
twillight said...
I bet not even Khali. (Shiva if you prefer)
Wed Aug 19, 11:17:00 AM 2009
busterggi said...
Cthulhu is jealous.
Wed Aug 19, 04:01:00 PM 2009
Fragged Mind said...
Damn...You are going to make me work on my videos aren't?
Also Kill sets 4 and 5 are up on my YT channel.
Wed Aug 19, 10:54:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
Thinking about it overnight - just how big were these cities? We're talking about a pretty small area.
Did two buildings count as a city? Did owning more than 3 sheep make someone a king?
I think the old propaganda machine was exaggerating on overtime.
Thu Aug 20, 05:38:00 AM 2009
Ian G. said...
What about Gozer the Destructor?
Fri Aug 21, 01:56:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
Ah, Gozer was a softy!
Fri Aug 21, 05:51:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
I'm guessing these were less "kingdoms and more "villages" than anything else; shame on you, Yahweh, Jehovah, or whatever your name is!
Sat Aug 22, 08:37:00 AM 2009
I Am said...
Sure, many these stories must be exaggerations or complete fabrications. But the way I see it, if people are going to insist the Bible is true, then for the sake of argument we should assume that all these killings actually did occur.
Believers should eithr try to deal with the fact that their God commands or allows such large bloodbaths, or let them realize that the tall tales show the Bible are probably not 100% true (which may lead them to question other things...)
Wed Sep 02, 08:21:00 PM 2009
Julien said...
lol
Jews created the bible as war god to get thier lands back..
So when you read it replace Lord with Jew clergy... And Juses
You'll see it all makes sence..
Fri Sep 11, 07:29:00 AM 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
18 August 2009God hardens King Sihon's heart so that all his people can be killed
After God killed off all the old soldiers and at least most of giants, it was time to get what was left of the Israelite army moving again.
Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon: behold, I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land: begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle. Deuteronomy 2:24
God tells them to terrorize the current occupants of the land they are about to steal. The entire world will fear, tremble, and anguish at the very thought of them.
This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee. Deuteronomy 2:25
The Israelites begin by lying about their true intentions. They send messengers to King Sihon asking to pass through his land, promising to pay for food and water along the way.
And I sent messengers out of the wilderness of Kedemoth unto Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying, Let me pass through thy land: I will go along by the high way, I will neither turn unto the right hand nor to the left. Thou shalt sell me meat for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink: only I will pass through on my feet. Deuteronomy 2:26-28
But then God runs into a bit of a problem. What if King Sihon agrees to let the Israelites pass through his land? Then the Israelites wouldn't get to kill all of his people and God would be sad. So God has a brilliant idea: he'll harden King Sihon's heart so that he won't let them pass. (It worked so well with the Pharaoh that God thought he'd try it again here.)
But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand. Deuteronomy 2:30
And God's plan worked perfectly. After God hardened King Sihon's heart, he refused to let the Israelites pass and fought to protect his land. Which gave God and the Israelites all the excuse they needed to kill the king along with every man, woman, and child in every city in the kingdom.
And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. Deuteronomy 2:33
And we took all his cities at that time, Deuteronomy 2:33
and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. Deuteronomy 2:33
Sometimes God has to harden a heart in order to kill thousands of people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A note on the number of victims.
Since everyone in every city was killed, I guessed 3000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's next killing: All the men, women, and children in 60 cities
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/18/2009 10:53:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
10 comments:
John said...
What an awesome god! He's not about to take 'no' for an answer to a good killing.
Tue Aug 18, 01:29:00 PM 2009
twillight said...
This is one of those plain sick stories why, even if somehow it'd be exist, I'd never-ever worship this god.
Damn, I'd try anything to destroy it, even in the most hopeless circumstances. Hey, it worked for Dr. Doom in the first Secret War!
Tue Aug 18, 01:50:00 PM 2009
gneek said...
If anyone ever builds a time machine, please go back and kill Abraham.
We'll get three burdensome cults finally off our backs.
Tue Aug 18, 02:55:00 PM 2009
Uruk said...
I mean, what's up with hardening someone's heart, anyhow?
If that isn't predestined doom . . .
Tue Aug 18, 08:22:00 PM 2009
Randy said...
