DIU blog posts and comments

Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 19 May 2008Real men pee standing up
Have you ever wondered why the God of the Bible likes the phrase "piss against the wall" so much? I know I have.
Well wonder no more, because Pastor Steven L Anderson explains it all for you.


Here are some of the good pastor's words in the sermon.
And God says, "A man is someone who pisses against a wall." ... And you say, "Ah, you're being vile." I'm not being vile. God's the one who wrote the Bible.
...
We got pastors that pee sitting down. We got the president of the United States who probably pees sitting down. ... The editors of the NIV pee sitting down. The editors of the New King James all pee sitting down. I'm gonna tell you something. I will never pee sitting down.
So there you have it. According to the Bible, real men pee standing up.
And in case you want to mark them in your Bible, here are the six verses where God uses the phrase "piss against the wall."
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. 1 Samuel 25:22
...surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.1 Samuel 25:34
Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall... 1 Kings 14:10
... he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.1 Kings 16:11
Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall....1 Kings 21:21
For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall,.... 2 Kings 9:8
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/19/2008 07:55:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
30 comments:
 Becky said...
Oh. my. goodness.
I haven't laughed so hard in ages. Thanks for this!
Mon May 19, 10:40:00 PM 2008 
 emodude1971 said...
The next time I hear a christian say that god is so awesome that we can't begin to comprehend him, they're getting this link. Thanks Steve.
Tue May 20, 06:54:00 AM 2008 
 busterggi said...
Well I guess that explains why there are stone walls running through woods and fields all over New England. Too bad the Christian 'heartland' doesn't have them, must make it tough to hold it until one gets into town.
Tue May 20, 11:53:00 AM 2008 
 Ordinary Girl said...
Wow. If peeing standing up is the only thing that makes one a man, I feel sorry for the women in that congregation.
Tue May 20, 12:39:00 PM 2008 
 Steven B said...
The info at You Tube seems to indicate that the man is Pastor Steven L Anderson, not Perry Noble. Still very funny, all the same.
Tue May 20, 01:06:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Thanks Steven B. I've made the correction.
Tue May 20, 03:09:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
I sent this to the pee preacher:
Hey piss boy, great piss sermon. I kind of looked at it, as a tinkle-party. Your sermon was exciting and full of piss and vinegar. The sermon was like a golden shower from god's lips. I laughed so hard, I pissed myself (No, not really, just a figure of speech), but I was standing up. People everywhere are going to want to hear your piss sermon. You might, even say, URINE huge demand. After the sermon we should all get pissed. I hope this doesn't piss you off; I wouldn't want you to be a piss poor loser, about it. Weeeeeeeeee should all be tolerant, and I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you.
I can hardly wait to hear your sermon on shit. That will be one shitty sermon!
Mal. 2:3 -- Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
And when you get really ambitious, you can preach a sermon about eating shit and drinking piss.
2 Kings 18:27 -- But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?
Purer words have never been spoken.
--S.
Tue May 20, 04:19:00 PM 2008 
 devinouis said...
Wow, I'm just curious, has no one stopped to think that "piss against the wall" maybe a term implying disrespect. None of those phrases state anything directly saying, "Give he who pisses against the wall a medal, for he surely is a man." ACTUALLY, in every verse, God is talking about punishing the one who "pisseth against the wall" - even killing them! I think I'd get mad if someone peed on the wall of my house too! As for the phrases used "He" ... well, the Bible is rarely, if ever, politically correct when it comes to gender during interpretation, eh?
Personally, I think this Pastor is a dumbass and needs to rethink his sermons. Not because I'm offended as a Christian, merely as a writer and human being. Pastors are supposed to be leaders, and he's LEADING people with a sermon on piss.... don't say much about his congregation.
Tue May 20, 08:06:00 PM 2008 
 Alfonso Armenta said...
thank god i am an atheist...
Fri May 23, 03:05:00 AM 2008 
 Aquaria said...
I wonder what this guy would think about a literal pissing contest I witnessed while in the USAF, when a woman stepped up and said she could piss further than any of the guys. So they all had their turn, then the woman stepped up, and got her pee so up and high that it went over the hood of a Camaro. None of the guys could do that! So I don't think a wall would be a problem, save for maybe going over it.
For years after that, anytime some dinosaur sexist would say women couldn't do what men could, all of us who witnessed the piss contest burst out laughing.
Guess you had to be there...
Mon May 26, 02:50:00 PM 2008 
 Tor Hershman said...
Howdy do, Steve,
I bet you'll dig moi's wee YouTube film/research
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7iQRFP_e90
Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor
Fri May 30, 04:32:00 PM 2008 
 Jim Thompson said...
I was primed to point out how The Reverend Anderson's presentation was misrepresented to make his words seem so stupid. Sadly, it wasn't misrepresented in the least. The man clearly illustrates the reason evangelical Christianity attracts so much well-deserved criticism.
Fundamentalists of all stripes like to cling to the absurd, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or adherents to any other of the uncountable belief systems. You may have trouble with this, but every human practices a belief system, even if it is belief in the nonexistence of something. Of all the fanatically held beliefs, however, Atheism is the most pitiful, in that its whole shtick is a negative.
At one time I tried to defend my Christian faith with valid logic. And don't bother telling me that using the term "christian" with "logic" is an oxymoron. I could make the same prejudiced statement about anyone who disagrees with me. Such verbiage proves less-than nothing. But after years of striving with bitter Atheists, I finally concluded I was "pissing into the wind."
Now, please think before you get all mad and start flaming me. Emotionalism is, after all, religion's fertilizer.
Fri May 30, 06:55:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jimmy,
Jimmy said, Fundamentalists of all stripes like to cling to the absurd, whether Christian, Jewish...
Evidently you do not lump yourself with fundamentalists, but do you consider your beliefs absurd?
1. Do you believe in talking snakes?
2. Do you believe in talking donkeys?
3. Do you believe the sun can stop in the middle of the sky and stay in one position, all day?
4. Do you believe in virgin births?
5. Do you believe a man can magically walk on water?
6. Do you believe a man can magically bring people back from the dead?
7. Do you believe the act of sacrificing Jesus, somehow, magically atoned for humanities sins?
8. Do you believe God answers prayers?
Jimmy, hitting the nail on the head, said, You may have trouble with this, but every human practices a belief system, even if it is belief in the nonexistence of something.
Yeah, right, that's why, every minute, of every day, I have to believe, with all my heart, there is no such thing as Santa. I have to have an unwavering faith, that he will not come down my chimney and deliver toys to me. The nonexistence of Santa and the belief that he doesn't exist, consumes me and the whole shtick has been a huge negative, in my life. [sarcasm]
The only thing that is absurd, is you trying to make the case, atheism is a belief. You try to make this ridiculous comparison to associate atheism to your own beliefs. You are in essence trying to put atheism on the same playing field as theism and you want people to conclude they are equal, so as to justify your faith.
What you have is faith. Faith is believing in something that has no evidence, no logical proof or material evidence. Do you believe in leprechauns? Can they magically grant you wishes? Do you believe in leprechauns even though the evidence is largely conclusive that they do not exist? If you did believe in them, then you could only believe in them, on faith. But being a reasonably, educated person do you really go around living day to day practicing in a belief system that believes in the non-existence of leprechauns? NO, that's absurd. You just, simply DO NOT believe in leprechauns, because you see zero proof of them existing -- you don't have to have faith that they don't exist. And, in exactly the same way, we simply do not believe in your Bible-God -- It doesn't take belief or faith, there is just no evidence.
There is an infinite amount of conceivable things we can come up with that are non-existent: The list is only limited to the imagination. Do you have a belief in the non-existence of all those things that can be imagined? Take for example Allah, Zeus, Aphrodite, Thor, Mother Earth, Krishna, Brahma, or any of the 330,000 deities in the Hindu religion, alone -- are you going to honestly say you have a belief system in place that has to BELIEVE that all these deities are non-existent? Or is it simply you don't have any knowledge or evidence of these deities existing?
The God's honest truth (pun intended) is you are just as atheistic in regards to those Gods. The same way you dismiss those (think real hard why you dismiss those Gods without having a belief system in the non-existent) Gods is the same way I dismiss your God. And guess what? -- You are not wallowing in a pit of atheistic negativity over the non-existence of those Gods.
--S.
Fri May 30, 11:13:00 PM 2008 
 Errancy said...
What a great sermon! This is the stuff that really matters, but you so rarely hear it preached.
It's clearly time I threw away my NRSV (which glosses "one who pisses against the wall" as "male") and got a KJV instead.
Thu Jan 29, 05:04:00 AM 2009 
 jess said...
Lol. Oi.
Thu Mar 18, 01:47:00 PM 2010 
 Srinivasan said...
Is that why Mohammed peed sitting down?
To Alfonso Armenta: "Thank god I am an atheist!" Thaks for that, I am gonna use that as a personal motto from now.
Wed Apr 14, 07:47:00 PM 2010 
 Drew said...
Wait... Genesis 5:5? Does he seriously think the Hebrew Torah came with chapter and verse numbers?
Mon Jun 28, 10:19:00 PM 2010 
 Xaratherus said...
I think the real reason that men are supposed to piss standing up is so that we can check their balls for the "KING OF KING, LORD OF LORDS" tattoo you mentioned in your "What does Jesus have written on his testicles" blog. :)
Thu Jul 29, 08:59:00 AM 2010 
 Erica said...
I saw your post a long time ago and I laughed so hard! Thanks for sharing it! I am adding a link to this on my blog. Priceless.
Fri Oct 22, 01:41:00 PM 2010 
 djl said...
I wonder if Lucifer and some of the other angels had a pissing contest and thats why they were cast out of heaven! haha
Sat Feb 12, 08:42:00 PM 2011 
 bobinbpt said...
Now see, my take on this is that God is commanding that anyone who pisseth against a wall be put to death; therefore we should all pee sitting down.
Sat Jan 14, 06:55:00 PM 2012 
 justme said...
Well, i'm never going to pee sitting down, because doing so is demeaning. Only women pee sitting down, and yes, only real men pee standing up. So you guys who pee sitting down might as well come out of the closet, you fucking queers.
You make me sick. Oh, and i hate women, which is the reason why i like Bible so much.
Sat Jul 28, 01:00:00 PM 2012 
 Love Bomb said...
Wow, What about a handicapped man or one who is catheterized? I swear Christians are so fucking ridiculous. It amazes me that they cant see it. But then I was afraid ofhell till I pulled my head out of my ass in my twenties. I used to be a Christian but now I am saved. I am so thankful. thankful to whom? And for what. Thankful to evolution for reason
Sun Oct 28, 06:07:00 PM 2012 
 Louis Farrakhan said...
Muhammad SQUATTED like a woman to have a PEE!
Muslim men and boys are told that they have to sit down when they have to take a piss, no matter how dirty or filthy the toilet is. You MUST sit on that dirty toilet to urinate, like a woman, or face the torment of the grave and the hell fire.
You have to do this because Muhammad, himself, used to squat to pee like a woman, but than Muhammad used to cross dress and wear his wife's clothes.
So remember Muslim men you MUST sit down when you have to urinate at that petrol or gas station no matter how dirty it is or go to Islamic hell.
Sun Dec 02, 09:56:00 AM 2012 
 mike said...
Sorry louis, you are wrong.. Prophet mohammed was reported to do it standing and sitting so the choice is yours man!!
but the question is: will u still do it standing in those dirty bathrooms if you are do the heavy one????!!!
Mon Feb 11, 07:29:00 AM 2013 
 Louis Farrakhan said...
MUSLIMS ARE SHY
1. Shamelessness. One bad habit that has resulted from using of public urinals is the loss of personal modesty in the restroom. It is very common to see two men using the bathroom while having a conversation at the same time. Had they peeked over just a little they would have be able to see one another’s private parts. This is abhorrent. The Prophet said,
“Allah detests it when two people relieve themselves uncovered and have a conversation.”1
The Prophet would take so much care to seclude himself that Al-Mughīrah ibn Shu’bah said,
“I was travelling with the Prophet. When he needed to relieve himself, he went far away from me.”2
2. The Prophet said,
“When you go to the restroom, take three stones with you to clean yourself. That will suffice.” 3
Salman al-Fārisī, the Companion from Persia, was told,
“Your Prophet has taught you everything, even how to use the bathroom.” He responded, “That is right. He told us not to…use our right hand when cleaning and to not use less than three stones to clean ourselves after we finish.”4
‘Ā’ishah (ra), the Prophet’s wife, said to a group of women, “Tell your husbands to clean themselves with water because I am embarrassed to tell them. This is what the Prophet used to do regularly.”5 Cleaning yourself, with either a solid substance or with water, is so important in Islam that once when the Prophet passed by a man’s grave he told Ibn ‘Abbās (ra) that the deceased man is being tortured, but not for a major sin: “He didn’t used to clean himself after urinating.”6
3. The Prophet said,
“Beware of the cursed ones.” Some people asked, “Who are the cursed ones?” He replied, “People who relieve themselves in public pathways or in shaded areas.”7
Abū Dāwūd 15, Ahmad 10884. ↩
Tirmidhī 20. ↩
Abū Dāwūd 36. ↩
Tirmidhī 16. ↩
Tirmidhī 19. ↩
Bukhārī 211. ↩
Muslim 269. ↩
Nasā’ī 29, Ibn Mājah 303, Aḥmad 23894. ↩
Bukhārī 217. ↩
Muslim 328. ↩

Tue Feb 12, 08:24:00 AM 2013 
 txvoltaire said...
Don't get into a pissing contest with that man!
Sat Jan 18, 05:40:00 PM 2014 
 Louis Farrakhan said...
THE QUESTION EVERY MOHAMMEDAN MUST ANSWER:
DO MOHAMMEDANS BELIEVE IN SANTA?
SANTA HAS HIS RUDOLPH
&
MUHAMMAD HAD HIS BURAQ
AIR BURAQ
Buraq The Red Nosed Donkey
Buraq, the red-nosed Donkey
had a very shiny nose
and if you ever saw it
you would even say it glows.
All of the other Donkeys
used to laugh and call him names
They never let poor Buraq
play in any Donkey games.
Then one foggy Ramadan eve
Muhammad came to say:
“Buraq with your nose so bright,
won't you guide me to Heaven tonight?"
Then all the Donkeys loved him
as they shouted out with glee,
Buraq the red-nosed Donkey,
you'll go down in history!

MUHAMMAD’S NIGHT JOURNEY
No Muslim can deny the importance of Mohammed's night journey in Islam, because this trip determined the Islamic rituals of praying five times a day, and performing ablution - or washing before prayer. In other words Mohammed's night journey should impact the lives of 1.5 billion Muslims all over the world - five times - each and every day.
Qur’an, sura 17.1
“Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)”.
Mohammed's alleged overnight trip covered the 1,000 miles from Mecca to Jerusalem, a trip to heaven, and a return to Mecca by morning, and is described in part as follows:
Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0309:
It is narrated on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I was brought al-Buraq Who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof a distance equal to the range of vision. I mounted it and came to the Temple (Bait Maqdis in Jerusalem), then tethered it to the ring used by the prophets. I entered the mosque and prayed two rak'ahs in it, and then came out and Gabriel brought me a vessel of wine and a vessel of milk.
So Mohammed flew on al-Buraq to the temple in Jerusalem, tied it up to a ring "the prophets" had used in the past, and went on in to the Temple to pray. Because of the fantastic nature of Mohammed's claims, some 21st century Muslims try to suggest that this was a vision or dream, but according to perhaps the most highly regarded historian of Islam:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 228:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The sights which Allah's Apostle was shown on the Night Journey when he was taken to Bait-ul-Maqdis (i.e. Jerusalem) were actual sights, (not dreams). And the Cursed Tree (mentioned) in the Quran is the tree of Zaqqum (itself).
Additionally, the rock enshrined in the Dome of the Rock on the temple mount, is supposed to be where Mohammed and Baraq launched from, for the leg of the trip to heaven. So it would be untenable to suggest that Mohammed's journey was a dream or vision, while at the same time claiming that he launched from a very much physical and tangible rock, on the temple mount.

Sun Jan 26, 01:02:00 PM 2014 
 Historylover said...
I know this was posted in 2008, but I just ran across it and thought I would comment. I'm currently a PhD student in semitic languages at the University of Chicago so this phrase intrigued me. I give my credentials only to show that I am actually equipped to work closely with the original Hebrew, rather than from the English as the pastor in the video was. I have to say, that I get fairly upset when pastors, especially here in America, don't bother to get a higher degree and aren't working from the original. Obviously his interpretation is completely erroneous and has nothing to do with what the text actually says.
From a broader perspective the phrase is fairly interesting. There are similar references to this in Akkadian sources, so it is not wholly without support in the ancient Near East. Each of the six times are spoken within a curse formula in a derogatory fashion. Also, each passage references dogs (clabim). The meaning is not that men pee standing up, which is honestly ridiculous, but rather that some men, namely those who are recipients of the curse, are no better than dogs who pee in the streets against walls. So the meaning of the text is actually quite interesting and if you look at the Hebrew it brings to life to full force of the text.
I felt the need to post partially because I thought clarification was needed due to the damage caused by the atrocious sermon, but also to simply state that this money man shouldn't stand in for all Christians. I myself am a Christian, and the more I study, specifically in my field of ancient language and history, the more I am convinced. Even the foremost of scholars, atheist and Christian, see the Bible as an incredibly unique document in the ANE. After readin the comments, I realize that many of you are fairly angry and hostile towards Christians and Christianity, and after watching the horrible video I can understand why, however I would encourage you to take a second look at the Bible.
Sat Apr 12, 07:24:00 AM 2014 
 Steve Wells said...
So, Historylover, it doesn't bother you when God promises to kill everyone who pisses against a wall (as he bragged he would do to Jeroboam's family in 1 Kings 14:10, Baasha's family in 1 Kings 16:11, and Ahab's family 1 Kings 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8). You're just fine with that. God can kill entire families any time he likes for any reason or no reason at all and you will praise him for it.
It's even OK with you if God uses disgusting language (he'll kill everyone that pisses against a wall) since when he does that he's just calling people "dogs" (since dog's are well-known wall pissers). And there's nothing wrong with calling people "wall pissing dogs" and then slaughter their entire families.
At least Steven Anderson is honest about his disgusting beliefs.
Thu Apr 17, 10:33:00 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
    