Steve,
In your counts, do we assume that none of God's soldiers get killed in the battles?
Tue Aug 18, 08:41:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
I shall refrain from treating fictional characters as if they were real - but if Yahweh were real I'd call him a prick for taking credit for giving free will & then taking it away just as an excuse to slaughter people.
Wed Aug 19, 05:49:00 AM 2009
matt311 said...
To think that all of the nice Jewish people in the world believe in this hideous account (and similar others) is beyond me... and I have Jewish friends! Fortunately, they're not too religious.
Wed Aug 19, 08:13:00 AM 2009
I Am said...
Uruk, I assume the whole God hardening hearts thing was used because it solves two problems
* It's a way to try to explain away why there would be people standing in the way of the chosen people. An all-powerful God could easily poof away any peoples standing in the way, but he doesn't. Why? Well, he told them to resist so that the Israelites and their God would seem so powerful!
* It explains why it was okay for the Israelites to commit mass slaughter and/or genocide. God served these people up on a silver platter and told the Israelites to have at 'em, so they had to do it!
Otherwise, if it wasn't God who told them to do it as part of his great mysterious plan, it might seem like the leaders of the Israelites were bloodthirsty and immoral for leading them to such horrible violence and destruction...
Wed Sep 02, 08:14:00 PM 2009
Uruk said...
I AM:
Good points, and well said.
Seems that in their attempts to justify their blood-thirst, they forgot that it made God look rather bloodthirsty. God is using people as tools to "get glory". Even if that means hardening someone's heart to destroy them. What a way to go! I sure would hate to live a day in the life of an Old Testament character!!
Sun Sep 06, 11:29:00 PM 2009
wanda johnson said...
Surely God don't need me to justify His actions. Shall you all take the time to get to know Him, you will see with a set of new eyes. If you will read the whole story of King Sihon, you will see what a treacherous character he was. King Sihon took the land from the Moabites and he and his army destroyed the Moabites. (Yes, he slaughtered thousands of people himself just because he could). By no means do I condone killing of any human being and it was hard for me to understand God's logic for enforcing the Israelities to do so. "His way's are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts." When I asked the Lord to explain His actions, this is what I learned:
The conquest must have been recent at the time of the Israelite invasion, as the Amorite song of triumph is quoted in Nu 21:27-29, and adapted to the overthrow of Sihon himself by the Israelites. `Woe unto thee,' it reads, `O Moab; thou art undone, O people of Chemosh! (Chemosh) hath given thy sons who escaped (the battle) and thy daughters into captivity to Sihon king of the Amorites.' The flame that had thus consumed Heshbon, it is further declared, shall spread southward through Moab, while Heshbon itself is rebuilt and made the capital of the conqueror: "Come to Heshbon, that the city of Sihon (like the city of David, 2Sa 5:9) may be rebuilt and restored. For the fire has spread from Heshbon, the flame from the capital of Sihon, devouring as far as Moab (reading `adh with the Septuagint instead of `ar), and swallowing up (reading bale`ah with the Septuagint) the high places of Arnon." The Israelite invasion, however, prevented the expected conquest of southern Moab from taking place.
So if you have taken the time to read this passage, you will see that King Sihon was no saint himself and his intentions was to overtake more land and kill thousands more people, (men, women and children). The consequences of our actions no only affect us, they also affect our loved ones. As a leader our actions affect and can infect an entire nation of people. Such as did King Sihon.
God does not glorify in eliminating/killing people. His intellect far surpass our carnal minded thinking and He sees the beginning and the end of what we are not equipped to see. God saw what King Sihon had done and what he planned to do. Unfortunately, Sihon infected the minds of the people he reigned over and even if God had ordered the Israelities to destroy the perpetrator only, the people he led were still infected by what they had been taught.
I pray that God enter into your hearts here today, and that you open your hearts to the real truth about who God really is. I believe there is a total misconception here about who God is. God is an AWESOME God, full of love and tender mercies. There is a great hatred for God here and great unbelief. The good news is no matter what you feel about God, He still loves you all and He is waiting to show you just how much. I pray one day you all will give Him a chance. Be Blessed children of God.