 18 May 2008A sermon for Hillary
Poor Hillary had to sit through a long sermon on adultery this morning. The text was from Matthew 5 verses 27-30.
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. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Matthew 5:27-30
I'm sure the sermon was embarrassing for her, for obvious reasons, but that isn't what I want to discuss here. I am more interested in the biblical text itself.
Notice that Jesus says that anyone who looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery, and that it would be better for such a person to pluck out his eye (or cut off his hand if that is somehow involved) to avoid sinning. Because if you pluck out your eye (well you'd probably have to pluck them both out), then you can't commit adultery by looking at a woman. And since Jesus believes that all adulterers go to hell (including those who are "just looking"), wise men will pluck out their eyes. Can't argue with that.
Jesus' reasoning seems pretty clear here. 1) Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has committed adultery. 2) All adulterers go to hell (which is a really nasty place -- much more unpleasant than plucking out eyes or cutting off hands). 3) Those who pluck their eyes out will never commit adultery by looking at women. Therefore, all men (at least those who might someday look lustfully at a woman) should pluck out their eyes (and maybe cut off their hands just for good measure).
But that's not what really bothers me. It's what Jesus said a few verses before.
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. Matthew 5:17-18
Not one jot or tittle, eh Jesus? Then this law must still apply:
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
So guys, Jesus gives you a choice. Either pluck out your eyes (and maybe cut off you hands) and thereby avoid committing adultery by looking or keep your eyes and hands, commit the inevitable adultery by looking at a woman, be executed for it, and then burn forever in hell. It's up to you.
Fair enough. But what about the woman with whom the man commits "just looking" adultery? Is she guilty of adultery too? Must we execute her also in accordance with Leviticus 10:20? And after we kill her, will she go to hell with the guy who was caught looking at her?
I'm just asking.
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/18/2008 09:25:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
63 comments:
 Anfractuous said...
Okay, I'm with you up to the end, but why should it be someone's fault you looked at her? By the same token, it’s the nice car’s fault you looked at it too. After all, it was “asking for it.” It should keep itself all covered up in a tarp so nobody gets their eyes plucked out in case they catch a little glimpse of chrome. Gee, cars only have chrome to make you look at them. Looking would be the same as stealing, wouldn’t it? And if you steal the car, shouldn’t the car be punished too?
Mon May 19, 02:38:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve, please note this section of the verse in Matthew 5 you quoted: Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Compare: He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” (Luke 12:44)
And: But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. (Mat 26:56)
Everything was fulfilled with the death and resurrection of Christ - this is why we don't kill adulterers according to Leviticus 10:20.
Mon May 19, 06:31:00 AM 2008 
 Aquaria said...
Hm. Let's look more closely at that scripture:
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
From a precise reading of that scripture, it would appear to be a condition for continuing to maintain the law. Don't know what planet the Xians are living on, but this one is earth, and it's still here. Until the earth passes, it looks like the laws still apply.
Mon May 19, 06:48:00 AM 2008 
 Aquaria said...
Argh. "It would appear to be a condition" & etc. should have read "it would appear that till heaven and earth pass would be a condition for continuing to maintain the law."
Mon May 19, 06:50:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Thanks for clearing that up, Jason.
So when Jesus said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law", what he really meant was, "Completely ignore everything in the law after I'm dead (which will be in few years)."
And when he said, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven", what he really meant was, "Break all the Old Testament laws and teach others to do likewise."
Jesus really had a way with words, didn't he?
Would it be wrong (according to you and Jesus) to follow Old Testament laws? What if we chose to follow Leviticus 20:10, even though we don't have to (now that Jesus is dead)?
And what about the eye thing, Jason? Have you plucked out your eyes yet? WWJD?
Mon May 19, 07:24:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Aquaria,
Yes, let's look closer. Here's the NIV: I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
You're confusing the condition and missing the figure of speech. Heaven and earth would pass away before one bit of the law could be changed - in other words, the law was unchangeable. However, the law could be changed if "all was fulfilled". Therefore, as Christ says in the verse immediately, he was come to "fulfill the law". Not that this should be a surprise - Christ taught the doctrine of baptism, not animal sacrifice, an impossibility if he believed he was bound by the old law.
Similar figure of speech is used in the Gospel of Luke - "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail." (Luke 16:17)
Finally: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Gal 3:24)
Mon May 19, 07:25:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Glad to help out, Steve.
And yes, Jesus was saying that after his death and resurrection, the old law was made null and void. Having said that, there's no reason to choose to follow Leviticus 20:10.
Regarding your reference to Matthew 5:19, what are the commandments he's referring to?
And what about that eye thing, Steve? My right eye hasn't offended me. Oh...you don't think plucking out your eye is literal, do you...?
Mon May 19, 07:37:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
So you say "there's no reason to choose to follow Leviticus 20:10", eh Jason?
No reason, except that God said it, if you believe the Bible, anyway.
Would it be okay to do as God said in Leviticus 20:10? Or would it be wrong to do as God commanded in that verse?
Mon May 19, 07:54:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
God sure did say it - to the Israelites - in the Old Testament.
Your adultery question was asked by the Pharisees and answered by Christ. John 8:4-11.
Mon May 19, 07:58:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Oh, I get it. God said that before he became a Christian. Thanks.
But back to the question that you and Jesus refuse to answer.
Would it be wrong to follow Old Testament laws? What if we chose to follow Leviticus 20:10, even though we don't have to (now that Jesus is dead)?
Mon May 19, 08:23:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Before God became a Christian. Good one.
Jesus didn't answer your question...? Read: "Neither do I condemn you". Seems a pretty obvious answer to me.
Steve, if you want to follow the OT laws, go right ahead. But remember, you'll have to follow all of it, not just the bits and pieces you like best (Gal 5:3). Christians either follow Christ entirely or they follow the old law entirely.
But I'm sure you knew this already. :)
And what about that eye thing, Steve. You don't think it's literal, do you...?
Mon May 19, 09:21:00 AM 2008 
 busterggi said...
I notice Jason that you say you still have both your eyes. Is this because you've never lusted after a woman? Because the alternative is that you've lusted after men and you know what that would mean - you're going to hell you sodomite!
Mon May 19, 10:06:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Another good one!
Mon May 19, 10:14:00 AM 2008 
 Kirk said...
Even running with Jason's interpretation, *all* was not fulfilled when Jesus died. There are prophecies left undone, there's another coming yet to go, there's a battle to be won, etc.
ALL has not been fulfilled. Given Yahweh's words of "keep these my commandments FOREVER" and Jesus reinforcing that, you guys are still stuck with OT law. Sorry. Better start dusting off those stones.
Mon May 19, 10:53:00 AM 2008 
 RR said...
All of this is silliness... The ancient texts have been lost.. The versions we have (ancient Greek) are so varied and discordant that no one has a clue as to what the early christians really said/believe (ref: Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus').
And even if true, I guess god (in the old testament, before jesus) was worried about making cloths of more than one cloth... was interesting in stoning people to death for sex... was interested in exterminating entire tribes (genocide) so the Israelites could claim a strip of desert in the middle east.
Come on -- you really believe this mythology?
It all boggles the mind (if you believe it god's truth). But if you believe it to be the ramblings of an iron-age tribe of barbarians who used a priesthood to justify barbarism and possessiveness of women -- well, it all makes sense.
Mon May 19, 11:24:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Kirk,
Jesus fulfilled the law, as is apparent by the text.
Mon May 19, 02:00:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason, at least admit that Jesus (or whoever quoted him) either made a mistake or was pretty unclear here. Let us examine Mat 5:18.
NIV: "Until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Jesus is giving two very distinct end points here. You seem to think "everything" is referring to his death and resurrection (and what led up to it), correct? Well, certainly Jesus knew he would accomplish these feats a good 2000 years or so before heaven and earth disappeared. Unless Jesus incorrectly thought heaven and earth disappearing and everything being accomplished would happen at the same time (which didn't happen, so of course the infallible Jesus wouldn't have thought this!), then at the very least it was meaningless, unnecessarily confusing, and plain dumb for him to mention the whole end of heaven and earth thing.
All Jesus had to say was "Follow the old law until I'm resurrected."
If I wanted to be like Jesus, I could start talking like he did in Mat 5:18. I can say for example, "Until heaven and earth disappear, I will not watch Law and Order until my wife comes home at 9:00 tonight." This would be no different from what Jesus said. I know my wife will be home at 9:00, and heaven and earth aren't going to end at 9:00 tonight. But it will be before heaven and earth end, so I'm not technically wrong.
It would just show that I'm really stupid and think the end of heaven and earth will come at 9:00 tonight, or else that I like adding really stupid, confusing, meaningless phrases to my sentences.
Mon May 19, 04:25:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
Heaven & earth passing away is a figure of speech symbolizing timelessness. It's expressed here also: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail." (Luke 16:17) All Christ was saying is that the law couldn't be changed, ever, until everything was fulfilled.
Rewording it to make it sound more 21st century'ish doesn't change anything. Jesus was quite clearly saying he was come to fulfill the law and that it would be changed once everything was fulfilled. You'll find this to be inline with all popular schools of thought since the 1st century and inline with the teachings of the NT.
Mon May 19, 05:22:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
But Jason, the modern wording isn't the issue here. You're ignoring the point of my post and the very obvious contradiction and/or senselessness in Jesus' quote.
The period he was talking about *wasn't* timeless at all, as the expression Jesus used would indicate. On the contrary, everything being fulfilled (i.e. Jesus' death and resurrection) was imminent. How old was Jesus when he made these statements? In his late 20s? Maybe 30? Everything was going to be fulfilled in very short order, even from a young earth perspective.
You're claiming that Jesus was basically saying "You have to follow every letter of the Law forever and ever until I die in a couple of years." This doesn't make sense. What makes sense is that Jesus either thought that his death would be further off, that Jesus thought the end of the world was nigh, or else he was simply a fallible speaker and made a slip of the tongue or poorly used an expression here.
If you don't like the 9:00 tonight example because it is hours instead of years away, I can say "I will forever and ever obey every letter of the Bible until my dog dies."
A dog might live one year, two years, maybe 15 years if I'm lucky. But not "forever and ever". There is no place for a timeless expression like "until the heavens and earth pass" or "forever and ever" in this case. There was also no reason for such an expression when Jesus was talking about an event (the fulfillment of all things) happening in short order.
At best, either is silly to say; at worst it indicates that I foolishly think heaven and earth will pass on at around the same time as my dog does, or that heaven and earth will go caput around the time Jesus is resurrected.
Unless you admit that "everything is fulfilled" refers to something other than the events leading to and including Jesus' death and resurrection, that "until the heavens and the earth pass" means something different than what you just stated (timelessness), or that Jesus was wrong or at best made a mistake while speaking, then it makes no sense to include "until heaven and earth shall pass" in this verse.
Mon May 19, 06:19:00 PM 2008 
 BaldySlaphead said...
Jason talks an awful lot of shite on this blog, regularly defending the indefensible and discerning meanings that are entirely missing from the text and I'm quite positive he's deluded. However, I think he's on fairly strong ground on this one occasion, and the objections are a semantic argument too far.
Matthew 5:18 states:
"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."
The first time 'Till' appears, it's means 'up until the time of' and the second 'before', being used as a conditional.
It means "If we go from now until the end of time, the law will not change *unless* conditions XY and Z are fulfilled."
Tue May 20, 04:07:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
It makes perfect sense. The law would not and could not be changed until all was fulfilled. Jesus was saying the law would be fulfilled and that he was THERE to fulfill the law. I don’t see where the confusion is coming from. Everyone in the NT understood it, everyone in the 1st century church understood it, and every believer since then has understood it as well.
As for your dog analogy, that’s correct. You’re making a conditional statement. Jesus’ conditional statement was that the law couldn’t ever be changed until all things were fulfilled.
There’s no indication whatsoever that anyone, including Christ, thought the heavens and earth literally had to pass before the new law was put into place. Even Christ’s instructions at the Last Supper clearly indicate he knew he death and resurrection meant a change in the law – “In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”
You can argue all you want, but the fact remains that no one, other then the Jews, understood believers were now under the new law. Not even the NT apostles spent time explaining to the people that the heavens and earth didn't need to pass away before the law was changed.
In other words, there's no evidence whatsoever that supports your claim. Until you provide some, the BIble is clear: believers aren't bound by the old law and thus aren't required, or expected, to kill adulterers.
Tue May 20, 06:11:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
baldyslaphead, I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate your honesty in coming to Jason's defense. I only find one Bible translation (New Life Version) that supports this interpretation, however.
BibleGateway.com has a host of Bible translations. They all use the unclear, non-sensical "till...till" or "until...until" construction indicating two very distant end points for the same thing, except for the following:
The Message: "Long after stars burn out and earth wears out, God's Law will be alive and working." (which contradicts Jason's assertion and contradicts his claim that "every believer since then has understood" that the law is no longer applicable now)
Contemporary English Version: "Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must happen." (This comes close to what baldyslaphead said, but the ending is very unclear: everything written in the Law must happen sounds like Deuteronomy et al. should still be followed, although that's not the case apparently).
New Century Version: "I tell you the truth, nothing will disappear from the law until heaven and earth are gone. Not even the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will be lost until everything has happened." (I suppose Jason can argue that the law hasn't disappeared, just that no one has to follow it anymore...)
New International Reader's Version: "What I'm about to tell you is true. Heaven and earth will disappear before the smallest letter disappears from the Law. Not even the smallest stroke of a pen will disappear from the Law until everything is completed." (Again, the whole 'heaven and earth will pass until a couple years from now' bit, just worded differently)
The New Life Version is the only one that clearly states things the way baldyslaphead says, and in a way which I assume Jason agrees with. "I tell you, as long as heaven and earth last, not one small mark or part of a word will pass away of the Law of Moses until it has all been done." Since "it" here is vague, it could refer to just the death and resurrection and not all the rest of the Law.
So there is not widespread agreement on this, and it is not clearly stated except in one version of the Bible in English. Either (nearly) all English translations are wrong or unclear, or else Jesus himself was wrong or unclear, or both. This just reinforces my ongoing belief that a God who really loved us and wanted to save us would have made the Bible a whole lot less confusing.
Tue May 20, 07:28:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
"one version of the Bible in English" of the ones I consulted from biblegateway.com, I mean. If you find other English translations of this verse that support a clear interpretation that the Law no longer applies now and that Jesus wasn't nonsensically applying two very distinct end points to the same proposition, then I'm all ears.
Otherwise, it's no wonder people don't know whether or not we should still following the old law.
Tue May 20, 07:33:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
Who's confused about whether or not believers should still be following the old law? Christ wasn't confused, the disciples weren't confused, neither were the apostles, and neither is any Christian today. You're arguing from ignorance. Nothing in Scripture or the early church indicates a struggle with Christ's wording in Matthew 5:18 specifically relating to the universe ending as a prerequisite for the law being changed. Christ said he came to fulfill the law, and he did. He said as much at the Last Supper. Throughout the remainder of the NT, the teachings of the old law and new law don't once touch on the universe ending. For example, the author of Hebrews goes through great lengths to explain why believers are under the new law but not once does he address the issue of the universe not ending. This tells me the issue of the universe ending wasn't an issue.
The evidence is overwhelming - the NT clearly teaches that believers are under the new law, not the old.
Tue May 20, 08:41:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason said: "Who's confused about whether or not believers should still be following the old law? Christ wasn't confused, the disciples weren't confused, neither were the apostles, and neither is any Christian today."
You're wrong on all counts, Jason. Jesus and his disciples were confused, and modern Christians are still confused today. Some believe that none of the Old Testament's laws apply today; others believe that only certain bits apply; and still others believe that all the Old Testament laws should be obeyed and enforced today on everyone everywhere.
But I'm sure you know this. Why do you pretend otherwise?
Tue May 20, 07:06:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason said: "Who's confused about whether or not believers should still be following the old law?
...so believers don't have to follow the Ten Commandments -- right? ...Or is it pick or choose laws from the OT, to follow?
--S.
Tue May 20, 10:50:00 PM 2008 
 Dumont said...
Why does no one read this passage the way I do? Jesus is basically saying that the Old Testament commands you not to commit adultery, yet there isn't a man alive that won't at some point in his life stare at a woman in lust, so he might as well gouge his eyes out, isn't he? Sounds more like he's criticizing the old ways than saying we must follow them to the letter. Am I alone here, or does anyone else think that Jesus wasn't *seriously* suggesting that men pluck out their eyes?
Tue May 20, 10:52:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve,
You're also arguing from ignorance. There's no evidence anyone was confused. Christ and his disciples didn't offer animal sacrifices for forgiveness of sins nor did they think they had to. They taught salvation not only to the Jews but also the Gentiles. They taught baptism, which under the old law, did nothing. Christ's death atoned for the sins of mankind, also a impossibility if the old law was still in effect. No disciple or apostle taught the people to see a Levitical priest to have their sins forgiven. And the list goes on and on.
You are not going to be able to prove anyone, other then the Jews, thought the old laws were still binding. The NT makes it very, very clear exactly which law believers are supposed to follow.
Wed May 21, 06:00:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Sconnor,
Christ repeated nine of the ten commandments during his ministry. Thus, we follow them. No picking and choosing required.
Wed May 21, 06:04:00 AM 2008 
 Cathy said...
Actually there was quite a bit of controversy over the law in the early church. James, the brother of christ, and his church in Jerusalem said you must continue to follow all the rules of the torah (remain a jew) while Paul said you didn't. Paul won.
Wed May 21, 11:26:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wed May 21, 01:17:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason, it is simply dishonest for you to claim that there isn't "any Christian today" confused about whether the Old Law still applies. There are reportedly over a billion people alive today who call themselves Christians.
So I looked into it and found out that Seventh Day Adventists, who are Christians, believe that parts of the Old Law (notably the 10 commandments) should be followed, including the Sabbath. Their "Questions on Doctrine" clearly states
"The will of God as it relates to moral conduct is comprehended in His law of ten commandments; that these are great moral, unchangeable precepts, binding upon all men, in every age (Exodus 20:1-17)." (source)
You are free to disagree with them of course, but they are Christians and they don't share your views on old law vs. new law. They think some of what you consider to be the old law still applies. If you're right, then apparently they got things confused, too.
Thank you Cathy and Steve for your posts. Cathy, you make a good point. I knew a lot of doctrine was decided well after Jesus' death, but I didn't realize Old Law vs. New Law was one of these issues that was debated.
Why would this and other issues be debated? The answer should be obvious: because it is not clear in the Bible (if it was clear, why would biblical scholars debate it and hundreds of denominations spring up since then?). If I am misinterpreting these and other unclear or contradictory verses in the Bible, then I am not alone.
As a final note, there's this Idaho man who recently took Matthew 5 verse (cited in the original post) literally and cut off his hand because he felt he had the mark of the devil, as mentioned in Revelation. I don't remember if this was posted here or not, but I had read about it in a couple of places.


Do you think this man was justified in cutting of his hand? If not, what in the Bible says that he shouldn't have listened to Revelations and Matthew 5?
If Jesus wanted people to follow the Old Law, he should have said "Follow the Old Law". If he wanted them not to follow the Old Law, he should have said "Don't follow the Old Law". If he was speaking figuratively about plucking out eyes and cutting off hands, then he should have said he was speaking figuratively.
Dumont, I think most people would figure out that this should not be taken literally, but look at all the other crazy stuff in the Bible and how God acts if people don't follow it. I feel sorry for the man for really thinking he should cut off his hand, but I don't see what in the Bible would lead him to believe he shouldn't.
Certainly an all-knowing God, if he exists, would know the havoc he would wreak by not being a little clearer, would it have been so hard for him to do?
Wed May 21, 01:24:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Cathy,
Where does James say you must follow the old law...?
Wed May 21, 04:41:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
I don't see how someone can be a "Christian" (a follower of Christ) and a follower of the old law. The two don't work together. In fact, they're in complete opposition. Someone who accepts Christ as their saviour cannot follow the Mosaic Law since the Mosaic Law renders the sacrifice of Christ, and thus salvation, invalid. Then there's the Galatians 5:3-4 problem.
Having said that though, I'm not about to argue this point. If you want to consider SDA's as "Christians", so be it. This now means only 985 million Christians out there agree that the Mosaic Law was replaced by the law of Christ.
I wonder though, if I was a SDA, would you be proving Christians aren't under the old law any more...?
Wed May 21, 05:14:00 PM 2008 
 Cathy said...
The Jersulem church was Jewish and they continued to follow the Jewish law. Paul in contrast, preached to the Gentiles and came to believe that following the law was unnecessary. I guess it was hard to convert people when they found out the foreskin had to be removed. Here are some verses that highlight the controversy:
Galatians 2:11-13
"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy."
Galatians 5
"2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."
Acts 15
"1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. "
Paul wouldn't have been preaching this if some Christians were not trying to follow Jewish law by continuing to become circumcised, etc.
Divisions in the early church are downplayed in the New Testament, but you can tell from how often Paul has to address the issue of law vs faith that there was significant controversy. There's a good book written about this, I think it was by Bart Ehrman, but I can't remember the title! Remember the gospels were written by the winners otherwise Christians would be circumcised in church instead of the hospital.
Wed May 21, 08:17:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason,
Christ repeated nine of the ten commandments during his ministry. Thus, we follow them. No picking and choosing required.
So you follow the 9 commandments.
Which one don't you follow?
--S.
Wed May 21, 10:37:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason, thank you for conceding the point considering SDAs. I'm not just being the devil's advocate, so to speak; and I'm not specifically arguing against you since I don't know your specific belief system. I'm just discussing the Bible or certain interpretations of it that you or others have put forward. (I very strongly believe the Bible says nothing about the Trinity, and you seem to agree with this based on what you said in another thread. So we can agree on some things.)
It's not just the SDAs though. Cathy found very interesting verses within the Bible itself showing that people in Biblical times were confused about what should or shouldn't be included under the new law of Christ. Thanks for pointing these out. I think the only way to refute these fairly straightforward verses would be to say that these accounts in the Bible aren't factual, which I'm sure Jason would not do.
You have every right to say that you believe that the old law was fulfilled and therefore no longer needs to be followed by Christians. But your claim that every Christian has always understand the old law vs. new law distinction clearly was incorrect.
We all make mistakes in presenting arguments sometimes. In this case, it turns out that in addition to some/most unbelievers, some Christians have a different view than you do (or may be unclear about it).
I think there are some good things in the Bible, it's just too bad there are also unclear, contradictory, and otherwise troublesome passages in it.
Thu May 22, 04:20:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Cathy,
Firstly, the Jews have always followed the old law since they don't consider Christ to be the Messiah. This isn't a matter of confusion between the laws, it's a matter of rejecting Christ. Secondly, James certainly had strong Jewish connections but he didn't preach anything contrary to the rest of the NT teachings regarding the new law. The verses you provided don't mention anything about him teaching the necessity of following the old law. The fact is, if James did think it was necessary to follow the old law, then he also would have had to reject the teachings of Christ regarding baptism and the "new covenant" in his blood. No Scriptural evidence exists for either two.
Thu May 22, 06:18:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Sconnor,
The keeping of the Jewish Sabbath.
Thu May 22, 06:22:00 AM 2008 
 Cathy said...
One last thing...
The name of the book was "How Jesus became Christian" by Barrie Wilson. Get it and read it.
This is a quote from the review that goes right to the heart of this discussion:
"Wilson brings the answer to life by looking at the rivalry between the "Jesus movement" led by James, informed by the teachings of Matthew and adhering to Torah worship, and the "Christ movement," headed by Paul which shunned Torah. "
Thu May 22, 06:32:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
The fact remains though: 950+ million Christians follow the new law. They don't offer animal sacrifices, they don't have Levitical priests, they don't keep the ancient feasts and celebrations, they don't tithe food, they don't follow the laws of cleanliness, and the list goes on and on and on. Why? Because they understand the law of Christ no longer requires this. And for those who do follow the old law, they're obligated to follow all of the law, but they don't do this either.
Again, the Bible makes it abundantly clear which law believers are to follow. If someone chooses not to, it's not because of confusion, it's because they're trying to create a law that suits their own needs.
Thu May 22, 06:37:00 AM 2008 
 Cathy said...
Jason said...
Cathy,
Firstly, the Jews have always followed the old law since they don't consider Christ to be the Messiah. This isn't a matter of confusion between the laws, it's a matter of rejecting Christ.
No, these were Christian Jews which was all there was in the very beginning. Jesus was a Jew.
Secondly, James certainly had strong Jewish connections but he didn't preach anything contrary to the rest of the NT teachings regarding the new law. The verses you provided don't mention anything about him teaching the necessity of following the old law. The fact is, if James did think it was necessary to follow the old law, then he also would have had to reject the teachings of Christ regarding baptism and the "new covenant" in his blood. No Scriptural evidence exists for either two.
If this were the case, why did Paul have to preach so vigorously against those Christians who followed the law? Why would "certain people from James" refuse to eat with Gentiles?" They were Christians too. Why would there be some men who came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers that they must be circumcised? They were also Christians preaching to Christians. Why would Peter have a dream that gave approval to eating non Kosher, if dietary laws were null and void under Christ? Peter obviously needed to be convinced of this.
Read the book "How Jesus Became a Christian". It does a much better job than I could ever do explaining the early church. Did you ever wonder what good new Jesus was preaching in the bible? He couldn't have been talking about forgiveness of sins and his death and resurrection because it hadn't happened yet. The good news was that the Kingdom of God was at hand! That is another can of worms, because Christians don't often talk of two different messages- one before Jesus died and another one after.
Thu May 22, 07:05:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Cathy,
I understand Jesus was a Jew. Paul was a Jew as well. As were the apostles.
I'm not really sure what you're arguing out of Galatians 2. You haven't provided any proof James was preaching something contrary to Paul. In fact, Galatians 2 makes it quite clear James and Paul were on the same page since it was James, along with Peter and John, who gave Paul the "right hand of fellowship". They "agreed" Paul would preach to the Gentiles while the preached to the Jews. There would be no reason for this to have happened if both men believed, and taught, two completely opposing laws.
The issue with the Christian converts in the NT wasn't about confusion regarding which law to follow, but about some being unwilling to let go of the traditions they had followed for so long and others claiming a Christian entering the church first had to convert to Judaism. This is why Paul and James argue that that if one part of the old law was followed, (e.g. circumcision), the individual was bound to follow the entire law. The force of the argument stems from the fact these Christians would have understood that by doing so, they were rejecting Christ and the new law of liberty.
Thu May 22, 09:12:00 AM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason,
Is it an abomination or wrong to be gay? Does the new law cover necrophilia, or bestiality or pedophilia?
Thu May 22, 12:07:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
No, no, yes, yes, yes.
Thu May 22, 06:23:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason,
What does Jesus say about homosexuality?
What does Jesus say about fucking dead people?
What does Jesus say about fucking animals?
What does Jesus say about demented-fuck, child molesters and child rapists?
--S.
Thu May 22, 08:11:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
There's no need for that kind of language. Clean it up and I'll gladly respond.
Fri May 23, 04:53:00 AM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason,
You responded to about twenty of my posts, where I berated you endlessly, with colorful language and now you want me to clean up my language? Fuck you, asshole. You are a very confused and inconsistent, dick head. Last I checked, I live in America, where I can say whatever I want. If you don't want to answer or can't answer that's your fuckin' choice; I don't give a shit, but I refuse to be censored by a holier than thou, religious zealot, who thinks he is the judge of what is or is not appropriate language. I refuse for you to stifle my free speech. When you really think about it dip shit, there really is no difference from me calling you an asshole and you calling me a retard -- they are both disparaging words; you just choose to arbitrarily deem my language as wrong, while your language is acceptable.
Fuck off, you insecure, little piece of shit.
BTW have you repented for calling me names. Has your fairytale, hero, Jesus, forgiven you for calling me retard?
As a reminder:
Little Jason Christian said,
Jason, getting bent out of shape says, Are you RETARDED? Seriously. Have you been reading the verses that say Jesus “laid down his life” or that Jesus “offered himself” to God?
RETARD, God doesn’t say “sin offerings are unacceptable”. He says He didn’t desire them or take pleasure in them.
OOOOOOhhhhhh, looks like I struck a nerve. Poor little Jason christian is in trouble. your gonna get it. Jesus isn't gonna like you calling people names.
Matthew 5:22 -- "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever * says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty into the fiery hell."
Murder is wrong (Exodus 20:13). However, a person might feel angry, and he might become more and more angry. Then he is guilty as well. People sometimes used the word ‘Raca’ which meant that a person was stupid. He had little worth. The word ‘fool’ has the same meaning.
Someone might accuse such a person because they were not behaving well. But that is putting yourself in God’s place as judge. ‘Gehenna’ was another name for Hinnom valley. It was just outside Jerusalem city, and the *Jews threw out their rubbish there. They burned fires there all the time. So it became the name for God’s punishment place. People usually translate it as ‘hell’. God will judge people by the way that they think. He will also judge them by the way that they speak. And he will judge them by the way that they behave. God will judge anger. He says that evil insults are like murder.
1 John 3:15 -- Anyone who hates his brother is murdering him.
You just got your ticket to paradise revoked, asshole, you better suck Jesus' dick a lot or you're fucked -- to oblivion for you, bitch.
And I'm way ahead of you, I've called you all kinds of names, but I don't believe in your sky-fairy or your reputed fairytale book -- the Bible. So fuck off, retard!
Let's not forget what the lord said in Psalm 15:1-5,
1 LORD, who may dwell in your sanctuary?
Who may live on your holy hill?
2 He whose walk is blameless
and who does what is righteous,
who speaks the truth from his heart
3 AND HAS NO SLANDER ON HIS TONGUE,
WHO DOES HIS NEIGHBOR NO WRONG
AND CASTS NO SLUR ON HIS FELLOW MAN,
4 who despises a vile man
but honors those who fear the LORD,
who keeps his oath
even when it hurts,
5 who lends his money without usury
and does not accept a bribe against the innocent.
He who does these things
will never be shaken.
Uh, oh, jason -- there goes your imaginary sanctuary and your imaginary holy hill. Are you on your knees yet? I can hardly wait to hear what twisted logic and loony rationalization you will have, why you haven't sinned against your sky-fairy for calling me a retard. (You'll say something like, I called you a retard, not a fool, you're not my brother, I wasn't angry, I didn't mean it to be mean, I'm telling the truth -- excuse, excuse, excuse.)