Fri Feb 28, 06:57:00 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 August 2009God the giant killer
After God kills off the old soldiers in his early retirement program and before the new, youthful army begins to kill again for him, he brags a bit about some of his past killings. He is especially proud of knocking off an entire race of giants, the Zamzummim.
That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead. Deuteronomy 2:20-21
There were a few other groups that God also killed that I don't think I've accounted for yet: the Horim, Avim, and the Caphtorim.
As he did to the children of Esau, which dwelt in Seir, when he destroyed the Horims from before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead even unto this day: And the Avims which dwelt in Hazerim, even unto Azzah, the Caphtorims, which came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead. Deuteronomy 2:22-23
The Bible doesn't say how many were in these groups. So I'll just guess 5,000 for the lot of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's next killing: God hardens King Sihon's heart so he can kill him and all of his people
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/17/2009 12:55:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
5 comments:
busterggi said...
I wonder what it took to be considered a kingdom in that area at that time. There were more 'great' kingdoms in the Levant back then than there are Dunkin Donuts in Connecticut today.
I suspect the greatness was greatly exaggerated.
Mon Aug 17, 03:56:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
Zamzummim? Horim? Avim? Caphtorim? Sounds more like the Bible translators wanted to throw some silly names in for the sake of a joke...
By the way, the name of the other giant people mentioned, the Anakims, apparently inspired George Lucas to name the new main character of his Star Wars series "Anakin" Skywalker. Neat little tidbit.
Tue Aug 18, 06:43:00 AM 2009
Scotlyn said...
Steve - I love this series... and your ability to stay focussed on the everlasting detail. When you finally come to the end of God's killings, would you consider a series on biblical prophecies and their potential interpretations? What's all the beast with ten head about, for example?
Tue Aug 18, 08:15:00 AM 2009
PersonalFailure said...
How tall does one have to be to qualify as a "giant" in the Bronze Age? I'm guessing my massive 5'1.5"ness would have made me impressively large.
Tue Aug 18, 08:41:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
PersonalFailure,
I'm not sure what height qualified a person to be a giant back in the day. But Dt.3:11 says that King Og (one of the last of the giants) had a bed that was by 4 cubits (13.5 by 6 feet). So I suppose he must have been at least 12 feet tall (or maybe he just liked really big beds).
Scotlyn,
I'm glad you like the God's Killings series. And your idea about a prophecy series is a good one, but I don't know if I'll ever have the time. I feel bad about neglecting the Quran and Book of Mormon. Maybe some skeptics out there would like to help with a series of guest posts.
Tue Aug 18, 09:16:00 AM 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
14 August 2009God slowly kills the Israelite army
This is a strange one and I completely missed it until now.
Read it and let me know what you think.
And the space in which we came from Kadeshbarnea, until we were come over the brook Zered, was thirty and eight years; until all the generation of the men of war were wasted out from among the host, as the LORD sware unto them. For indeed the hand of the LORD was against them, to destroy them from among the host, until they were consumed. So it came to pass, when all the men of war were consumed and dead from among the people, That the LORD spake unto me, saying.... Deuteronomy 2:14-17
It's hard to understand, isn't it, especially without any Brick Testament illustrations? But it sure sounds like God killed the entire Israelite army -- slowly -- over a period of 38 years.
It's not a very impressive killing, though, as God's killings go. He mostly just waited for them all to die of natural causes. Prostate cancer, heart attack, stroke.
But God claims to have killed them all himself, so I guess we should give him credit. How many old soldiers do you think died because "the hand of the Lord was against them?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So how many soldiers did God kill?
Well, they started off with 603,550 men "from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war in Israel" and the only people that the Bible mentions dying along the way are those that God killed, which total a bit over 50,000. But I suppose some people must have died of natural causes over the 38 year period. So I'll just say that God killed 500,000 soldiers.
Thanks for your help on this one. Now I just need to update the list. Be sure to check my numbers!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's next killing: God the giant killer
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/14/2009 10:02:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
13 comments:
PersonalFailure said...
It says "all", so I guess every soldier died. Which is, well, silly. 38 years? Even assuming that Israelites became soldiers at the age of 13, which I highly doubt, the life expentency at the time was significatly lower than 38 years, so they all would have died anyway within 38 years.
Also, modern day Israel is about the size of New Jersey. Even I, with my bad joints, could walk across NJ in a lot less than 38 years. Where are Kadeshbarnea and Zered today, Scotland and Polynesia?
Fri Aug 14, 12:03:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
I agree, PF. It is a silly story. But, hey, it's the Bible.
Still, it seems like God made a point of killing all "the men of war" just like he swore he would. It took him 38 years to do it and they all would have died anyway, but he did it. (I guess.)
So does he get credit for another 600,000, or what?
Fri Aug 14, 12:26:00 PM 2009
busterggi said...
So if the Israeli army was killed off as it says, who was in the Israeli army during allo the conquests that supposedly followed this period?
Fri Aug 14, 06:59:00 PM 2009
twillight said...
The israelites in the Bible became soldiers at age 20.
The number is highly questionable. I think back on it as it was referring to those who left Egypt. Or was it when they reached the Promised Land and got sentenced for wandering around?
Anyway start with the original 600,000 then substarct all male of the previous killings, and that seem to be the number we're looking for. (in the Bible the winners of battle never lose a single men)
Sat Aug 15, 01:00:00 AM 2009
I am the wise fool. said...
I'm just as confused on this. As you point out, the language seems to suggest God killing them. However, I don't know if that is just the cultural influence on the language; something equivalent to saying that whenever anyone dies for any reason, it is because of God. And, as you also point out, natural causes could kill them off in that time frame.
If I were to vote, I would lean towards not counting this. It lacks the brutal style and flare of God's other killings, so it seems inconsistent with His M.O.
But if you were to count it, I think twillight has the best possible idea on how to count it.
Sat Aug 15, 07:33:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
twillight, I like your approach to numbering the victims. They started with 600,000 soldiers and God killed 51,200 Israelites at various times previously. People didn't seem to die unless God got pissed and burned or buried them alive, sent fiery serpents to bite them, etc., so we don't need to include natural causes. (They had the best health care system in the world.) So that means God killed 550,000 or so. But maybe I should just say 500,000.
Sat Aug 15, 07:55:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
busterggi,
Yeah, that is strange. How could God kill off all the soldiers and then immediately have the Israelites go off smiting everybody? But then, it's not supposed to make sense. You're just supposed to believe it.
wise fool,
You're right; this killing is not up to God's standards. Still he claims credit for it, so I think we should give it to him.
PersonalFailure,
I think the lifespan at the time was a lot higher than it is now (if you're foolish enough to believe the Bible, that is). Moses and Aaron died, for example, at 120 and 123 years, respectively. So the old soldiers would have been in their prime. That's why God had to kill them.
Sat Aug 15, 08:45:00 AM 2009
matt311 said...
Can you imagine a hoarde of creaky old soldiers rampaging through Palestine circa 1200 B.C.? They'd make God the laughingstock of the pantheon of gods, and ol' Yahweh never likes to be ticked off, so... they die.
The hand of the Lord just gave them a really slow bitch-slap, I guess.
Also, I've got to admit, I never noticed this killing before: I always got bored right at the beginning of Deuteronomy, so I skipped to the end, to the "inspirational" death of Moses, completely missing this bizarre death sequence entirely.
Sat Aug 15, 04:38:00 PM 2009
I am the wise fool. said...
This is less bizarre than it seems at first glance. Well, OK, God wanting to kill all of the army for complaining that they needed food and water is pretty bizarre. However, the methodology is actually reasonable. Spanning 38 years would permit time to raise children to be replacements for the present army members which were to be killed, thereby never leaving the Israelites defenseless.
Sun Aug 16, 07:57:00 AM 2009
busterggi said...
Sorry fool but either Yahweh killed the Israeli army as the bible claims or, if we accept your explanation, the bible is lying.
Sun Aug 16, 06:10:00 PM 2009
slkj said...
I have been reading your blog with interest, you always have nice posts, thank you!
Since you sometimes talks about Bible-related politics as well in the blog, I think you could write something about the health care soon...
Mon Aug 17, 04:45:00 AM 2009
Julien said...
This GOD organization was built 2000 years ago... Over a dead bird at a temple and they tried getting the roman army to after the Greeks for desecrating the temple that lead to a tax revolt... sending the Jews people into exile...