And now I add this to my list below:
What does Jesus say about using supposed clean language vrs. supposed bad language?
What does Jesus say about homosexuality?
What does Jesus say about fucking dead people?
What does Jesus say about fucking animals?
What does Jesus say about demented-fuck, child molesters and child rapists?
--S.
Penn and Teller skewer your arbitrary judgment of what is right or appropriate language on their show Bullshit. Learn something Jason, you ignorant, douche-bag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojEpASQi_7o&feature=related
Fri May 23, 07:23:00 AM 2008 
 Cathy said...
Jason,
If James and Paul were on the same page why did Paul have to go to Jeruslem and discuss the question (Acts 15)? After hearing all the testimony James gives a compromise:
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
You notice James puts conditions on the Gentiles. And those conditions had little to do with conventional morality. He didn't say the Gentiles must follow the ten commandments. The things James mentions are purity issues.
As for Gal 2
"James, Peter[c] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews."
This is also a compromise. When James, Peter, and John went to the Jews did they tell them to stop being Jews and stop following the torah? No, they agree to disagree. This was not a quibble about Jewish tradition. And honestly, I believe both sides believed Jesus would be back at any moment and the main goal was to spread the word as quickly as possible. Yes, they all agreed on many things such as the resurrection. But all we have to read today is Paul's version of events. Paul crushed the Jesus movement. The New Testament is not an unbiased account.
James vs Paul is a side issue. It seems to outsiders that Christians want to pick and choose which directives from the Old Testament they want to follow. If Christians want to condemn homosexuals they dip into Leviticus. When non-Christians point out that Leviticus also says to stone adulters they say Jesus frees them from following the law. You want to have your cake and eat it too. It looks to many of us as if Christians use Old Testament rules when and only when it is convenient.
Fri May 23, 07:59:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Thanks Sconnor. You're a beacon of hope for atheism.
Fri May 23, 08:08:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Cathy,
Firstly, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to deal with a question regarding circumcision and following the old law, an issue raised by the Pharisees, not one of the apostles.
When Paul and Barnabas arrived in Jerusalem, there were welcomed by the church, and apostles and elders. There’s no animosity or an attempt by either group to correct the other in terms of their respective teachings on the two laws - because that's not why they were there.
The group discusses the question: Is it necessary to be circumcised before one can be saved and is it necessary to follow the old law? Paul stands up and tells the group that salvation is given by grace, not by becoming a Jew first. James agrees.
The group then decides to write a letter to the church. There's no mention in it whatsoever that the Gentiles should follow the old law. Why not? Because no one at the meeting of apostles and elders thought they did. From this we can conclude that if James did in fact think it was necessary to follow the Torah, he certainly didn’t mention it here.
Christ also repeated nine of the ten commandments. There was no reason why James should have mentioned them during their discussion.
In Galatians 2, what exactly is being compromised? Paul and Barnabas would preach to the Gentiles, James, Peter and John would preach to the Jews. I don’t see how this is anything less then a basic delegation of duties.
And if James, Peter and John “agreed to disagree” with the Jews regarding the Torah, then obviously the three didn’t think the Torah should be followed. Consider: in Peter’s letter, he mentions the importance of baptism and the redemption of men through the shedding of Christ’s blood. Neither were possible, or necessary, if thought the old law was still to be followed. So, now either Peter and James are in disagreement, or, as you said, the three disagreed with the Jews continuing to follow the Torah. This would be in complete harmony with Scripture. If they were in disagreement with the Jews over the Torah, they would have been in agreement with Paul.
And no, we’re not left with just “Paul’s version of events”. We also have letters written by Peter, James and John that all jive perfectly with the Gospels and Paul’s letters.
If Christians want to condemn homosexuals, they go to the NT. There’s no reason to go to the OT. And yes, you’re absolutely right, many Christians do use the OT rules only when it’s convenient for them. This is done in error though.
Fri May 23, 09:14:00 AM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason,
Jason still able to answer, in lieu of his objection to profanity, eroneously assumes and says, Thanks Sconnor. You're a beacon of hope for atheism.
Awwwwwwww Little Jason Christian's ears are burning by arbitrarily deciding for all what is right or appropriate language, giving him a false sense of superiority.
...and I can assure you, I'm not an atheist, fuck-wad. Your christian prophesy, fails you, asshole. I have not given myself any titles, but I can tell you what I am not. I'm not a delusional religious fuck-tard christian, who believes in magic, superstition and a fairytale book, like yourself. If anything I am a beacon of light illuminating your absurd, dumb-fuck, primitive beliefs for what they are -- complete and utter nonsense that has zero authority, except what is in your crazy, mixed-up, fucked-in-the-head, mind of yours.
Are you still sucking Jesus' dick and maybe whipping yourself to atone for calling me a retard, asshole?
Typical pussy christian, can't argue the difficult points, so now you have to diverge and puff out your chest as a moral crusader and preach to us what is or is not appropriate language.
What's the difference, ass-wipe, if you answer my questions or answer by making accusations that I'm an atheist -- You still answered in lieu of the vulgar language, which shows you can answer in lieu of vulgar language and it doesn't burn your little, precious, christian, virgin, ears.
...so again I say, and now I add this to my list below:
What does Jesus say about using supposed clean language vrs. supposed bad language?
What does Jesus say about homosexuality?
What does Jesus say about fucking dead people?
What does Jesus say about fucking animals?
What does Jesus say about demented-fuck, child molesters and child rapists?
And you still bury your head in the sand on these questions, like the pussy you are.
If god, so loved his earthly children, then why would he relay his, all so important messages and the Good News, in a book, using difficult or vague texts, parables, poems, songs, dream imagery, switching from literal to non-literal, that could so easily be misinterpreted, perverted or interpreted, so many different ways?
If it was so important for God to save his earthly children, from oblivion, then why did he put his message into a book that couldn't possibly get to the masses?
If the Bible is so important, how come only 30% of the world’s population is Christian, while the other 70% of the world’s population is another, non-biblical, religion or the non-religious? And out of the 30% of Bible-believing, Christians, there are 30,000 separate sects and denominations that have varying and vast ideas about the Bible and how one is supposedly saved?
Why would god use christadelphians and little Jason christian, to convey the "real" way one is saved, when, you only represent, less than 1% of christians with your uniquely warped interpretation?
If your all-loving, god is using the Bible to get his, all important, message across and truly wanted to save us, you would think, an all-knowing, all-powerful god, could do a better job at delivering the crucial laws, commandments and messages to everyone, equally and clearly, but most certainly this is not the case -- why is that?
Your god is doing a mega-shitty, job at getting his all-important, message across. (ESPECIALLY YOUR INSIGNIFICANT, UNIQUELY WARPED, VIEW OF SALVATION).
God's plan is seriously flawed and I would have to conclude the Bible and Christianity is a human construct, susceptible to fallibility and in your case gullibility and delusion, and there, really, is nothing gained from it, except an illusion of authority and the illusion of eternal life.
I await your thorough and twisted excuses... I mean, answers.
--S.
Fri May 23, 01:29:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Thanks, Sconnor. I'm sure you do atheists proud. Keep up the good work.
Fri May 23, 02:47:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason,
Either you didn't read my last post or your level of comprehension is that of a nut sack, emphasis on NUT. Try reading it and you will realize why your last comment doesn't apply or make sense, is asinine and only proves you are capable of commenting, in lieu of profanity.
Has Jesus let you off the hook yet, for calling me a retard? Or do you have to scourge yourself daily, for the next month? Or are you, little Jason Christian, allowed to break Jesus' commands because you are a disciple? You can sin all you want because you are saved --hallelujah.
I see you are still hiding in your fort built from bibles, too big of a pussy to comment on my, "If god's message was so important" arguments.
--S.
Fri May 23, 04:45:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Okay. :)
Fri May 23, 05:16:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
OK? OK, you're a pussy and is sticking his head in the sand or OK you whip yourself or OK you are a disciple of Jesus, so sin doesn't affect you or OK you can't answer the questions, because you got nothing or OK you didn't read the last post or OK you have the comprehension of a nut sack? Or is it OK, to all of the above?
--S.
Fri May 23, 05:27:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
OK as in go away.
Fri May 23, 05:54:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason said, OK as in go away.
Jason,
Oooooooooo. Little Jason Christian's delusional beliefs have mutated into delusions of grandeur, and now he thinks he can tell people what to do.
I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to ride your ass, whenever I get the chance. You have zero authority and are only worthy of ridicule. I'm going to continue asserting that all your uniquely, warped, interpreted, beliefs are based on the delusional notion, that little Jason Christian, knows what god wants and knows how one is saved because the reputed Bible says so. You're nothing but a freak on a leash, ranting and raving like a lunatic, vomiting up scripture and using, the supposed voice of god, to lend credibility to your unsubstantiated, bullshit, when in reality (you know Jason, REALITY, where magic, superstition, virgin births, talking donkeys, talking snakes and the walking dead don't exist) -- when in reality, YOU GOT NOTHING!
You are the equivalent to those brain dead women in that polygamist cult, in Texas.
You are nothing more than a primitive man thinking that an eclipse of sun was a punishment from god.
You posses the same deluded thinking that made it possible to burn witches at the stake.
You posses the same deluded thinking that made it possible to torture non-believers during the inquisition.
You posses the same deluded thinking that made it possible to kill non-christians during the crusades.
You posses the same deluded thinking that makes it possible for JWs to withhold blood transfusions, allowing their children to suffer and die.
You posses the same deluded thinking that made it possible for parents of an eleven year old girl to die, because they only prayed over her, neglecting medical intervention.
You posses the same deluded thinking that makes it possible to relegate women to a subservient role to their husbands.
You posses the same deluded thinking that makes it impossible for women to become pastors or priests in certain sects like evangelicals, Baptists, and Catholics.
You posses the same deluded thinking that made it possible for Jews to mutilate their baby boys penises.
You posses the same deluded thinking that made it possible to justify slavery in America.
You posses the same deluded thinking that made it possible for sick, fucks to blow up abortion clinics.
You posses the same deluded thinking that preaches creationism over evolution, breeding ignorance in the science classroom.
You posses the same deluded thinking that calls gay people an abomination.
You posses the same deluded thinking that makes it possible for christians to have a hundred different interpretations on how to obtain eternal life, with an array of endless combinations, all the while claiming their interpretation is the one and only truth?
Your deluded thinking is exactly equivalent to you having a thumb up your ass with one hand while holding your dick in the other hand -- YOU GOT NOTHING.
Sing it with me again, one more time,
Fairy tales, can come true, they can happen to you, if you are delusional at heart.
--S.
Fri May 23, 10:33:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Sconnor, I'm sure your posts were probably just you venting your frustrations, and I certainly understand this...but there are other ways of making your point besides attacks like these. I'm a non-Christian and consider myself to be a very open-minded person, but I found them offensive, too. He already answered your original question by say no or yes for each of them; if that wasn't enough you should have just said so instead of attacking him. If there's something else from another thread going on, then it should have been addressed there.
Jason, I will just point out that neither of us has any data on how many Christians believe they must follow the old law (or parts of it). Your figure of 950 million is assuming that every single Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc., etc. believes exactly what their church tells them to. I would very much dispute this assumption.
The best we can say is, presumably the majority of Christian denominations hold that the old law is out/fulfilled. What individual Christians do or don't believe is a whole other story.
As an example, according to this site, among British Anglicans,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm
"80% of both clergy and laity believe in the resurrection of Jesus"
I think most people would agree that Jesus' resurrection is a very basic, fundamental tenant of most forms of Christianity, yet only 80% of Anglican respondents agreed with it, *not* 100% of them. We can speculate as to what the others believe (that he wasn't literally resurrected but that it's just an inspirational story, etc.) but they say they don't believe in his resurrection.
I could look up examples having to do with other issues and see if there are data on them, but I think you would agree with my point that official church doctrine does not necessarily equal unanimous belief among individual Christians.
Unless there is a sudden rush on posting the 9 commandments in courthouses and schoolrooms, I'm going to assume some people have the old and new law issue confused.
Tue May 27, 05:12:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Anon,
You said, Sconnor, I'm sure your posts were probably just you venting your frustrations, and I certainly understand this...but there are other ways of making your point besides attacks like these.
Well I doubt there are many other ways of making my point. Either you don't use profanity or you do. Think of me as fighting crazy with crazy. I'm the Gordon Ramsay of apostasy.
Welcome to hell's kitchen you motherfucking donkey. (not directed at anon, but most assuredly directed to Jason Christian)
--S.
Wed May 28, 11:30:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
I agree - I can't account for every individual Christian's beliefs. But the admittance that the majority of Christians presumably hold that the old law is out/fulfilled is fine with me.
As such, I'd like to point out that my defense of the new law here shouldn't be viewed as strange or uncommon. I'm simply explaining what millions of other Christians consider to be true.
Mon Jun 02, 12:48:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Cuckoo said, As such, I'd like to point out that my defense of the new law here shouldn't be viewed as strange or uncommon. I'm simply explaining what millions of other Christians consider to be true.
Yeah, so what -- asshole. Millions of other christians believe in hell as an eternal place of torment. While, Millions of other christians don't believe in hell. Millions of other christians believe you will go directly to heaven when you die, while millions believe they will be resurrected. Millions of Christians believe you have to be baptized as a baby to atone for original sin, while millions of other christians believe you have to be baptized as an adult and be born again. Other Christians believe in polygamy, dancing with snakes, drinking poison, literally crucifying themselves, flogging themselves, nude congregating, abstain from crucial blood transfusions, pray instead of crucial medical help, and believe woman are subservient. And guess what all these ignorant dumb-ass christians believe they possess the one and only truth on the matter. Let me know when christianity becomes cohesive and can agree on a unilateral message that is clear, concise, and unequivocal.
--S.
Mon Jun 02, 02:59:00 PM 2008 
 VoxMoose said...
Because if you pluck out your eye (well you'd probably have to pluck them both out), then you can't commit adultery by looking at a woman.
Actually, the obvious implication is that adultery can't occur in two dimensions. As we all know, by removing one eye, you remove lose optical perspective, effectively projecting the world onto a 2D plane in your brain. Who knew geometry and moral codes were so strongly linked. And who else but the creator of the universe could create such a nonsensical and convoluted relationship...
Thu Jun 05, 09:27:00 AM 2008 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 13 May 2008Einstein on the Bible
What did Albert Einstein think about the Bible? Well, here's what he said a year before he died.
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/13/2008 09:14:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
20 comments:
 Jason said...
And here's what Newton said about the same: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." (Isaac Newton—Inventor, Scientist and Teacher, Mott Media, Milford (Michigan), 1975)
And: "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." (ibid)
Then there's this amusing one: "Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." (Newton’s Philosophy of Nature, p. 65)
Wed May 14, 05:30:00 AM 2008 
 emodude1971 said...
That's because Newton knew what happened to scientists that didn't profess a belief in god, such as Galileo and Bruno. Thankfully by Einsteins era we were evolved enough to not try to shut up our greatest minds (in the best case) or burn them at the stake (obviously the worst case). As Hitchens so well puts it, religion poisons everything.
Wed May 14, 06:55:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Newton also said:
"I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses;' for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy." (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton)
So if I'm reading this correctly, he personally believed in God, but didn't think God had a place in science.
And according to "Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction" By Gary B. Ferngren, Newton treated the idea of the trinity as an "abomination", in the words of Ferngren. Newton referred to believers in the Trinity in his own words as "Idolators, Blasphemers, and spiritual fornicators", calling belief in the Trinity "false, infernal religion". (p. 156-167)
Jason, what do you think about these views from Newton? One could safely say that neither Newton nor Einstein believed in the trinity, which most Christian churches hold is essential to salvation.
Wed May 14, 08:53:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
What do I think about Newton's views on the Trinity? I don't have a problem with them.
Wed May 14, 09:32:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Emodude,
Galileo was Roman Catholic and Bruno was an ordained priest in the Dominican Order who ultimately tried to convert to Catholicism. Both required a profession of belief in God.
Wed May 14, 10:01:00 AM 2008 
 emodude1971 said...
Way to miss the point Jason. My point was that any scientist up until modern age had better profess some belief in a god lest they be burned at the stake, like Bruno eventually was. Not because he was an atheist, but because he had the balls to express an opinion contrary to the Catholic church. It's as close to an atheist as one could even be and still be alive. They say there are no atheists in foxholes, well there are also no atheists in the 16-17th century either.
And I believe the point of this entire post was to nix the notion that Einstein was a Christian, as most Christians like to trumpet. I personally don't care what religion any of these scientists were, so long as their religion didn't sway their work, unlike the creationists of today. If Galileo was as deluded as your typical creationist is, then he would have burned his work and focused on finding proof that the earth indeed was the center of the universe. If that were the case, he would now be viewed as a clown, instead of an innovator. He had the guts to put aside his religious beliefs in favor of what the scientific data told him. If all Christians could operate with this level of honesty, then atheists would have a whole lot less to be upset about.
Wed May 14, 11:41:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Emodude,
You said: "That's because Newton knew what happened to scientists that didn't profess a belief in god, such as Galileo and Bruno."
This is obviously incorrect since both scientists did profess a belief in God as seen by the fact they both joined religious groups who believed in God.
Admit you made a mistake and move on.
Wed May 14, 12:27:00 PM 2008 
 McGuire said...
Newton spent more time writing on religious matters than scientific... he also spent a lot of time seeking executions for counterfeiters.
Wed May 14, 12:51:00 PM 2008 
 emodude1971 said...
The only thing I'll admit is that I'm not explaining myself properly, which can be difficult in this medium at times.
I explained my point in my previous post; these scientists, despite their religious affiliation, behaved more like atheists than religious fundies with an agenda. Newton would've been in the same boat as Galileo and Bruno had he lived 200 years earlier; he either would've had to throw out his work, or risk his neck in the name of science. In this regard, all these scientists have more in common with atheists than the religious establishment.
Do you think Galileo, Bruno, Einstein or even Newton would today be ID/creationists?
Wed May 14, 01:11:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Emodude,
You claimed that Newton expressed his belief in God because he knew what happened to scientists who didn't profess a belief in God.
To restate your claim: ...Newton knew what happened to scientists that didn't profess a belief in god, such as Galileo and Bruno
Your mistake is in saying that neither man professed a belief in God. This is blatantly incorrect. Admit it and move on.
Wed May 14, 01:48:00 PM 2008 
 emodude1971 said...
Yes...on second glance my wording is incorrect. A better way to phrase this would've been Newton knew what happened to scientists that didn't bend over to the religious establishment. I like that better anyway.
It's worth mentioning though, that just because someone attends a church doesn't mean they buy into the belief. I know plenty of atheists that attend church.
And I also stand by my other 2 comments: there were no 17th century atheist scientists, and Newton should be grateful for those two for paving the road of heretical scientific discoveries that he so closely toed.
Wed May 14, 05:00:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
How do you know there were no 17th century atheist scientists? I don't know how you're planning on going about proving this but I'm interested in seeing how it's done.
As for Newton, he appeared to follow the Arian belief of a Unitarian God, quite obviously at odds with the Roman Catholic Church (of whom Galileo and Bruno were affiliated with). I would hardly call this "bending over to the religious establishment"...
Wed May 14, 06:07:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
jason said, What do I think about Newton's views on the Trinity? I don't have a problem with them.
Thank you for your reply. Most modern Christians would have a problem with these views (many people dispute or dislike Mormon theology based on this), so I guess that you and Newton agree on this point.
Emodude, based on my very brief review of Newton's writings online, it seems that he did believe in the Judeo-Christian God. I don't see anyone claiming he was a closet atheist or Deist.
Newton vehemently critiqued the concept of the trinity (which would have lost him his position at the very least), but it seems clear this was an attack from the point of view of a believer, not from the point of view of an atheist. While others definitely hid their non-belief, if Newton was a non-believer, it would be hard to prove from what I can tell.
But I think his statement that I cited earlier, "hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy" tends to indicate that he thought discussion of God has no place in the realm of science. If only this view were more widely held today among believers...
To get back on topic: Einstein, at least at the time he wrote the letter from the original post, was very clearly atheistic in his thought. People who put Einstein clearly among the religious will have to think twice in the future after this newly released letter.
Wed May 14, 06:08:00 PM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
Anon quoting Newton: "hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy"
This statement is pure wisdom and remarkable in that it was centuries before Popper expressed similar thoughts. There is no point arguing there are or are not gods as it is an untestable hypothesis.
Blogs like this however do a fine job in arguing various wholey texts are probably not the infallible word of gods... there are just too many flaws to sustain such a view for me at least).
Thu May 15, 12:00:00 AM 2008 
 RR said...
Most scientists and philosophers from the 19th century and earlier were christians... why? Because most EVERYONE that was learned in those eras was a christian! The nation-states of the time were ruled by christian rulers (in Europe anyway).
Many great thinkers have have also been stupendously ignorant about various topics outside there area of genius. Just because Newton was a beleiver doesn't mean his theological opinion is any more 'informed' than the peasants of the time.
The simple fact remains: there is no evidence for the existence of a personal god... Hence religious folk profess to stand on "faith" -- while at the same time trying to use any scrap of science they can to bolster their case.
The entire enterprise is useless.
Fri May 16, 11:30:00 AM 2008 
 Doo said...
First of all, Galileo and Copernicus were both Christians. Secondly the "church" if that is what you want to call it was operating on a diluted text that Constantine passed down. All the while he was hoarding up the real texts in a safe place. Still copies of the true word of God were circulating, but even Constantine was trying to rid of those as well. These copies would surface and Constantine's robots would burn anyone at the stake that came to the table with anything different than what Constantine provided. Constantine was a crook and a evil man. He turned Christianity into a religion in which it is not. Christianity is the blood Covenant pact between God and Man. Galileo and Copernicus both were Christians separate from the "Religious Liberalism" accepted by Constantine's robots. Galileo disagreed with Constantine's robots although not about anything to do with the Bible, but about the adopted views of the "so called" church about the philosophy of Aristotle. Galileo did however live in a time frame where a more accurate King James was released. The so called church was also getting used to this new text around the time of Galileo's lifetime. Please tell what really happened. We always get these people who are dead set against Christianity but have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
Fri Aug 20, 01:54:00 AM 2010 
 RR said...
The fact remains: there is no good evidence for 99% of the nonsense the bible claims is truth... In fact, most of its contents is demonstrably based on iron age barbarism and mythology. Most everything we've learned about the physical world and ourselves has been scratched out by swimming against the current of religious dogma & nonsense.
Fri Aug 20, 10:00:00 AM 2010 
 Kuljule said...
RR: Your comment is simply an opinion, not fact. If you have evidence for that claim than state it. Plus it takes more faith to believe that the bible is false than to believe it's true.
Sat Sep 11, 12:54:00 PM 2010 
 Kuljule said...
Also, this quote doesn't say that Einstein didn't believe in the Bible. He must of believed in it a little to say that the stories are childish.
Sat Sep 11, 12:56:00 PM 2010 
 Love Bomb said...
Man oh Man. It takes more faith to not believe in the Bible??? Whatever. Faith is gullibility is ignorant of what exists right before your eyes. Having to fit everything in the human experience into a book thousands of years old rather than pay attention to what is real, what exists is the seed of ignorance and in my opinion the source of the greatest evil on earth! Hosanna!
Sun Oct 28, 07:18:00 PM 2012 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.



Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 11 May 2008Mothers are dirty and sinful (according to the Bible anyway)
I know it's an awful thing to say on Mother's Day, and I certainly don't believe it myself. (Honest Mom!) But the God of the Bible does. There's a whole chapter about it in Leviticus. Here's what it says.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, ... If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days. ... And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days. ... But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. Leviticus 12:1-5
So the proud, new mother of a baby boy is unclean for a week and must purify herself for 33 days after her son is born. And if the baby is a girl, the mother is twice as dirty; she is unclean for two weeks and must be purified for 66 days after giving birth. (The take-home message here is that, to God, girls are twice as dirty as boys.)
But a new mother is not only dirty to the biblical God; she is sinful, as well. So sinful, in fact, that she must sacrifice a lamb as a burnt offering and a dove as a sin offering (or two doves if she can't find a lamb to kill).
And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering. ... And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering. Leviticus 12:6-8
Happy Mother's Day (to all you dirty, sinful mothers out there)!
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/11/2008 11:36:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
7 comments:
 Anon said...
Leave it to the Bible to come through with more good old family values.
I wonder how many new mothers committed suicide in those days. I'm sure postpartum depression isn't helped by being told you're unclean in the eyes of the almighty God.
And daughters being twice as unclean a sons? I assume this is pinned on the whole Eve and the apple thing again.
Hopefully no one gave their mother a Bible for Mother's Day.
Sun May 11, 04:22:00 PM 2008 
 RR said...
Just found your blog -- good stuff.
So many people blinded by iron age mythology. It would be funny except it seems to hold so much influence in our government.
If more people actually read the book - they'd see the truly evil stories and teachings it contains.
Tue May 13, 02:33:00 PM 2008 
 Miss Poppy Dixon said...
God had to make women and mothers filthy, a person's first birth inferior to the clean, intellectual second birth from the head/word of God. God had to cut out the competition - women - those who truly create life.
The verses you quote are at the root of the world's hatred and violence toward women.
It's really gross, and shows how weak and pathetic the Christian/Judeo god really is.
Sat May 17, 12:48:00 PM 2008 
 K. said...
o.O
Sheesh, this is a bit extreme.
Unclean isn't a morally negative thing to those under the law, it's a part of life. Having a baby come out of a woman's vagina is a really messy process that still results in lots of infection and death throughout the world...
...In reality, this was a medical practice way ahead of its time.
As far as the offerings go-
Just typing in "Leviticus 12" into my firefox addy bar to bring up the verses to read myself, this page was brought up automatically:
http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0312.htm
That gives a pretty simple step by step explanation of the chapter.
There are people out there with legitimate questions about Christianity; and then there are people like you out there to demonize what you dislike.
Who goes through and wastes their time trying to discredit someone with no net personal gain to be had? What's making you so bitter?
Sun May 18, 06:26:00 PM 2008 
 Aquaria said...
K just doesn't get the hatred for women dripping from the Hebrew fairy tale's verses. Hell, it's not dripping, it's gushing.
Here's what the bible says--it's right there in front of your eyes, K:
Having a girl child no matter what the fucking order of birth requires twice as much postnatal purification for the woman. What medical justification could possibly require purifying yourself twice as long for a girl as for a boy child? There isn't any, and anyone with a brain knows that.
Only a moron wouldn't get the message being sent there that the Hebrews considered women twice as filthy as men. Ergo, it's perfectly valid to point out the misogyny and the sheer stupidity of the Hebrew fairy tale.
I don't know why I bother. No matter how often you point out the obvious to these religious whackjobs, they refuse to get it. Not only are they deluded, they're brain dead, too. Yeah, I said it. Use your brain, or get used to being called stupid.
Mon May 19, 06:32:00 AM 2008 
 RR said...
K - you can spin/rationalize/interpret these verses however you like. This was the methodology the priest caste employed to rule Europe in the Dark Ages. It was the most recent period when the church had control of society -- and it was a nightmare.
Anyway, back to topic. Sure -- you can give all these metaphorical interpretations of bible verses. That doesn't change the FACT that people were stoned to death and otherwise killed and punished in horrible ways for breaking the most inane of laws (like finding out your wife wasn't a virgin on your wedding night: punishment - stone her on her fathers doorstep; or something as simply as making cloths from two different types of cloth) ...
I'm sure you can tell me how virginity is some allegory for christ's sacrifice, etc. etc. but again it doesn't change the historical fact that these religious beliefs were used to commit heinous acts.
The whole enterprise is simply an exercise in wishful thinking. Once people realize we only have a short time on this planet to exist... and all we have is each other... the better it will be for us all.
Did you ever stop to think that you HAVE to interpret these verses in a non-literal sense because of your own innate morality filter? When you read "do unto other" you recognize it as "good"... but when you read "stone the adulterer" you realize it's something you don't want to teach -- so you turn it into a metaphor. The source of your sense of right and wrong is YOU -- not the bible. When the priests, pharisees and sadducees ruled they got to implement some of this non-sense literally...
Mon May 19, 07:28:00 AM 2008 
 Love Bomb said...
K said: What makes me so bitter?
You do kay with your sanctimonious attitude. Religious beliefs are not benign and they affect all of us believer and non-believer alike. politicians in our culture have to pretend they are a serious Christian or they would never get elected. Once elected they can commit war crimes with impunity. Also talk about how a baby concieved in rape is God's Will???? Can't we see the insanity here?
Sun Oct 28, 07:33:00 PM 2012 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.



Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 08 May 2008Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Cliff Richard (whoever he is) has come up with his top fifty Bible stories for kids. So I thought I'd list mine.
Here they are (in biblical order, as in Cliff's list). Which is your favorite?

"The serpent ... said unto the woman." Genesis 3:1-5
A clever serpent talks to Eve about trees, death, and the knowledge of good and evil.

"In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children. ... Thy husband ... shall rule over thee." Genesis 3:16
God punishes Eve, and all women after her, with the pains of childbirth and subjection to men.

 "The sons of God came in unto the daughters of men." Genesis 6:2-4
Angels had sex with women producing giant offspring.


 "All flesh died that moved upon the earth." Genesis 7:21-23
God drowned everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all.

 "Noah ... drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent." Genesis 9:20-25
Noah gets drunk and curses his grandson (and all his descendants) because his son saw him naked.

"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 19:1-8
The just and righteous Lot offers his daughters to a sex-crazed mob of angel rapers.

"Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." Genesis 19:30-38
Lot gets drunk and impregnates his virgin daughters.

 "And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son." Genesis 22:2-13
Abraham shows his willingness to kill his son for God.

"When he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground." Genesis 38:8-10
God killed Onan for ejaculating outside of a vagina.

 "Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." Genesis 38:13-18
Judah has sex with his daughter-in-law and then orders her to be burned to death.