So when you look at the old testament is their plan and dream to get back at those responsible...
So what did they do well create a god for the gentiles anyone not being Jewish and that god birth place in Jerusalem why to get their land back... Nothing to do with a real god... but war god like each Romans regiments built for them selves...
The new testaments was all abut getting the gentiles to work for their cause... This is important.... why because its the door ways they used to keep them alive... Look at confession why would they want to know the secrete desire of a person in a secrete box that divides by a wall...
War spies...knowing who is doing what...
Look at the logic used by the Jewish clergy... They are god's promises people and the gentiles are their followers they create the words of god for you...Under their logic their can only 2 religions in the world theirs and the one they control for the gentiles... Read you new testaments it explains what gentiles need to do for them... On other logic the Jewish teach is that if they don't do what god has laid out that god will kill them off... so it a bit of mind bender for any individual... and for the gentiles if they don't do what god has laid out their no salvation for them... again another mind bender...
Fri Sep 11, 06:47:00 AM 2009
Gibber Jabber said...
Few things to point out:
Life expectancy is often quoted from mean average of age at death. If the population had a high rate of infant mortality then the average drops. If a person makes it through their childhood, they are then more than likely to live to an age comparable with people now.
The Israelites got to the promised land fairly swiftly, but upon refusing to follow God's command through fear, they were made to walk the wilderness for the best part of 40 years. The generation of soldiers that refused to take the land died in that time, but they were able to have children to ensure Israel had an army. Surely a much better way than just wiping out an army and leaving the nation defenceless. And the bible says that they were made to wander until that generation died, and that God was against them because of their disbelief. The bible doesn't say that God killed them on the spot so Busterggi's comments seem a little weak.
Fri Jun 10, 06:15:00 AM 2011
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
10 August 2009God's Killings in Numbers (Don't complain about them!)
Here's a summary of God's 13 killings in the Book of Numbers. Killing Event Verse Estimated number killed Cumulative total
1 God burned people to death for complaining Numbers 11:1 100 100
2 God sent "a very great plague" for complaining about the food. 11:33 10,000 10,100
3 God killed ten scouts with a plague. 14:35-36 10 10,110
4 A man who gathered firewood on the sabbath is stoned to death 15:32-26 1 10,111
5 Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (and their families) are buried alive for complaining about Moses' leadership 16:27 12 10,123
6 Burned to death for offering incense 16:35 250 10,373
7 For complaining about God's killings 16:49 14,700 25,073
8 Massacre of the Aradites 21:1-3 3000 28,073
9 God sent serpents to bite the people for complaining about the lack of food and water. 21:6 100 28,173
10 God delivers the Bashanites into Moses' hands 21:34-35 2000 30,173
11 Phinehas impales a mixed-race couple having sex 25:6-8 2 30,175
12 For "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab" 25:9 24,000 54,175
13 Midianite massacre 31:1-35 200,000 254,175
See something that stands out in this list? I do. (You probably do too since I highlighted it.) It is the central message of the Book of Numbers: Don't complain, especially not about the food or God's killings.
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/10/2009 07:14:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
8 comments:
Har said...
I like the idea of this list, but wouldn't it be interesting to give an estimate of the number of people of living in those good old days? A few thousands lives don't seem much, but we're over 6 billion now. It's all in the percentages, you know, and it gives a better idea of this god's cruelty.
Tue Aug 11, 02:17:00 PM 2009
I am the wise fool. said...
The one possible killing which technically you may or may not have missed is the death of Aaron in Numbers 20:23-28. It doesn't specifically say God killed him, but it is awfully suspicious. God "predicts" his death following the episode when Moses had to provide water from the rock.
You're dead right about the complaining! ;-) In fact, Numbers 17:10 (from the story of Aaron's budding staff) pretty much says that God will kill all complainers.
Of course, what is incredibly ironic is that it was the complaining of the Israelites which finally reminded God to rescue them from their Egyptian enslavement.
Tue Aug 11, 03:45:00 PM 2009
I am the wise fool. said...
I was just thinking Steve, it may not be fair to assume every time God plagues the Israelites that people died. When you look at the plagues of Exodus, people didn't die with every plague, like the plague of flies or the plague of boils.