 "The LORD met him, and sought to kill him." Exodus 4:24
God tries to kill Moses. (It had something to do with foreskins.)


 "The LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt." Exodus 12:29-30
God kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. "There was not a house where there was not one dead."

 "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and ... slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour." Exodus 32:27-28
God forces the people to kill each other for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf.

 "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts." Exodus 33:20-23
God shows Moses his backparts.

 "The sons of Aaron ... offered strange fire before the LORD... And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD... And Aaron held his peace." Leviticus 10:1-3
Aaron watched in silence as his sons were burned to death by God.

 "Bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones." Leviticus 24:10-23
Moses orders the people to stone to death a man who cursed. "And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses."

 "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." Numbers 11:1
God burned people alive for complaining.

 "And while the flesh was yet between their teeth ... the LORD smote the people with a very great plague." Numbers 11:4-33
God sent a great plague on the people for complaining about the food.

 "And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses... And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them... and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow." Numbers 12:1-10
For criticizing Moses, God gave Miriam leprosy.

 "A man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day." Numbers 15:32-36
God commands the people to stone to death a man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath.

 "And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up." Numbers 16:20-35
Because of a dispute between Korah and Moses, God has the ground open up and swallow Korah, his companions, "and their wives, and their sons, and their little children."

 "All the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the LORD." Numbers 16:41-49
After God killed Korah, his family, and 250 incense burners, the people complained saying, "ye have killed the people of the Lord." So God, who doesn't take kindly to criticism, sent a plague on the people. And "they that died in the plague were 14,700."

 "And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died." Numbers 21:6
For complaining (again) about the lack of food and water, God sent fiery serpents to bite the people, and many of them died.

 "And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam..." Numbers 22:23-30
Balaam and his donkey have a nice little chat. Apparently, they do this often, since Balaam isn't the least bit surprised when his donkey starts talking to him.

 "Phinehas ... thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel." Numbers 25:1-13
While God is talking to Moses about hanging up dead bodies, one of the Israelite men brings home a foreign woman. When Phinehas (Aaron's grandson) sees the happy couple, he throws a spear "through the man .. and the woman through her belly." This act pleases God so much that "the plague was stayed from the children of Israel." But not before 24,000 had died.

 "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 31:1-54
Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they let some live, he angrily says: "Have you saved all the women alive? 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."

 "I have a message from God unto thee." Judges 3:15-22
Ehud delivers a "message from God" to the king of Moab: a knife thrust so deeply into the king's belly that it could not be extracted, "and the dirt came out."

 "Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground." Judges 4:17-23
Jael offers food and shelter to a traveler (Sisera, Jabin's captain), saying "turn in my Lord ... fear not." Then after giving him a glass of milk and tucking him in, she drives a tent stake through his head.

 "As a dog lappeth" Judges 7:4-7
God picks the men to fight in Gideon's army by the way they drink water. Only those that lap water with their tongues, "as a dog lappeth," shall fight in Gideon's Holy War.

 "At the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed." Judges 11:29-39
Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to God.

 "Samson went and caught three hundred foxes." Judges 15:4-5
Samson catches 300 foxes, ties their tails together, and sets them on fire.

 "The Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him... And he found a new jawbone of an ass ... and slew a thousand men therewith." Judges 15:14-15
When the spirit of the Lord comes upon Samson, he kills 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass.

 "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you." Judges 19:22-30
After taking in a traveling Levite, the host offers his virgin daughter and his guest's concubine to a mob of perverts (who want to have sex with his guest). The mob refuses the daughter, but accepts the concubine and they "abuse her all night." The next morning she crawls back to the doorstep and dies. The Levite puts her dead body on an ass and takes it home. Then he chops the body up into twelve pieces and sends a piece to each of the twelve tribes of Israel.

 "And they had emerods in their secret parts." 1 Samuel 5:6-12
God smites the people of Ashdod with hemorrhoids "in their secret parts."

 "Because they had looked into the ark of the LORD" 1 Samuel 6:19
God kills 50,070 for looking into the ark.


 "And the spirit of God came upon Saul ... and he took a yoke of oxen, and hewed them in pieces, and sent them throughout all the coast of Israel." 1 Samuel 11:6-7
People do the strangest things when the Spirit of God comes upon them.

 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." 1 Samuel 15:2-3
God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses. Why? Because God remembers what Amalek did hundreds of years ago.

 "And David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife." 1 Samuel 18:25-27
David buys his first wife with 200 Philistine foreskins.

 "The child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." 2 Samuel 12:13-18
To punish David for having Uriah killed and causing others to blaspheme, God kills Bathsheba's baby boy.

 "So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel ... and there died of the people ... seventy thousand men." 2 Samuel 24:1-15
Because of David's census (which God inspired), Go killed 70,000 men (and probably around 200,000 women and children).

 "And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not." 1 Kings 1:1-4
Poor old king David could get no heat. So they searched throughout the kingdom for a beautiful virgin. They found one (Abishag), and she "cherished the king, and ministered to him," but he still couldn't get any heat.

"If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty." 2 Kings 1:9-12
Elijah shows that he is "a man of God" by burning 102 men to death. He did the job in two shifts of 51 men each.

"And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape... and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there." 1 Kings 18:22-40
Elijah killed 450 religious leaders in a prayer contest.

"Go up thou bald head." 2 Kings 2:23-24
God sends two bears to rip up 42 little children for making fun of Elisha's bald head.

 "The whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters." Matthew 8:28-34
The devils ask Jesus to cast them into a herd of pigs. He does, and the poor pigs run off into the sea and drown.

 "For the time of figs was not yet." Mark 11:13
Jesus curses a fig tree for not having fruit (even though it was not the right season for figs).

 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:11-27
Jesus explains in a parable that those who refuse to submit to him will be killed before him.

 "Behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost." Acts 5:1-10
Peter scares Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land.

 "The hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind." Acts 13:8-11
Paul and the Holy Ghost make Elymas (the sorcerer) blind.

 "The angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost." Acts 12:23
The "angel of the Lord" killed Herod by having him "eaten of worms" because "he gave not God the glory."
Posted by Steve Wells at 5/08/2008 09:42:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
17 comments:
 v_quixotic said...
Cliff's 5th favourite story: Jacob and Esau (Genesis 25, 27, 32–33) has the curious abbreviation:
We learn that being nice to your twin brother will work out well for everyone.
I hardly think Jacob is being 'nice' to Esau. He deceived him twice, lied to his blind father on his deathbed such that ... Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.(Gen 27:38).
Yeah, they supposedly kissed and made up (Gen 33:4) and both had lots of wives and children but I can't understand why Esau was treated so poorly. Was it the hair?
Fri May 09, 02:52:00 PM 2008 
 Aidan said...
It's because he's a cipher for Edom, ancient Israel's rival nation.
Sat May 10, 03:40:00 AM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
Perhaps Aidan, but Cliff's list is supposed to be "bible stories for kids"... anyhow should a rival nation be held to ransom anymore than a hungry sibling?
Sun May 11, 04:04:00 AM 2008 
 RR said...
You gotta love Judges 19:22-30 -- one of the most disgusting stories ever told.
And to think some parents don't want their kids to read Mark Twain in school -- and would rather have them read this.
Goes to show how much some people buy into this stuff without reading it.
Tue May 13, 02:39:00 PM 2008 
 steve said...
Funny how those who poke fun of spiritual things (materialists) because they can't seem to understand or "believe" don't have a hard time believing the following theory that's in secular science books...
"Around a billion years ago, rain and lightning hit a rock. That rock then turned into a tadpole that eventually crawled onto shore and turned human...even though his/her eyes, ears, legs, arms and sex organs didn't develop over another billion years, somehow, by by the god of time, it still found a way to mate and have more of it's kind..."
And to quote "rr" above, "Goes to show how much some people buy into this stuff without reading it."
Exactly. Materialists must have more faith to believe it all came by random chance. Us Christians don't have that much faith. Gessh. We just believe God did it all.
Wed Aug 20, 09:17:00 AM 2008 
 Adam said...
Steve-
You incorrectly define those who poke phone at spirtiual things as 'materialists'. Is a missionary in india a 'materialist' for criticizing the local population’s belief in black magic or sacred remedies? Is a Peace Corps volunteer in West Africa materialistic if she doesn’t believe the contradictory statements of anonymous writers who lived thousands of years before her birth? Unless you’re posting your comments from a computer at your local library which you walk to from your one room house which you share with the local homeless, lets save the nebulous materialism charges and analyze one point at a time.
1. When you understand how you are able to dismiss the supernatural claims of the rest of the world’s religions, you will understand how it is so easy for them to dismiss yours.
2. When you state "Goes to show how much some people buy into this stuff without reading it" were you referring back to your own summary of evolution? If you could, please post a link to the ‘secular science books’ from which you formed your understanding of the theory. In the meantime, check out “Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences” at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024 to get read up on the arguments.
3. Does creationist viewpoint expressed here, http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/, not require a generous amount of credulity?
4. Which God? Did What?
5. How do any of your arguments defend the absurd myths that these vignettes so easily mock?
Thu Aug 21, 05:09:00 PM 2008 
 Mike said...
I'm always partial to the "hung like horses" verse: Ez 23:20
But "go up thou bald head" is a great lesson for kids.
Wed Nov 05, 08:02:00 PM 2008 
 That's a Great Question! said...
What about the kids stories that Evolutionists use in jr. high textbooks, "A long, long, time ago, perhaps billions of years ago, lightning hit a rock and the rock turned into a fish, that grew legs..."
My Evolutionist friend asserted to me, "At least we don’t believe in talking animals," referring to the serpent and Eve in Genesis, "...and the problem of miracles!"
I answered him, "Given atheist/evolutionary assumptions, you’re an animal, and you’re talking!” In regards to miracles, I stated that Evolutionists have no basis on which to question a believer about miracles. Why? Evolutionists believe that the universe came into existence from pre-existing matter that at one time was concentrated into an object (that no one ever saw) about the size of a Advil Gel Tablet.
And, that this inorganic, super-heated sterile material exploded, and in billions of years, brought forth organic life with mind, logic, morality, and…yes, billions of talking animals like him. That takes a lot of faith to believe in!
There's a fairy tale story that atheists hold to.
Wed Nov 05, 09:22:00 PM 2008 
 Marcelo said...
That's a Great Question!, even your distorted version of what science says is more reasonable than what is written on the Bible.
Do you deny all the crazy stuff written there?
Tue Oct 06, 11:55:00 AM 2009 
 Steve Solis said...
Marcelo... My distorted view of science? No my friend, you've just been brian washed with years of evolutionary speculations as to what science is.
If there was a chaotic, random, by chance act of a big bang, how did we get order today? How do atheists account for the order of the universe if they posit a theory such as a Big Bang?
The Bible comports with reality. Evolutionists sure do make a lot of assumptions to come up with their theories that they can't even account for.
One must have faith in creation as you do in evolution for our origin... actually, to believe nothing came from something takes a lot more faith. I only believe God made it all.
What say YOU?
Tue Oct 06, 12:29:00 PM 2009 
 Anders said...
You wrote: “The just and righteous Lot offers his daughters to a sex-crazed mob of angel rapers. “
1.If you look up all instances of the term “melakhim” in the Bible it is crystal clear that the correct translation of the term is messengers, not “angels”.
See also the etymology in www.netzarim.co.il ; Glossaries.
Lot is not described as a righteous person in Torah.
I would like to recommend the formal logical proof based on scientific premises found in my blog for the existence of a Creator and His purpose of humankind (proof that Torah contains instructions from the Creator).
Anders Branderud
Fri Nov 20, 11:43:00 AM 2009 
 Steve Wells said...
OK, Anders. The just and righteous Lot offered his daughters to a sex-crazed mob of messenger rapers.
Is that better?
Fri Nov 20, 03:39:00 PM 2009 
 demonslaingod said...
The word Angel also means Messenger, so he is technically correct in saying Angel Rapers.
Thu Dec 31, 03:30:00 PM 2009 
 TJ said...
If I'm not mistaken, the mob wanted to rape the angels instead of the virgin daughters. So technically "angel-rapers" is accurate.
Fri Sep 17, 07:10:00 AM 2010 
 sofia alvarez said...
i would not tell my kids any of these stories... they are to young to be exposed to "drunk" "rape' "sex".
Sat Apr 20, 10:13:00 AM 2013 
 sofia alvarez said...
don't have kids, but i have a smaller brother and sisters.
Sat Apr 20, 10:14:00 AM 2013 
 Unknown said...
I still haven't had a religious person competently explain why there are galaxies 100's of millions of light-years away from us, or why God would create such a phenomena. It's not surprising that these people believe Creation myths, since they have a very difficult time explaining how 1 million is different from 1 billion (I'll give you a clue - if someone is a billionaire, that means they have enough money to make 1,000 people millionaires).
Wed Nov 20, 09:27:00 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
    
 28 June 2008The Scripture Project: Volunteer Editors Needed
There's something new at the SAB that I want to tell you about.
I've decided to donate the material at the site to Sam Harris' Reason Project. The SAB will still be around, of course, but there will also be a new site, called "The Scripture Project", that will be a collaborative, wiki-style website that will start with the material from the SAB and go from there. I don't know where "there" will be, but it should take it far beyond what one person can do alone.
Which is where you folks come in. The Scripture project needs help in importing and editing material from the SAB. To help out, all you have to do is to go here to sign up.
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/28/2008 01:18:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
6 comments:
 RR said...
Kudos...
Sam Harris is probably the leading voice when considering a non-dogmatic, reasoned response to the silliness we find in the ancient texts and in the belief systems that grew out of them.
I just signed up...
Sun Jun 29, 07:45:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
I think this sounds like an exciting project. I would need to read more first, but I could also consider working on something like this. I see there are also a number of other prominent atheists in on the Reason Project.
http://www.samharris.org/site/the_reason_project/
Steve, it's very generous of you to donate the material from the SAB. You said that the SAB will still be around, which I'm happy to hear. Will you still continue to make updates to it, or will new information just be put on the Scripture Project instead?
Mon Jun 30, 04:07:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Thanks, anon. I think it is an exciting project too. I've always wanted to open up the site to allow for more contributors, but that's not easy to do on a conventional website.
I expect the wiki-based Scripture Project to develop and evolve into something quite different from the SAB.
So I figure that I'll continue working on the SAB as long as there are people that believe in the Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon. And although there is some evidence that those beliefs are in decline, I suspect they will outlive me. So I doubt if I will ever see the end of the SAB.
Mon Jun 30, 09:51:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Congrats, Steve. All your hard work is apparent and you have created an excellent resource.
Great job!
--S.
Tue Jul 01, 03:49:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Thanks for your reply, Steve. I'm glad to hear that SAB will continue! Then again...
I figure that I'll continue working on the SAB as long as there are people that believe in the Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon.
...maybe I should be looking forward to the end of SAB?!
But seriously, very good news.
Thu Jul 03, 05:12:00 PM 2008 
 dennoow said...
Thank you very much for this project mr. Wells, it's highly appreciated, you've done an outstanding wonderful job! I first learned from it through the Sam Harris Reason project (just signed up to it!) and I just thought I'd let you know this way :)
Fri Oct 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
    
 24 June 2008The tokens of virginity: Muslims, honor killings, and the book of Deuteronomy
Where do Muslims get their fruitcake ideas about sex and marriage? Take this recent news story for example.
The annulment of a young Muslim couple’s marriage because the bride was not a virgin has caused anger in France, prompting President Sarkozy’s party to call for a change in the law.
The decision by a court in Lille was condemned by the Government, media, feminists and civil rights organisations after it was reported in a legal journal on Thursday. Patrick Devedjian, leader of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement, said it was unacceptable that the law could be used for religious reasons to repudiate a bride. It must be modified “to put an end to this extremely disturbing situation”, he said.
The case, which had previously gone unreported, involved an engineer in his 30s, named as Mr X, who married Ms Y, a student nurse in her 20s, in 2006. The wedding night party was still under way at the family’s home in Roubaix when the groom came down from the bedroom complaining that his bride was not a virgin. He could not display the blood-stained sheet that is traditionally exhibited as proof of the bride’s “purity”.
Is there something about bloody sheets in the Quran? No, for shit like that you have to go to the Bible.
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 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: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
So the groom was just obeying God. Well, almost anyway. According to the Bible, he shouldn't have just had the wedding annulled; he and the men of the city should have stoned his bride to death at the door of her father's house because she had disgraced him, her family and her community. It's a matter of honor -- an honor killing required by the Bible.
As long as these verses remain in the Bible, no Bible believer can complain about Muslim honor killings. The Muslims are just doing what the Bible God commands.
And there couldn't be anything wrong with that, now could there?
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/24/2008 08:22:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
12 comments:
 Skeptical Simsam said...
I often ask myself whether the law as put forth by the Torah is worse than the Qur'an. I guess in this instance, the Torah gets the "worst holy scripture" award.
Tue Jun 24, 06:54:00 PM 2008 
 Aidan said...
The problem is that much of Islamic law and tradition comes from the Hadith, which is in fact mostly plagarised from, amongst other things, Jewish, Christian and the occasional Zoroastrian text.
If you think the Bible is of dubious authorship and authenticity...well, it ain't got nothing on the Hadiths.
Wed Jun 25, 01:01:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
In anticipation of Christian arguments saying that that was the Old Testament and should be ignored (as Julia Sweeney would say, it has "old" right in the name!)
If there are things that are morally repugnant and unacceptable in modern society which are still currently found in millions upon millions of copies of the Holy Bible in existence around the world , why not
* take out the bad parts (à la Jefferson, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, etc.) and sell it as the "Good Book". Most Christians who have actually read the Bible know that there are things in there that shouldn't be; they just try to ignore it and focus on the good parts. This would make it easier for these people and would avoid people mistaking the bad for the good. Who decides what goes into this new Bible might be problematic, though...An easier route may be:
* take out the entire Old Testament, or replace it with a historical introduction of the Israelites explaining what (allegedly) happened, without the direct quotes from God commanding people to do all sorts of crazy things most people no longer consider moral (because we know better now). The New Testament contains crazy things, too, but it's a lot better than the Old Testament.
* put a foreword in the Bible explaining the Old Testament is not what Christians should follow (e.g. "Do not try this at home"). Examples could be given of things crazy modern people did wrong and make it clear God doesn't want women who aren't virgins when they're married to be stoned, and that will send people to hell if they actually do any of this stuff nowadays.
* Reject the Bible entirely and just start over. Then again, we may be in trouble if a new Christian L. Ron Hubbard comes around...
Wed Jun 25, 03:30:00 PM 2008 
 Darren Delgado said...
anon wrote:
* take out the entire Old Testament, or replace it with a historical introduction of the Israelites explaining what (allegedly) happened, without the direct quotes from God commanding people to do all sorts of crazy things most people no longer consider moral (because we know better now). The New Testament contains crazy things, too, but it's a lot better than the Old Testament.
* put a foreword in the Bible explaining the Old Testament is not what Christians should follow (e.g. "Do not try this at home"). Examples could be given of things crazy modern people did wrong and make it clear God doesn't want women who aren't virgins when they're married to be stoned, and that will send people to hell if they actually do any of this stuff nowadays.
This is all good stuff of course, but the flaw is in assuming that the Church wants this stuff out of circulation. I think they love that good old time religion; if they had their druthers they'd be breaking out the sticks and stones and the lighter fluid in 2008.
The only reason they have backed off of some of that stuff is because they kinda have to, if they want to retain tax exemption status with the government, and other societal privileges; as society and our laws have progressed to the point where we won't tolerate that shit.
Thu Jun 26, 12:41:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
darren said: The flaw is in assuming that the Church wants this stuff out of circulation. I think they love that good old time religion[...] The only reason they have backed off of some of that stuff is because they kinda have to, if they want to retain tax exemption status with the government, and other societal privileges; as society and our laws have progressed to the point where we won't tolerate that shit.
That's a good point. They would never admit as much, but public perception/pressure must play some role, otherwise they'd still be claiming the Sun revolved around the Earth.
There is an audience for the fire and brimstone bible unfortunately, so it may be a while until we see biblical reform. A liberal Protestant congregation somewhere might lead the way.
Or better yet, maybe they'll stubbornly keep it as-is and people will eventually start rejecting the whole thing...
Thu Jun 26, 02:45:00 PM 2008 
 sophiehirsch said...
Ugh, dogma can be so frightening sometimes - but this post made me ponder something. There is a certain percentage of women who are virgins and have never had sex who don't bleed on first intercourse. It must have been terribly frightening for a girl to have lived at a time when people didn't understand this and it makes me wonder if any girls actually did things to fake their first blood. There are tales of women who did things to have primitive abortions (bring back menarche, as it is often put) and who did various other things in desperation, I wonder if those desperate measures extended to their blood proofs on their wedding nights.
Thu Jun 26, 11:14:00 PM 2008 
 erlybird said...
I would certainly not presume to add to all the Bible-bashing things being said here...true all...so here is my rationalist take on the whole thing...
Was the MAN a virgin? Is there a rule that the MAN be a virgin? Does the "maiden" get to come marching down the stairs defiantly shouting that her new HUSBAND has fucked someone else before her? No, of course not.
But here is the thing...SINCE the man was probably not a virgin then at some point he has gone with a woman to have sex thus DEPRIVING HER of being a virgin herself and EXPOSING her to the humiliation of NOT being able to get married in an HONORABLE way, having her marriage ANNULLED and getting herself STONED to death.
Shouldn't this be punishable TOO? And I am not talking about their RIDICULOUS notion the men CANNOT HELP THEMSELVES where it comes to sex...and that if they happen to see a woman's ANKLES or HAIR then they are not RESPONSIBLE for what might occur...I am just talking about how much these NON-VIRGIN men TAKE from the women that they have had sex with in the past. They have, essentially, in this kind of culture, RUINED their lives. In fact, when they think about the women that they have had sex with I am SURE that they think of them as being REPUGNANT even though THEY led them to having sex, not the other way around.
But not to worry about those SLUTS...their own BROTHERS will take care of them...and again do itin the name of HONOR.
Fri Jun 27, 08:04:00 AM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
Perhaps Mr X's insistence on a virginal wife is cultural and not related to his Muslim faith per se.
In any case it sounds like a lucky escape for Ms Y.
Fri Jun 27, 10:59:00 PM 2008 
 Pesto Bong said...
"There is a certain percentage of women who are virgins and have never had sex who don't bleed on first intercourse. It must have been terribly frightening for a girl to have lived at a time when people didn't understand this and it makes me wonder if any girls actually did things to fake their first blood. There are tales of women who did things to have primitive abortions (bring back menarche, as it is often put) and who did various other things in desperation, I wonder if those desperate measures extended to their blood proofs on their wedding nights."
I believe there are certain methods for achieving such a result recorded. I read about it somewhere recently. It may have been in this book.
Sun Jun 29, 03:32:00 PM 2008 
 Miss Poppy Hussein Dixon said...
I agree that Christians want this in their Bible. If it wasn't there it would be harder to teach their sons that women are chattel, unclean, untrustworthy, etc. It would also be harder to teach their daughters how good they have it, and how merciful the men in their lives are to them.
Sun Jul 27, 06:31:00 AM 2008 
 G said...
That the token of virginity is a sheet stained with the blood of a ruptured hymen is not logical. The "signs of virginity" (Deuteronomy 22:15) are presented to the court by the parents. Even if the parents were present at the consumation of the marriage, the so called token, the blood stained sheet actually came after the bride was no longer a virgin.
Somebody, please look into the stories of the Middle Ages (maybe fictional) when some stud was hired to pierce a royal maiden before the prince would enter her. From my knowledge, conception is more probable after the bride has been pierced. In those days, the prince could have been killed by his enemies even before he ever had a chance to unite with his royal bride. Maybe the stud was willing to lose his head for piercing the royal bride. Again, the story I heard about royal studs may be fiction.
In reality, however, the bible is actually a book about kings and priests.
Sat Sep 13, 01:30:00 PM 2008 
 Breathe said...
The New Testiment, which is an extension from the Old Testiment, hence part of the Bible; providing a new Covenant between G-d and His people through Jesus, states:"Those without sin, cast the first stone." Jesus speaks a lot about hypocracy, about how people point out the "speck in his Brother's eye, but does not see the log in his own eye". And secondly, not every virgin bleeds.
Mon Nov 21, 11:39:00 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
    
 17 June 2008The Bible and the Quran agree: God and Satan force nonbelievers to disbelieve.
I'm not sure how this works exactly, but it must be true because both the Bible and the Quran say it is: God and Satan force nonbelievers to disbelieve (and then burn them forever in Hell for not believing).
Here's what the Bible says:
God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned. 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
He [God] hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. John 12:40
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4
And here's the Quran:
As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. 2:6-7
We have placed upon their hearts veils, lest they should understand, and in their ears a deafness. 6:25
As for him whom He sendeth astray, for them thou wilt find no protecting friends beside Him, and We shall assemble them on the Day of Resurrection on their faces, blind, dumb and deaf; their habitation will be hell; whenever it abateth, We increase the flame for them. That is their reward because they disbelieved Our revelations. 17:97-98
Lo! on their hearts We have placed coverings so that they understand not, and in their ears a deafness. And though thou call them to the guidance, in that case they can never be led aright. 18:57
He [Iblis aka Satan] said: Now, because Thou [Allah aka God] hast sent me astray, verily I shall lurk in ambush for them on Thy Right Path. ... He said: Go forth from hence, degraded, banished. As for such of them as follow thee, surely I will fill hell with all of you. 7:16-18
I [Iblis] verily shall adorn the path of error for them in the earth, and shall mislead them every one, Save such of them as are Thy perfectly devoted slaves. ...for all such, hell will be the promised place. 15:39-43
Isn't it great to see God and Satan working together so nicely on such an important task?
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/17/2008 09:45:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
18 comments:
 Skeptical Simsam said...
When I realised this a couple of years back, it was the end of any sympathy I had for religious belief. I guess it shifted my disbelief from atheism to anti-theism. How anyone can believe in such a god, I don't know. But of course, believers have an excuse for everything - you've either misunderstood, misinterpreted, or in the case of the Qur'an, mistranslated it.
Wed Jun 18, 11:39:00 PM 2008 
 Brian_E said...
So just to be sure that satan has enough people to burn, god would purposely 'harden people's hearts' to make sure they don't accidentally turn to him. What a kind and loving god.
Thu Jun 19, 06:49:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Good post, Steve. I don't understand why God would lead people not to believe in him or to break his law, and then condemn them to death for not believing. Sounds like entrapment to me...
Thu Jun 19, 04:26:00 PM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
Verses like these are a sop to the proselytisers. It's like god is saying to the righteous, "Don't feel too bad when people don't accept your gospel, I've already decided that they won't fit properly in heaven... but keep trying!"
Fri Jun 20, 11:23:00 PM 2008 
 Dawn said...
I have only the time and energy to work on one of your statements so I will take the first.
The part you forgot (conveniently) was:
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2 Th 2:10
Basically, BECAUSE they did not love the truth, he helped them believe their lie.
Steve, God is talking to you here. Because you are not a lover/seeker of truth, he sends you strong delusions to help you believe your own lies.
You know when you work on this blog that you distort the words of the Bible and you know that you have an agenda. Even now, God is helping you believe your own lies.
I pity you. But God loves you.
Sat Jun 21, 11:59:00 AM 2008 
 Darren Delgado said...
dawn wrote:
You know when you work on this blog that you distort the words of the Bible and you know that you have an agenda.
I have to disagree here -- Steve, from what I can see, takes the words of the Bible in a completely straightforward way. In fact it's kind of a theme of this blog and the S.A.B.: actually looking at what the bible says.
That's usually why Bible-believers get mad at him, because apparently you're not supposed to do that and it pisses them off royally whenever anybody points out the crazy stuff that's really in there.
It seems to me that the believers are the ones who distort the words of the Bible, to get them to make sense.
Sat Jun 21, 06:48:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Dawn, I too, only, have the time and energy to work on one of your statements so I will take the first.
The part you forgot (conveniently) was:
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2 Th 2:10
Basically, BECAUSE they did not love the truth, he helped them believe their lie.
Dawn, God is talking to you here. Because you are not a lover/seeker of truth, he sends you strong delusions to help you believe your own lies.
You know when you comment on this blog, that you distort the words of the Bible and you know that you have an agenda. Even now, God is helping you believe your own lies.
I pity you. But God loves you.
Dawn, how do you know god isn't sending you strong delusion to help you believe in your own lies?
--S.
Sat Jun 21, 09:32:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Dawn said: "Basically, BECAUSE they did not love the truth, he helped them believe their lie. "
Dawn, let's assume God exists, and that unbelievers are wrong. Wouldn't a loving God, instead of making an unbeliever even more deluded, help them to see the light and realize the error of their ways? What good does it do to delude them even more?
Sat Jun 21, 10:40:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
I remember the first time I committed to reading the Bible. I went into it with all these preconceived ideas, of who the character of god was, and who the character of satan was. God was to be all-loving and the very essence of morality, while satan was all-evil and god's ultimate nemesis. Was I thrown for a loop, when I read the Bible. Not only was god a complete and utter psycho, who causes people to suffer, in vile and unimaginable ways -- he and satan were in cahoots. Nowhere is this more explicit, than it is, in Job.
In the book of Job, god, who is supposedly omniscient, asking satan, "where he's been", reeks of a fairy tale character, who, in league with satan (adversary, which doesn't make sense, if he's helping god), are on the ultimate 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 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 kid who ripped the wings off of a fly and removed the legs one by one.
And after god and satan 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 disgusting, demented, dictator, he replaces Job's seven sons and three daughters with an entirely different set of children. I mean what kind of fucked-up, god is this? How can the excruciating pain of losing a child be removed by replacing it with the birth of another? What is god saying? -- that a child is expendable and then replaceable like a lost CD or new ants for the ant farm? God and satan -- the ultimate and vile tag team.
Needless to say, this opened my eyes to the illusion, that is christianity -- I still can't believe a religion was constructed from such insane nonsense.
--S.
Sun Jun 22, 12:15:00 AM 2008 
 RR said...
Christians, Jews, Mulsims, Mormons: they all claim to seek "truth" but they start from a point of indoctrination. They don't need reason, evidence or rationality... they all claim to have knowledge but can't see they base this claim on nonsense.
They can, of course, see how nonsensical it is for other religions to use revealed truth as a starting point ... but of course there's doesn't suffer the same fatal flaw.
I pity these people. They spend their lives in devotion to mythical lunacy.
Sun Jun 22, 12:39:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
rr said Christians, Jews, Mulsims, Mormons: they all claim to seek "truth" but they start from a point of indoctrination. They don't need reason, evidence or rationality... they all claim to have knowledge but can't see they base this claim on nonsense.
They can, of course, see how nonsensical it is for other religions to use revealed truth as a starting point ... but of course there's doesn't suffer the same fatal flaw.
I think that's what's frustrating. As a recovering Christian, I used to think other religions were ridiculous. Then I started to find out there were good and bad things in all religions, including Christianity. Then I actually started reading the Bible...and began to see what little good there is in it is not unique to Christianity at all and a lot of times is modern revisionism, trying to put our morals into the Bible, and not vice-versa.
I think if a lot of people (not everyone, but a lot of people) just took the book they say they believe in and actually read it for themselves, instead of being spoon-fed selected verses, pretty songs, and fancy rituals, then they would see their religion is just as silly as the others. It's my opinion, and I understand if anyone objects to it, but that's how I feel.
Mon Jun 23, 07:50:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
sconnor said God is the cosmic equivalent to a 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.
I think this is a good analogy, and it can be taken a step further: the kid eventually outgrows the ant farm and just abandons it. God got bored with us, so he's totally ignored us for the past 2000 years.
If he did exist and acted the way he did in the Bible, I'd be kind of glad he's forgotten about us.
Thu Jun 26, 02:56:00 PM 2008 
 Commodianus said...
Superficial examination of scripture used to reinforce your already held point of view.

2Th 2:10 God shall send them the operation of error.[9] That is, says St. John Chrysostom and St. Cyril, he will permit them to be led away with illusions, by signs, and lying prodigies, which the devil shall work by antichrist, &c. (Witham) --- God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth. (Challoner) --- The end God proposes is the judgment and condemnation of such as reject the proffered light. This is the march of sin, according to St. Thomas Aquinas on this place. In the first place a man, in consequence of his first sin, is deprived of grace, he then falls into further sins, and ends with being eternally punished. Hence it happens that his new sins are a punishment of his former transgressions; because God will permit the devil to do these things. Deus mittet, quia Deus Diabolum facere ista permittet. (St. Augustine, lib. xx. de Civ. Dei. chap. 19.)

Joh 12:40
He hath blinded their eyes, &c. See Matthew xiii. 14. (Witham) --- God blinded the Jews, not by filling them with malice, but by refusing them his graces, of which they had made themselves unworthy, and which they before abused and despised. It was their perverse will, their pride, presumption, and obstinacy, that brought on them this judgment. (St. Augustine)

2Co 4:3 The apostle here brings another proof of the sincerity of his preaching, viz. the success with which it is attended: And he says, if there be any who have not yet received it, that is their own fault. For had they been as eager to receive it, as we have been to announce it to them, the whold world had long since been converted. (Theodoret)
2Co 4:4 In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers.[1] Thus the words are placed, both in the Latin and Greek text, so that the true God seems to be called the God of this world, as he is elsewhere called the God of heaven, the God of Abraham. God, says St. John Chrysostom, blinded, that is, permitted them to be blinded. Others translate, in whom God hat blinded the minds of the infidels of this world; so that this world may be joined with unbelievers, and not with God: and by the God of this world, some understand the devil, called sometimes the prince of this world, that is, of the wicked. (Witham)
Thu Mar 05, 03:49:00 PM 2009 
 Jacob Stai said...
You count some things as contradictions; but there is truth found in a simple contradiction with its feet planted firmly in reality. So, what truth is there in the present statement, which would at face value seem to contradict the idea of an all-loving or all-powerful God? How can it be that God and Satan force nonbelievers to disbelieve?
This question, this post, all boils down to a simple matter of the necessity for free will. If you were designing a universe from scratch, how would you build it? Would you create a myriad of little souls running around in a happy garden of eternal joy? Would you give them all a little happy bar and set it to "Always Maximum Happy!"? Would you give them infinite wisdom so that nothing they could ever do would ever hurt someone else?
These are lovely ideas, except that in a world where everything is happy all the time, there is never any need for diversity, for plurality, for exploring the multitude of differences in existence. Why on earth would you ever want to leave the shade of your tree to go splash in the pool? You would already be as happy as you ever could be, there would be nothing to gain, and nothing to do. No difference between the cool of stream and the cool of the shade of your "Maximum Happy." Nothing would be accomplished, no goals, no time, existence paused in a perpetual state of what could be called bliss, but would be more aptly called apathy.
There would be no need to work for justice in a world of total bliss, but that does not mean it would be a just world. There would be no need to improve the world, but that would not make it perfect. There would be no need to labor or toil, but neither any need to invent, create, or express one's self. There would be no need to help others; in fact, there would be no need to interact at all. Most of all, there would be no need to be happy, in a world where everyone already was. Existence in such a world would simply be, but it would not be for anything. Such a world would be lifeless, dead. A world without need would be a world without happiness. A static "happy meter" set to "maximum happy" simply isn't what it says it is.
In order for there to be happiness, there is a need for there to be free will, a need for difference, for strife, for petty hurt. Look at teens or kids or grown people joshing each other about in playfully offensive ways. There is joy between friends in banter that would insult a stranger, and friendships routinely survive pranks that would alienate and ridicule someone of a more sensitive bend. Satan was once the greatest of God's angels, or so the tradition goes; because difference, difference from whatever perfect definition of bliss, is the greatest of God's gifts to mankind. Free will is the greatest source of joy that God ever made, free will to "hurt," yes, if the kind insults exchanged by friends can be called hurt, when one knows truly that the "hurt," will be healed so quickly.
I suppose a simpler way of saying it is this: God is the only perfection, and if he makes perfection, he is making another of himself, who is already infinite. Therefore, God has made imperfection, in order that all may experience beauty through difference, through the oscillation between perfect and imperfect divine communion with God, an oscillation which is in itself perfect communion with God’s world. As Lutherans say, we are all “saints” and sinners simultaneously, but that does not bar us from living the Christian life.
Tue Oct 30, 12:55:00 AM 2012 
 Jacob Stai said...
Yes, we Christians believe that we alone have the true message of Salvation, that we alone know why good people go to Heaven, namely because God as revealed in Jesus loved us enough to suffer with us for our sake. And you know what? We're right. We alone have perfectly the message of Truth. But that fact (and I do mean fact to the faithful) is not the same thing as believing that anyone whose eyes God has closed to that truth will be sent to the eternal fires of separation from the Divine; in fact, in His love God gives them their own delusions, delusions of secular morality, of interreligious community, of other religions in themselves, in order to help them believe in the true Word, the true Light, imperfectly as they must. They are delusions that He is giving because He knows that He is behind them all, but He gives them their delusions nonetheless because those delusions are capable of bringing them closer to His truth, closer than those people would be in the absence of His delusions.
In the end it is not really God who has closed their eyes at all. God has allowed them to be closed, certainly, has allowed those people to be born without the psychological capability for faith; since psychology has proven to us that religious sentiment is in large part predetermined at birth, that irreligion tends to run in families, even though the specific religion to which one adheres is determined by the environment in which one is born. God has made the laws of the universe, including the randomness we see, and He does not micromanage, except to prod even His atheistic children to the goals of secular morality and secular community. It is indeed His hand which allows atheism, but He is no more its cause than he is the cause of anything else. Atheism is not one of his special creations; it is the result of something else He created, namely free will.
God did not make us to be sheep, to be machines. We are sheep, are machines trapped in ourselves, as the Bible makes clear; but that is not all that we are, for we are also His children. Free will, God's greatest gift to his children, is also his greatest curse; because with free will comes the fact that some will turn from God, that some will reject the bliss God hopes and wishes for us to choose, if such we want. Without difference in our "happy meters" we cannot truly appreciate what we have been given; but with the freedom to leave joy behind comes the freedom to get lost and never find our way back, if we were left to our own devices. And as to that, God's message is clear; Jesus, God, will always bring us back to the joy that he has promised, if we so repent, if we so wish. (And I cannot conceive of one who does not wish, in some capacity, in some delusion.)
The world is wider than can be described in a post, and so is God. In sum, you are right; God and Satan do force nonbelievers to disbelieve, in the sense that God allows the free will randomness inherent in the universe to evolve those without the psychological capacity for faith; and even then, to those he gives delusions that will give them at least an imperfect knowledge of His Word.