You may need to retract some of the death count and stick to cases were death is explicit.
Wed Aug 12, 05:48:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Did you have a particular plague in Numbers in mind, wise fool?
The only one that I can see as a possible non-lethal plague would be the second killing in Numbers (the "very great plague" of 11:33). But the next verse (v.34) says that they buried the people that were killed in the plague -- so it seems like God must have killed the people that he "smote" in the plague.
Or is there another one of the 13 that you are worried about.
Wed Aug 12, 07:46:00 PM 2009
I am the wise fool. said...
Doh! I should have double-checked the context around Numbers 11:33. That was the one I was thinking of. Sorry about that.
There is one more vague plague. You had logged 1000 killed way back at Exodus 32:35 from the golden calf incident, but it doesn't explicitly mention any deaths.
Of course, when you are up in the millions, a 1000 corpses is a drop in the bucket. :-)
Thu Aug 13, 05:28:00 AM 2009
matt311 said...
I guess God hated his own people more than he did the Egyptians, since he gave the latter better treatment than his "Chosen People"; he didn't make them wander around in a desert for 40 years, after all...
Sat Aug 15, 04:55:00 PM 2009
IZSBHR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thu Aug 20, 09:10:00 AM 2009
Brendan said...
1. This is a translation issue. Neither of the translations I own mention any deaths. Considering how terrible the King James translation is, I think I'll trust Richard Elliot Friedman & The Union for Reform Judaism.
2. There's 2 explanations given in the Union of Reform Judaism's Modern Commentary. The first explains that the people, upon receiving the quail, in their greed, bit off more than they could chew (literally), and "choked on their own greed". This makes sense, since the text reads "The meat was... not yet chewed". The idea that G-d struck them with a plague seems to be a figurative analysis of it. There's another explanation it gives, but I don't think it's as good.
3. The ten scouts were trying to get the Israelites to turn back to Egypt. The idea here is that picking them off prevented not only renewed slavery, but more deaths.
4. Well, for starters, we don't know anything about the guy. He was put to death because he was deemed a detriment to the community. All we know is that he was trying to make a fire on Shabbat (that's why he was gathering sticks). The death penalty for the offense was given in a world where the Israelites were literally in the presence of the divine. There is no practical use for the death penalty in today's society.
5. Since Korah's sons did not die, I guess "all that they have" doesn't apply to families. Their families did not die with them. Those that died a) willingly gambled their lives, and b) were trying to get Moses and Aaron killed. The death count for this one is 3.
6. A) again, they willingly gambled their lives, and b) again, they were rebelling against Moses in a way that was potentially dangerous.
7. This goes back to the whole idea that these people would've killed Moses in their rebellion. This is basically the explanation for every single killing involving a rebellion. And without his leadership, they'd be screwed and would all die very quickly.
8. This is that whole "never leave anyone behind" mentality here. According to Midrash Aggadah, Arad had kidnapped a maidservant. The harsh retaliation is just because of the people's mentality.
9. Responded separately.
10. Like Arad, Og was intending to stop the Israelites from advancing. The Israelites asked of him permission to go through his land peacefully, and he attacked their people. They retaliated and destroyed his people. That's the way people fought war at that point in time. It was a practice known as "proscribing" which as carried out by the Greeks, Romans (even then), and pretty much everybody with military power in that time period.
11 & 12. I already wrote about this elsewhere.
13. Not G-d's doing. See my response on the other post.
Fri Aug 21, 11:28:00 AM 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
07 August 2009The Midianite massacre: Have you saved all the women alive?
This is a bible story that everyone should know.
It begins with God telling Moses to take vengeance on the Midianites. (He doesn't say for what, but I guess it was for the sex and dinner party that brought on God's last round of killings.)
So Moses does what he's told and sends off 12,000 men led by Phinehas (the guy who stopped God from killing everyone by impaling the couple who were having sex).
First they killed every male "as the LORD commanded Moses."
And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. Numbers 31:7
Next they killed five kings,
And they slew the kings of Midian ... namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian. Numbers 31:8a
along with Balaam (the nice guy with the talking ass).
Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. Numbers 31:8b
Then they took the women and children captive, collected their animals and valuables, burned the cities, and returned to Moses.