Tue Oct 30, 12:56:00 AM 2012 
 Jacob Stai said...
Unfortunately you have said something more, a separate question of whether nonbelievers go to Hell. Your first mistake was to assert that the Quran and the Bible both claim that atheists go to Hell, and then only cite Quranic verses to back this up. If you could have cited a few verses that actually state that, you would have; but you can't, so you didn't.
However, in one sense, you are indeed right; God and Satan, God and your own free will to choose anything other than God, are working together to give you the tools you need to cause your own destruction, to bring about your own Hell, God by giving you that will to choose, and Satan by being that other choice. God gave us the tool of difference because he intends for us to use it to make His world interesting, and lively, but the tool of free will is powerful, and is not always used for good. God promises that despite Satan, despite whatever randomness afflicts your life, He, the Lord, will always be there to bring you back to joy. God promises that no matter how many times you blow yourself up out of your own free will, no matter how many times someone else blows you up through no will of your own, no matter how many times the sheer cruel randomness of the world screws you over, that our Lord will still love you, will save you, will give you another chance, either in this world or the next, to experience the joy that can only come of a will freed from endless sameness.
As to the idea of Satan at all, you can cite him if you feel like it as a mastermind entity behind those evil portions of the world of scientific randomness. For the scientifically described processes of randomness are an interface between the otherwise intangible spiritual world and the physical one. As a Christian, I would blame the devil for our woes. But God "collaborates" with Satan only in that Satan has access to the same tools of free will as we do to have his dominion in this world; it is not because God actively wants some to be led astray. No matter what "random" disasters are felt and lived through by Job, by us, in this world we have the promise always that when all is said and done, our Lord will be there to carry us to the eternal shore of Heaven, where there will be no random disasters that bring to naught all hope for a better tomorrow.
The fact is, the only way to this Heaven, according to Christianity, is through Jesus. Faith in Jesus, faith alone, without works. But who is Jesus? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God... That Word was Jesus, and therefore faith in Jesus can mean many things to many people, even to non-Christians.
And that is why you are wrong to state that Christianity believes that atheists go to Hell. Heaven is the reward of faith, a faith seen often through righteous action for all who believe in the message of Jesus, however imperfectly, even imperfectly enough to believe that they are rejecting God and His message. Anyone who casts out the demons of this world, every scientist, doctor, and engineer, every priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, guru, daoshi, pujari, purohit, kannushi (yes, I just took an opportunity to look up names of religious leaders from other religions), every teacher and builder of any or no degree of secularity who truly believes in the message of the Christ, no matter their particular delusion, will be counted among God's righteous. The material bodies in which we find ourselves can cloud our psychology and keep us from perfect faith, as can the cultures in which we were raised; but as the Bible states even more clearly, nothing can separate us from the love of God, because it is Him behind these cultural delusions and it is Him who knows that these differences cannot change the fundamental Word to which all the righteous ultimately aspire.
Tue Oct 30, 12:57:00 AM 2012 
 Jacob Stai said...
My unbelief, too, is dwindling, and being replaced by the fire of faith.
Tue Oct 30, 01:00:00 AM 2012 
 Jacob Stai said...
This is off topic. I apologize.
The Bible says "Prove everything," and it also says "Believe everything."
Contradiction? No. It means this:
Things that have been proven true have been proven to exist. They are something, and therefore part of everything. Believe them.
What has not yet been proven to exist might be true too, and therefore might be something and as far as we know is part of everything. Believe them if you want.
But that which is proven not to be true has been proven not to exist in reality. It is nothing; it is not part of everything. Do not believe them.
In effect, "Believe what is proven."
Seems that Christianity had objective rationalism down pat 2000 years ago, 1500 years before The Enlightenment, if only we would have listened.
Tue Oct 30, 01:18:00 AM 2012 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 10 June 2008People burned to death by God
In a previous post, I asked the question: Is it wrong to burn people to death? From the comments, it is clear that the answer depends upon whether you are a Bible-believer or not. So far no believer has answered the question, whereas every non-believer has answered clearly: It is wrong always and everywhere to burn to death anyone for any reason.
Of course there is a reason believers refuse the answer the question: God likes burning people to death. He sees nothing wrong with it. In fact, he does it himself sometimes. Here are a few examples from the Bible.
 Aaron's sons were caught burning incense without a license, so God burned them to death. (Aaron, the lousy father that he was, just watched and said nothing.)
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
The Israelites complained (the Bible doesn't say about what) and God heard it (he had his hearing aid on), so he burned them to death. (What else would any self-respecting God do?).
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 that were in the uttermost parts of the camp." Numbers 11:1

 God burns to death another 250 for burning incense. (What is it about incense that pisses God off? And do the Catholics know about this?)
And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense. Numbers 16:35

102 men (in two shifts of 51 each) are burned to death by God to prove that Elijah is a man of God. (Who else could magically burn people to death?)
If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. ... And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. 2 Kings 1:10-12
So the moral of the story is this: Don't complain, burn incense, or hang around men of God. (Otherwise God might burn you to death, too.)
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/10/2008 05:30:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
25 comments:
 Brian_E said...
Steve, Jason set us straight in the previous post. Ya see, death by fire was a 'societal norm' of the time, therefore god is right and just in condemning people to death in this horrific, torturous, and barbaric manner. In the previous example, the crime was sex with your mother in law. If at the time an acceptable punishment was to castrate the man then shove his own member down his throat to choke him to death, then god would be allowed to order this punishment as well. So god is exonerated from acting like a primitive barbarian because the people at the time were primitive barbarians.
Clear as mud to me!
Wed Jun 11, 07:25:00 AM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
Steve, Jason also said that burning people today is wrong. but Jesus suggests I will burn in the not too distant future:
John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
Don't Jesus' 'men' know that burning is immoral these days?
Thu Jun 12, 04:05:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Thanks for the post Steve. I think this may be the road to go because apparently some believers think what evil men do can at least sometimes be justified by societal norms.
God however should clearly be above passing norms since he is eternal and knew right from wrong well before humanity did. So if God does something, it seems to indicate that he thinks it's moral to do.
I will categorically state that it is wrong to burn people. God and his followers cannot state this though because their God has done so in the past (and told others to do so). So for God and his followers, sometimes burning is moral, sometimes it isn't. It all depends on the time, the place, the circumstances. This sort of relativism is dangerous, in my opinion. It allows for people to justify the worst of actions.
Maybe the Israelites thought burning people alive was okay precisely because God was okay with it?? In any case, it's true societal normas change here on Earth. Why should God's morality change?
Thu Jun 12, 06:16:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
The issue that's still being ignored is that it wasn't wrong to execute by burning back then. It wasn't a universal wrong. How many other ways can it be said? Similarly, historians don't condemn the Code of Hammurabi for it's promotion of "cruelty" or "immorality" for the simple reason history isn't judged based on the morals of today. History is judged by the standards of the day.
The only logical justification to condemn an action or behaviour in history is if it can be proven it was considered immoral at the time. Was burning by execution immoral at the time the law was given by God?
Thu Jun 12, 09:02:00 AM 2008 
 Brian_E said...
And you continue to ignore the fact that your OMNISCIENT GOD should have a better understanding of right and wrong than the primitives of the time. You continually try and excuse the behavior of your god because of the mentality of society at the time. What kind of example was god setting by condemning people to death by fire (for all the stupid reasons listed above)? Was he encouraging this society to 'grow up', or handle their problems in a more civilized fashion? I think not! Rather he sets the tone for a barbarian society to thrive for centuries. What a kind and loving god you've got there.
Thu Jun 12, 10:24:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
OK. I think it's time to give up on Jason. He doesn't know if it's right or wrong, cruel or merciful, to burn people to death or to cut out the hearts of young virgins to appease the gods.
But there are a couple billion other Bible believers out there. If any happen to stop by, I'd like to hear what they think about this. Is it wrong to burn people to death? Did God command us to burn people? Did he sometimes do it himself? Or was the Bible mistaken about these things?
Thu Jun 12, 10:39:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
I do know if it's right or wrong, Steve. Perhaps you missed my posts about the matter. Burning by execution was acceptable 4000 years ago, it's not acceptable today. History proves this.
But as I'm being asked in a roundabout way to stop posting comments on the matter, I shall take my leave. Toodles.
Thu Jun 12, 02:19:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Cuckoo said, The only logical justification to condemn an action or behaviour in history is if it can be proven it was considered immoral at the time. Was burning by execution immoral at the time the law was given by God?
God did say, thou shalt not kill. Clearly, this moral commandment should be considered moral, at the time, and immoral if you killed someone, but of course in the Bible it is up to interpretation and not absolute. God should have said, "thou shalt not kill, unless I cause people to suffer and die or if I tell you to cause infanticide, genocide or ethnic cleansing." God is a vile, cosmic, hypocrite, who can't make up his mind, if it is morally wrong to kill. And Jason is a deluded, psycho-fuck, who condones and worships this demented sky-fairy.
Jason, the guys with the big nets and funny, white jackets, with the way too long sleeves, with buckles, are getting closer.
--S.
Thu Jun 12, 03:54:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
I do know if it's right or wrong, Steve. Perhaps you missed my posts about the matter.
No, I've seen your posts, Jason. And you've never answered the question (Is it wrong to burn people to death?).
Burning by execution was acceptable 4000 years ago, it's not acceptable today.
So you don't know if it's right or wrong to burn people to death. Your answer is: It depends; it was right then (when God commanded us to do it), but it is wrong now (since he -- according to you anyway -- doesn't tell us to do it any more).
But as I'm being asked in a roundabout way to stop posting comments on the matter, I shall take my leave. Toodles.
I'm not asking you to leave, directly or indirectly. You're the only believer with guts enough to hang out here. So I'd prefer that you stay. But I don't expect a straight answer on this question (you know, the one about burning people to death).
So stay or go. It is entirely your choice. I am not asking you to leave.
Thu Jun 12, 05:24:00 PM 2008 
 mello said...
Burning by execution was acceptable 4000 years ago, it's not acceptable today.
some would say that 'burning by execution' was a method employed well into the 1800's. at some point in the early twentieth century, most people seemed to lose interest in this method. perhaps it was too labor and/or resource intensive?
Thu Jun 12, 06:07:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve,
"Execution by burning is wrong today" (Tue Jun 10, 04:50:00 PM 2008 - Is It Wrong to Burn People to Death)
I answered the question. You didn't read my posts. A little more diligence on your part would be appreciated.
Thu Jun 12, 07:26:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
I don't know if you're still reading this, Jason, but I see the arguments on morality that you made here on your Bible Discussions blog, in the series of posts. Maybe you, or any other Christians who are reading this, can comment on how this might relate to the issue at hand (the morality of God or others burning people) or related issues that have come up.
In the series "Can We Be Good Without God", in part 2, you seem to say morality stems from God, which is what I believe most Christian apologists believe. Even in non-believers, God has instilled the sense of right and wrong. You wrote:
A code of morality must have an objective scale of reference to measure good and evil and to determine the boundary between them, in the same way that we need a thermometer to measure temperature. Otherwise, terms such as "good" and "evil" are no more than words. By what yardstick do we measure them if we do not believe in God? Public opinion is fickle, individual conscience is subjective, the laws of nature say nothing about moral issues. The only reliable yardstick is found in the Bible which reveals the character and will of God. That provides a reference point which alone is perfect, unchanging, and transcendent. That is the reality by which all other views of reality must be measured.
This seems to say that, since God reveals his will and character, that burning people is okay because he does so himself and commands others to do so in some circumstances. Is this correct?
Even people who do not know God receive their moral compass from God. You say, even the "Gentiles', that is people who had not heard of the law of Moses, still possessed a knowledge of right and wrong. They had a conscience, they were aware of moral values. This is sometimes called "general revelation'. [...] Without this knowledge of right and wrong "written on their hearts", there could be no ordered society, no civilisation, no cultural achievements.
This seems to indicate there is no morality without God. Would you agree with this? Or is there a different relationship between God and morality that I misunderstood from your blog?
Then there is the question of old law vs. new law:
The sixth commandment states 'You shall not murder' A devout Israelite could claim to have obeyed this simply by not murdering anyone, even though he might heartily have wished his enemies dead. Which is not the kind of morality that God wants. He does not want an adjustment of behaviour, but a change of heart.
Jesus, you argue, acomplished this: he did not simply provide his followers with a list of do's and don'ts. In fact he was sharply critical of a morality founded on a rule-book mentality [...] The morality which really mattered was achieved by transforming people's hearts, changing their underlying motives. [...] The old Law had represented strict justice: "You have heard that it was said, Eye for eye and tooth for tooth" (Matthew 5:38). That is natural justice, to give enemies exactly what they deserve. But Jesus replaces justice with a dignified submission to injustice. [...] The followers of Jesus [...] will turn their enemies into their friends and neutralise their animosity. They must never allow the spirit of revenge to motivate their dealings with others.
So it sounds like Jesus disagreed with the spirit and the letter of the old law. To me, it sounds judgmental either of their moral code or of God's law. Instead of killing your enemies, for example, you should reach out to them as friends and try to convince them to change their ways. What does this say about God, who instead of trying to talk things through with the complaining Israelites in Numbers 11:1, simply burned them instead?
Can morality exist without God? In matters of personal morality the humanist can look to no higher authority than his own conscience or the shifting sands of public opinion. [...] In contrast the Gospel directs us to a power which lies outside human life—a power that can forgive, transform and raise the dead. That power is God Himself, without whom there can be no true goodness.
This makes it sound like good comes from God, but the description of the A.D. God is different from the one we find for the B.C. God in the Old Testament. Is the two apparent approaches of God to law and punishment why you say Jason that morality depends on the society? It seems to contradict the rest of your argument, but it would explain why God acts one way in the Old Testament and another in the New.
You do list some people without faith who aren't necessarily immoral: There are many exceptions in our own society, as there were in the first century—people who have no faith in God, nor any hope of life beyond this one and yet still try to live by high standards and devote themselves to the pursuit of truth, to serving their fellows, to helping refugees and the victims of war, tyranny and famine. But you say this is both "noble and tragic" since their good deeds aren't done in view of the life to come. I appreciate the fact that you admit that someone who is doing the right thing without the promise of an afterlife is noble. I disagree with your assessment of tragic though, although I understand your perspective as a former Christian.
So I guess I have two questions, after reading Jason's thoughts in his blog (which I found well-written and thought out overall, even though I disagreed with much of it):
1) Does morality come from God, either directly or indirectly? If so, why would this God-given morality appear to change through the centuries?
2) Are the God of the Old Testament (who burned people and left a set of rules and punishments for his followers) and the God of the New Testament (who taught people to love their neighbor, turn the other cheek, and who felt motivating people to be good was more important than regulating behavior) one in the same?
Do any Christians (Jason or others), or any non-Christians, have any thoughts on this? I don't see how, if morality comes from God, he could burn people.
Thu Jun 12, 07:35:00 PM 2008 
 Brian_E said...
Wow
Anon, I applaud your research and diligence with this troll. He consistently dodges questions while criticizing other for dodging his (irrelevant and designed to derail the topic) questions.
Although while he has been shown to be a fool time and time again, he appears to have the tenacity of a computer bot and constantly speaks up even after he's been conquered and dismissed.
I wish you luck with this.
Thu Jun 12, 07:50:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
I didn't ask you if it was wrong today, Jason. I asked you if it is wrong. You've never answered.
Thu Jun 12, 08:33:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
As my last post on this topic, I would suggest you all take some time to read this discussion on judging history by the standard's of today.
Perhaps you'll be a little more open to hear what people other then myself have to say on the matter.
Fri Jun 13, 07:17:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
It is not about "judging history" (whatever that might mean); it's about what is right or wrong.
Slave owners in the south prior to the Civil War may thought slavery was perfectly moral. It was a common opinion at the time, and we are all affected by the times in which we live. So we shouldn't judge them too harshly for their mistaken beliefs. But slavery is wrong no matter what the slave owner may believe about it. It was wrong then; it is wrong now; it is wrong always and everywhere for one person to own another.
The sad thing about Bible believers is that they cannot say this about slavery, burning people to death, stoning to death friends and relatives who believe incorrectly, etc. The believer has to say that these things are sometimes OK (mandatory even) because God said so in the Bible. A believer must sacrifice morality to the immoral God of the Bible.
And that's why you can't answer the question, Jason.
Fri Jun 13, 08:00:00 AM 2008 
 Milo said...
Steve,
I wrote this before reading your last post. :)

Jason,
You are missing the point. We are not judging history by the standards of today, we are judging God by his own standards. Leviticus 20:14, God did not say "put them to death by the manner of execution acceptable in your day". His command was to burn alive the man, his wife, and his mother in law. Is that God's command or not? Legally wrong and morally wrong are two different things. Just because it was legal at the time to burn people doesn't mean it was moral.
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Does that make him a bad man? "We don't judge history by the standards of today". So we should cut TJ some slack in judging him.
Can we judge the Almighty in the same way? No. God has always known that slavery is wrong. He cannot change his mind according to changing historical conditions. Likewise the morality of burning people alive does not change.
The bible often describes bad behavior by humans. That does not mean that God endorses that bad behavior. In this instance you can use "standards of the day" to evaluate the situation. The distinction made by the verses quoted in this post is God is the one actually behaving badly. He, himself, burns people alive. No excuses for an omniscient, benevolent deity.
It appears that God can commit any atrocity and violate his own rules of moral conduct and remain good because God makes the rules. Might makes right! Jason, I think you are deliberately misunderstanding the question because there have been many excellent comments that have explained it well and you continue to evade an answer.
Fri Jun 13, 08:57:00 AM 2008 
 RR said...
“I do know if it's right or wrong, Steve. Perhaps you missed my posts about the matter. Burning by execution was acceptable 4000 years ago, it's not acceptable today. History proves this.”
what kind of nonsensical argument is that jason? I thought the big-G was above "societal norms"... If not, that means god takes his cue's on "what's acceptable" and "what's not" FROM MANKIND.
Your argument supports the reality that: MANKIND created god … not the other way around. His behavior seems to oddly “sanctify” the behavior of the era: from stoning non-virgins on a wedding night, to kids who talk back to their parents. ALL of these things are considered abhorrent today.
I can't waste my time with this... Anyone who believes some 'entity' out there created the universe (there is NO evidence for this proposition)... and that he inspired a book... and that that book is the bible is demonstrable mentally unstable.
Normal, rational homo sapiens need 'reasons' -- concrete, logical reasons for believing things about the world. Lending credence to a bunch of ancient myths, stories and hearsay is NOT reasonable. It's not reasonable to believe in the book of mormon, the koran or the bible ... and anyone who believes in one will say the same about believers in the other two. How someone who (I believe) denounces the Koran and book of morman as gibberish cannot see the same thing in the bible is beyond reason…
Again: it is mental illness to think "I found the one, true book" that explains it all... especially when it is filled with bronze-age barbarism.
Fri Jun 13, 09:36:00 AM 2008 
 sconnor said...
But as I'm being asked in a roundabout way to stop posting comments on the matter, I shall take my leave. Toodles.
Awwwwwww, no one wants to play with the creepy, weird, little booger-faced kid, who eats paste and babbles like Tom Cruise about his Christadelphian, cuckoo, religion.
Jason and his brother, praying
--S.
Fri Jun 13, 11:53:00 AM 2008 
 Cristiano said...
"The issue that's still being ignored is that it wasn't wrong to execute by burning back then"
So if something is not wrong according to the moral of the time, then how about abortion?
In places where abortion is legal, then god is ok with abortion. But in places where abortion is illegal, god disapprovers abortion.
And that goes with everything else.
What about female genital mutilation in Africa? It's a common tradition there. God must approve that too.
You see, the way you think, god has no opinion whatsoever. It's man who makes the decisions and god is pretty much useless...
So you and we atheists are not that different after all... :D
Sat Jun 14, 11:12:00 AM 2008 
 Milo said...
God burns people in hell for eternity so I guess burning a few on earth is no big deal.
Sun Jun 15, 02:45:00 PM 2008 
 Aaron said...
We make the mistake of given God human qualities. The fact that he is God makes Him above the Laws set for man. He makes the laws. Wrong and right is based on what he says they are. God choses some to go to heaven and some to burn in hell. He made us, and will do with us what he feels is just. We in out limited mortallity in time and space, can't determine what is right. God who is eternal and knows all things has to decide who dies and who lives on a daily basis.
Wed Jun 18, 09:49:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
All hail the great Aaron; the newest and smartest prophet of god. He knows how god works. He knows what god thinks. He knows what god decides. It's obvious, by Aaron's well-written and well-thought out post, that he is either, perspicaciously, intellectual; a super-genius, and has studied comparative religions, for decades or he and his god have had intense and intimate, detailed, conversations, on a daily basis. Hell, with Aaron's profound knowledge of god's mind, it's probably both. Thanks for sharing your sagacious epiphanies and enlightened revelations -- surely, your divine awareness and astute scholarship will change the course of human spirituality and will rock the world to it's very, core. I for one say, AMEN, AARON, AMEN!
--S.
Wed Jun 18, 11:46:00 PM 2008 
 Milo said...
Aaron,
If your version of God is correct, how do we know the Bible isn't a hoax? We base our faith on a God that is Good. An arbitrary tyrant such as you describe could fill the bible with lies meant to trick us and lead to war, hate, and evil. Oh, wait......maybe you are right about God.
Thu Jun 19, 03:41:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Thanks brian_e for the compliment. I honestly was not going out and looking for something to use against Jason. I just like exploring what I believe and what others believe, which is why I came to SAB in the first place. Vague feelings about what I do or don't like or believe become a lot more well-defined after I read and post about them.
Jason, it's too bad we can't have a more open discussion on the topic. The points you made on your blog are interesting, but they seemed at least in part to contradict what you've said on here. Your arguments on here seem to come down to there being no moral absolutes, and God not being responsible for humanity's morals. I would think if God existed, created the universe, and handed down laws in the Bible, then morality would come from him. Only you know whether or not you agree with this or not.
Aaron, I agree with you in part. People do tend to give God human qualities. But I tend to think that when they do so, they're letting him off the hook.
You say God alone knows morality. Then why wouldn't he tell us what is and isn't moral? How can we expected as humans to follow God's morality if he alone understands it? It seems like it's unfair to punish people with burning, etc. for being imperfect when he made them that way. Would you agree with this?
Thu Jun 19, 04:44:00 PM 2008 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 10 June 2008Barack Obama: "Before we get carried away, let's read our bibles."
(Repost with YouTube video)
Here's what Obama said last summer at the "Call to Renewal" conference.
...given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles. ...
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.
...let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.
But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/10/2008 08:34:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
14 comments:
 Andrew said...
That is brilliant -- not only is it exactly the right message, it's phrased well, avoiding contentious terms, and sourcing the whole thing from the Bible. Who can possibly complain about that?
The more I hear about Obama, the more I like him. By now he's almost too good... I'm beginning to suspect he's being written by Aaron Sorkin.
Wed Mar 05, 04:03:00 PM 2008 
 XXX said...
While I understand and appreciate much of what is quoted here, I'm not sure about the very end.
Is Obama saying we would be right to stop Abraham, that we would be wrong but acting in good faith (no pun intended), or is he purposely ambivalent on this?
Some other parts of the speech I find encouraging, and still others disturbing. It's hard to tell how much is pandering to the religious and how much he really believes. Some other quotes (the full speech can be viewed at http://tinyurl.com/2bcpu7)
* He says due to his mother, he had a << healthy skepticism of organized religion >> growing up. He says he did not have an epiphany, but << kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to his will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.>> I don't know about a man leading the country who thinks he hears God's ghost calling out to him. Sounds a little too much like Bush for my tastes.
* He says it is important << to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. >> I would agree with the first half, but question the second half. I don't think this separation benefits religion, or at least that was not the intent in my opinion.
* Concerning church and state: << It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God;">> I would agree most children do not probably pause over this phrase, but that is the whole point: the brainwashed person is not meant to realize what's going on. This statement, added by Congress to the Pledge long after it was first written, certainly is meant to show that belief in God is not only normal, but patriotic. What was that about separation of church and state again?...
* Concerning funding of religious groups: << one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems. >> Government is supposed to be around to help individuals, it is not supposed to out-source this to faith-based organizations. I'll concede this is perhaps a liberal point of view on my part, but Obama's understanding is an equally if not more liberal interpretation of the concept of American government. Government is not meant to be in the business of religion, and unless they plan on funding all faith-based groups, then they are picking sides over which religious groups are more acceptable in America, which is something not provided for under the Constitution.
* He does say << No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool to attack and belittle and divide. >> This I would agree with. Would this not be a clear argument from removing religion from the public square?
So his views on religion are complex, perhaps since it is a complex issue. He clearly seems to be the least overtly religious of the major candidates, which is welcome, and him citing some ridiculous passages from the Bible is certainly reassuring. But he does see a role for religion in public discourse, or at least this is his public stance. This is his right, but I would prefer a politician who separated the two and preferably didn't think a big spirit in the sky wasn't guiding him in his public life.
Wed Mar 05, 08:33:00 PM 2008 
 3D said...
XXX said...
(snip)
Is Obama saying we would be right to stop Abraham, that we would be wrong but acting in good faith (no pun intended), or is he purposely ambivalent on this?
He is saying that would be right to stop Abraham, but he is saying it in couched language so that the crazy people could interpret it to mean that it would be wrong to stop Abraham.
I don't know about a man leading the country who thinks he hears God's ghost calling out to him. Sounds a little too much like Bush for my tastes.
I think that's some fluff, myself, but I'll also add that it doesn't bother me if the president is religious. It bothers me when the president's religion affects policy. We're a long way off from an atheist president, so I'm fine with a religious guy who respects atheists policy-wise.
My gut feeling is that Obama is a really good politician, and knows that you can't alienate the crazies completely and still win the general election. So he pays lip service to being a Christian and hearing God's voice, etc. I don't know for certain that this is true, but I sense it, and I honestly have no problem with this if it is so. I mean, it's not like anyone really believes that God really talks to a genocidal dry-drunk cokehead like Bush, so why hold anyone else to that standard?
(snip)
So his views on religion are complex, perhaps since it is a complex issue. He clearly seems to be the least overtly religious of the major candidates, which is welcome, and him citing some ridiculous passages from the Bible is certainly reassuring. But he does see a role for religion in public discourse, or at least this is his public stance. This is his right, but I would prefer a politician who separated the two and preferably didn't think a big spirit in the sky wasn't guiding him in his public life.
So would I, but we're not gonna get it any time soon. For the time being, we should probably be content with someone who is at least going to make inroads into diminishing the oppressive role of religion in the US government, and hope that the flowery religious language used occasionally by Obama is just smart politickin'.
Thu Mar 06, 01:13:00 AM 2008 
 Rarus vir said...
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values."
That's a great line.
Thu Mar 13, 01:48:00 PM 2008 
 Nathan said...
I expect to see this re-surface somewhere, quoted as
"Whatever we once were, we are a Muslim nation", B. Hussein Osama.
That last line reads pretty much like a skeptic's manifesto, to me.
Sat Mar 15, 05:11:00 AM 2008 
 Nathan said...
He says it is important << to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. >> I would agree with the first half, but question the second half. I don't think this separation benefits religion, or at least that was not the intent in my opinion.
I think it does benefit religion, because it means that the government doesn't have any say in how individuals practice it. A state religion wouldn't only work against the non-religious, but against those who practice different religions, or the same religion in different ways. That's why I think it's ridiculous when some Christians complain about the separation, since it benefits them as well.
Sat Jun 14, 10:41:00 AM 2008 
 Jojo Chintoh said...
You know, it may just be lip service, but sometimes lip service still has meaning. By and large it's a truly welcome speech, especially in an election where I fear *both* Obama and McCain will be forced to court the religious vote.
Tue Jun 17, 04:50:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
The more I see of Obama, the less I trust him. He's for public finance and claimed he would "aggressively" try to work with the Republican candidate to come to an agreement on public financing, but then when the time came, he did no such thing. Yahoo News:
http://tinyurl.com/3j4e5v
So while this speech on religion might be inspired and inspiring, it might also just be lip service and pandering. I find some parts of the speech encouraging, but I agree with jojo. I'm afraid no matter which gets elected, we haven't seen the last of religious pandering in this election cycle, or any time soon.
Thu Jun 19, 06:11:00 PM 2008 
 voodooKobra said...
Obama increasingly strikes me as a competent person.
Sat Jun 21, 11:32:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
This made it into the news again:
Yahoo News
CNN
James Dobson apparently thinks that "What the senator [Obama] is saying there, in essence, is that 'I can't seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth abortion, because there are people in the culture who don't see that as a moral issue,' " Dobson said. "And if I can't get everyone to agree with me, than it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. Now, that is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."
"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies? [...] What he's trying to say here is, unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."
One of Dobson's minions, Minnery, also said about the Al Sharpton vs. James Dobson reference in the speech, "Many people have called [Sharpton] a black racist, and [Obama] is somehow equating [Dobson] with that and racial bigotry."
I don't think they actually read what Obama was saying at all. I guess Dobson is hoping people don't actually view or read the entire speech Obama made...
Read the articles for more points they raise. They do make one or two semi-good points, but they completely miss the mark in general.
Wed Jun 25, 02:19:00 PM 2008 
 Nathan said...
I guess Dobson is hoping people don't actually view or read the entire speech Obama made...
I think that's true of pretty much EVERYTHING Dobson talks about.
Fri Jun 27, 11:46:00 AM 2008 
 Sai said...
Good man.
Sun Jun 29, 09:10:00 AM 2008 
 dsc said...
On controversial views, Obama almost always appeals to both sides of the argument. He is master at that. Only time will tell what he really believes.
As for contributors who refer to Christians as crazies without respect, I would remind them that this is what backfired into Islamic extrimists. I doubt if some of you can dare use the same disparaging remarks against Islam. Should we start seeing Christian suicide bombers before we can see some respect from Liberals who claim they don't have faith in anything?
Thu Nov 06, 12:40:00 AM 2008 
 Darren Delgado said...
Blogger dsc said...
> As for contributors who refer
> to Christians as crazies without
> respect, I would remind them
> that this is what backfired into
> Islamic extrimists. I doubt if
> some of you can dare use the
> same disparaging remarks against
> Islam. Should we start seeing
> Christian suicide bombers before
> we can see some respect from
> Liberals who claim they don't
> have faith in anything?
I would argue that we have already seen Christians do tons of crazy things throughout history, on a par with suicide bombing.
All religions are equally crazy to me. Some have done more harm than others on a worldwide scale, but none deserve respect.
It seems like whenever Christian fundamentalists come over to comment on one of these sites, they usually are under the mistaken impression that atheists somehow prefer Islam to Christianity, like there's some perceived injustice there. Take a look around this site and at Steve's blogroll, there are at least a dozen right-wing anti-Muslim sites on it.
Most atheists don't prefer one religion over another, it would be like preferring unicorns over leprechauns; it doesn't make any sense if you believe they're both fake.
Thu Nov 06, 09:56:00 AM 2008 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 08 June 2008The Creation Story God should have written
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/08/2008 08:25:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
9 comments:
 Anon said...
Interesting video. One could dispute the claim about the timeline for the writing of the Bible. The books of Moses are supposed to have been written, or to at least come from oral traditions, well before 400 BC.
Besides this though, I think the video makes good points. If God exists, maybe if he didn't spend so much time helping the Israelites fight over real estate, he could have taught them some basic astronomy, medicine, biology, etc.
Maybe if he has revealed himself to other cultures with knowledge of the world and the universe (instead of punishing Adam and Eve for eating from the tree of knowledge, hardening the pharaoh's heart, etc.) then the world would be a better place.
Tue Jun 10, 09:14:00 AM 2008 
 Kirk said...
"The books of Moses are supposed to have been written, or to at least come from oral traditions, well before 400 BC."
Yep, they claim to go back to the beginning of time. However, even according to the bible itself, it can only be dated to the reign of King Josiah.
In 2Kings, when they're rebuilding the temple, they uncover the pentateuch, and Josiah is astonished because they are unknown to the people. He orders copies to be made and distributed.
King Josiah reigned around 600BCE.
When you got one guy's word for it (and even that is disputable), reliable dating stops at that bottleneck.
Tue Jun 10, 10:32:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Thanks for the reply kirk. Very interesting. So this would tend to indicate that the origin of the books of Moses is even unsure within the Bible, much less under independent scrutiny.
But I still think that in the youtube posted, it would be better not to indicate a specific timeframe for the writing of the Bible (or else, it should indicate that it's just a guess).
The SAB points out contradictions or errors in the smallest things (rightly so, IMO), so I think it's important not to make claims that can't be substantiated, even if they are minor.
We don't know when Bible was first written. The Bible as we know it was clearly put together after the concepts mentioned in the youtube were outlined by the Greeks. The people who decided the official canon should clearly have known better than to put the creation story in Genesis, along with other nonsense, in the Bible.
And God certainly should have known better, if he existed. :-) So again, I think it's a very good video, makes a very good point that I think would be hard for creationists to refute.
Tue Jun 10, 05:02:00 PM 2008 
 drone said...
Many Christians claim there are well-documented original manuscripts which together make up the entire Bible.
They must think we're easily fooled.
(Are there ANY originals at all? Not even the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are considered an incredible find. One could argue the gnostic Gospel of Thomas is as well documented...perhaps better.)
Too bad this video has disappeared so quickly; I can't get it to play on this page ("we're sorry, this video is no longer available") nor have I been able to locate it by searching on YouTube.
Maybe I could, with more persistence. Using "einstein bible" or "einstein genesis" or other seemingly obvious search terms, I get so many matches it's daunting to go more than a few pages deep through the results.
Sun Jun 15, 07:13:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
drone, it plays for me. If clicking on Steve's post didn't work, you can try this address:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qymoktf0wY
I'm not surprised some Christians believe or claim that there are original manuscripts that are documented. I know there are some hypothesized manuscripts, like the Q manuscript, that may have led to some "finalized" biblical books (I put finalized in quotes because of examples of passages being added or changed afterwards). But we'll probably never know what was in the original Bible, or the original story of how Jesus allegedly died and was resurrected, etc.
In any case, if they ever find the originals, I'm sure some will argue it is (further) proof of their veracity.
Thu Jun 19, 05:46:00 PM 2008 
 foreverdrone said...
Thanks for the URL for the video. (I posted above as "drone"; I've since created a new Blogger account after changing e-mail addresses.)
Often I've been amazed by what the ancients were able to discover (such as the precession of equinoxes) despite lacking modern scientific instruments. Much of it however required only curiosity, observation, and--this is the key--an open mind.
In an age when few were literate, the authors of the Bible were members of an elite; it's remarkable how ignorant they appear to have been. But (as is evident) ignorance can be willful.
With all the analysis of Biblical texts--from so many minds over so many years--you'd think we'd know more. All they have to show for their efforts are a few theories about sources.
But controversies rage over basic issues, such as whether a particular word was intended. Yes, it's challenging to translate ancient Hebrew: particularly if the vowel points aren't known. Leave that aside; there's a larger problem. Most of the "best" written sources were copied by hand, over and over again. So, our confidence in these words is more credible than, let's say, the results of the children's game Telephone...precisely how?
You are correct: should originals later be found, what would be the significance (except to those whose academic careers would benefit)? It would be interesting if an original Iliad existed and were discovered, but this wouldn't prove its legends were true.
Suppose I tried to write a biography of a figure from 100 years ago. The importance of this person has finally become clear. However, no substantial written accounts exist, because this person--while still alive--was little known or recognized. I would at least be able to search public records and make use of other tools available to the modern researcher. But with all (or nearly all) his/her contemporaries dead, my account would be sketchy at best.
The authors of the Gospels faced greater obstacles. In their era, they'd struggle to locate any evidence regarding Jesus Christ of better quality than a generations-old rumor.
It's axiomatic that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, documentation or proof. Unless you're a Biblical scholar.
Thu Jun 26, 06:27:00 PM 2008 
 Joseph Hammer said...
We were all created by God and It happened exactly the way you describe...
AND this is EXACTLY what God told Adam, along with the advice...
"Make sure you don't mess this all up... Ooh... are you sure about using oral tradition, Adam? Are you sure you don't want to invent some sort of precise symbological medium of conveyance. Just sayin... the stuff about entanglement was pretty heady... and you keep saying 'englement'. That's not a word, Adam."

We've all played telephone in Kindergarten =P... we know how this ends.
Mon Mar 01, 02:00:00 AM 2010 
 John said...
Modern thinking Christians don't believe that God wrote the Bible: he didn't. What we have in Genesis 1 & 2 is a powerful piece of poetry written by at least 2 different people and edited in about 550 BC by people who had none of the scientific knowledge achieved by the Greeks 100 years later. Personally I compare it to something like 'The Simpsons' on TV. Do the Simpsons exist? No. If you travel to the US, will you find their town, or their house? No. What you have in 'The Simpsons' is a very funny and sarcastic critique of human relationships in general,and of American culture in particular. When I read the first 5 books of the Old Testament (not the Books of Moses, please!) I'm reading a human critique of human nature, and how far we fall short of what God intended us to be.
Just one last point: do atheists really want me to believe that human intelligence is the highest intelligence that exists? I find that completely incredible!
Sat Feb 26, 04:06:00 AM 2011 
 Adam Heilbrun said...
The Bible is a collection of fireside tales passed on by illiterate farmers and nomads for centuries before ever being written down. Granny would tell the parables both to entertain the kids and instill in them a bit of sage wisdom as to the best way to live. They were then poorly translated into Greek which greatly distorted the deeper implications of the original. To waste time in historic research distracts us from the greater task of seeking wisdom. Yes, these are stories much like The Simpsons or The Little Engine That Could. God,in the form of a burning bush talking to Moses is a lovely metaphor and shouldn't be trivialized by literalists.
Sun Sep 01, 03:09:00 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 June 2008Is it wrong to burn people to death?

That's an easy question for most of us to answer. It's one of the few things that we can all agree on: it is wrong always and everywhere to burn to death anyone for any reason whatsoever.
But Bible believers aren't so sure about that. It must be OK to burn people to death or God wouldn't have commanded us to do so, as he clearly did in 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; that there be no wickedness among you.
Notice that God tells us to burn to death all three: man, wife, and mother-in-law. It may have been the man's idea, but we must burn all three anyway. (Couldn't we try counseling first?)
Is there anyone that really believes this is a good idea? Is there anyone who thinks it was a good idea a few thousand years ago? Will it be a good idea a few thousand years from now?
A god who commands people to burn other people to death is not a good god. This verse alone should be enough show that the Bible was not inspired by a kind and loving god.



Posted by Steve Wells at 6/06/2008 04:54:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
170 comments:
 RR said...
"the Bible was not inspired by a kind and loving god."
It was "inspired" by a bunch of barbaric, bronze age tribesmen who needed some type of justification for their primitive behavior.
The fact that people this this stuff comes from the imaginary creator of the universe should be an indication of mental illness.
Fri Jun 06, 10:27:00 PM 2008 
 Thomas said...
Burning mothers-in-law is alwas a good idea!
Sun Jun 08, 04:31:00 AM 2008 
 Thomas said...
*always
Sun Jun 08, 04:33:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Burning mothers-in-law is alwas a good idea! *always*
Yeah, but first you have to marry your mother-in-law and then you and your wife get burned along with her.
Something to think about.
Sun Jun 08, 08:09:00 AM 2008 
 Brian_E said...
It's posts like this that we typically never see any comments from Christians. Jason, you out there lurking? Why don't ya chime in on this one.
Mon Jun 09, 06:52:00 AM 2008 
 busterggi said...
Had I ever 'taken' my former mother-in-law I would've considering be burned to death a favor.
Mon Jun 09, 01