And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. Numbers 31:9
But Moses wasn't pleased. Here's what he said:
And Moses was wroth with the officers ... Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel ... to commit trespass against the LORD ... and there was a plague. Numbers 31:14-16
And 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 31:17-18
(You see, it was the Midianite women who had sex and a dinner with the Israelites. And that's what pissed God off so much. So all the non-virgin women had to be killed.)
So that's what they did. They went back and killed all the non-virgin women, keeping the 32,000 virgins alive for themselves. (I'm not sure how they separated the virgins from the non-virgins, but God probably helped out with that.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since there were 32,000 virgin women saved alive as booty, I figured there must have been about 200,000 killed in this episode, which would include all of the males (men, boys, babies) and non-virgin females.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's next killing: God slowly killed the Israelite army
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/07/2009 10:27:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
18 comments:
busterggi said...
You know, if Yahweh really wanted all those Midianites & Ammonites & Moabites, etc to worship him maybe he should have announced his presence to all of them instead of just the Jews.
Dumbass.
Fri Aug 07, 01:33:00 PM 2009
I am the wise fool. said...
This is one of my favorite disgusting OT episodes. God ordains genocide. Moses is angry that the genocide wasn't complete, and then ends up making the virgins the spoils of war. Ha! The "Good Book", ha!
As for separating the virgins, the only thing I can think of was doing a hymen check on the girls. That would have taken quite some time to check 32000 women.
Or perhaps they simply went by apparent age, killing off anyone that looked old enough to have "known" a man.
What they did with the young girls probably varied from owner to owner, but I'm guessing many would have unfortunately become sexual slaves, similar to what I've discussed below:
http://ponderingtruth.blogspot.com/2009/06/plight-of-slave-girl.html
Fri Aug 07, 02:57:00 PM 2009
Baconsbud said...
I am wondering if this is an endorsement of child brides. I doubt many of the virgin females were very old. Of course the christians would say it was a different time and place but I think that when they claim the bible is an instruction book that it is timeless and all is still in effect.
Fri Aug 07, 02:59:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
Holy crap. Whatever happened to "God is love"?
Oh, right; he isn't. He's fictional and completely immoral.
Fri Aug 07, 10:27:00 PM 2009
Ritchie Annand said...
Oh my GOD - I didn't even KNOW that Balaam got skewered. I made a post ages back on that weird, weird episode of the donkey saving Balaam from the angel who was angry for... well, no good reason; all it did was reiterate the instructions Balaam was already following.
...and after all that, he was saved JUST TO BE SKEWERED?
I'm sure there's a moral lesson in there somewhere. Just let me go contract a giant drilling rig and crew so I stand a chance of being able to dig deep enough. I may hit magma.
Sat Aug 08, 01:41:00 AM 2009
gneek said...
Fellow atheists, please stop calling mythological persons "dumbasses" and such.
That makes you seem like you actually believe in such an entity and are simply mad at him. Guess where the whole "atheists are angry with god" argument came from.
Sat Aug 08, 11:35:00 AM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Ritchie Annand -- Yeah, I missed the part about Balaam, too, until wrote this post. Wasn't Balaam on God's side.
Gneek -- I agree. We should try to discuss the issues, not insult one another.
Sun Aug 09, 09:57:00 PM 2009
Markus Arelius said...
I wonder how many Christian women in the US, for example, have read through this particular biblical account and what they think about it?
They could probably could write it all off to the iron age misogyny of the day and even explain that these attitudes were subsequently projected on to Yahweh (God) at the time.
What I then thought about was that some Christian churches hold these little children sermons during the regular church service, where young children come up to the alter and listen to a biblical story or lesson told from the pastor/priest. Then I got to thinking: How in the world this particularly episode could be applied and used under such circumstances?
The answer is, it could and would never be applied and used.
It's good to see the contents of Bible being revealed "as is" and appropriately questioned.
Mon Aug 10, 01:24:00 PM 2009
Ritchie Annand said...
Wasn't Balaam on God's side.
He certainly seemed to be. From Numbers 22:20:
22:20 And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do.
22:21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.
Then God got angry... because Balaam did what God told him to do?
22:22 And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.
But he got saved by his talking donkey and all. You'd think he was in the clear, but no! :)
Tue Aug 11, 02:38:00 PM 2009
Carl said...
I find it strange that Christians and Jews avoid even replying to this kind of stuff. Actually, maybe it isn't so weird.
I think the OT just illustrates our need to have the gods as a scapegoat for our own evil and the NT our need for the gods as a scapegoat for our own love.
And I think the latter is the worse boat to be in, if we can't love on our own, then what do we have?
Thu Aug 13, 11:51:00 AM 2009
Ian G. said...
Good ol' family values: genocide!
Thu Aug 13, 01:13:00 PM 2009
matt311 said...
Carl: It's ridiculous, isn't it? Love should be the first thing that humanity claims as its own; otherwise, how could it hold up to any self-reflection?
Sat Aug 15, 04:51:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
Hey! I'm a little late, sorry about that.
Carl: Actually, Carl, the Torah was revolutionary in that it says the opposite. The other creation myths at the time held the gods responsible for evil. The Torah says that G-d made everything good, and humans fucked it up.
Steve: Balaam was an evil, genocidal man who sought to harness the power of G-d in order to destroy the Jews.
At least, that's what the Midrashim say. The Torah only says that the seduction of Baal Peor was carried out at his command.
The Midrash goes on to say that his plan was to get G-d to destroy the Jews by having them worship Baal.
The Torah still says that he was responsible for the seduction of Baal Peor.
On the matter of G-d ordained genocide, Richard Elliot Friedman writes:
"... the fearful order to kill the women and children comes from Moses... to conceive of Moses' thoughts, perhaps we must go back to the point of the Midianite seductions at Baal Peor and start asking the question of what Moses might feel when he learns that women of his wife's people are seducing the Israelites into heresy: shock, embarrassment, betrayal, fury... What humiliation might Zipporah suffer from the Israelites in the aftermath of Baal Peor? How much are both Moses and Zipporah undermined? Moses' command to eliminate the Midianite women can be conceived of as coming from the depth of his outrage and pain. Another point: The text never reports that Moses' order was carried out! There is a mention of retaining virgin women as captives, but no mention of the execution of the women who have known men or the male infants... alternatively, perhaps it is not reported simply because it is so horrible to describe."
Indeed, this is quite possibly the most gruesome story in the Bible. However, this CANNOT be considered "G-d's 27th killing". There is no mention of this being demanded by G-d.
Sat Aug 15, 08:12:00 PM 2009
Steve Wells said...
Brendan,
"...this CANNOT be considered "G-d's 27th killing". There is no mention of this being demanded by G-d."
What? The whole thing was started by God's command (what's with the hokey G-d thing, Brendan?).
"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites."
And where does the Torah say that the seduction of Baal Peor was carried out at Balaam's command?
Sat Aug 15, 08:31:00 PM 2009
Brendan said...
"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites."
But he did not demand the execution of the male children and women. That was at Moses' command.
"(what's with the hokey G-d thing, Brendan?)"
Meh, what can I say? I stopped writing/typing the o.
"And where does the Torah say that the seduction of Baal Peor was carried out at Balaam's command?"
Numbers 31:16 clearly says that it was at "Balaam's word".
Sat Aug 15, 09:14:00 PM 2009
Tom Chapin said...
Brendan, I find it amusing that you are scared to write the word "God", but you have no problem lying about the use of the letter "o".
Fri Jun 04, 03:45:00 AM 2010
wpnexp said...
First, the Midianites were not subject to genocide, as they go to war with Israel later in the Bible. Second, Balaam and the Midianites use woman to try to get the Israelis to depart from God. This is strait from Satan in his effort to prevent the Messiah from coming from the Jews. Women are subject to punishment here as they were used to lure the Israelis into sex and idol worship. The message is, if you mess with God, expect the worst. Had the Midianites wanted to know God, I am sure they would have been blessed.
Tue Jun 25, 01:44:00 PM 2013
Baconsbud said...
Wpnexp have you ever noticed that most christians are always trying to justify the bible not provide proof of its truth. You are lacking in any real proof of why you view should be accepted. You are always trying to justify but when you apply the same logic to real life you see things differently. If you don't then you are full of hate not love as youy claim.
Tue Jun 25, 02:01:00 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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment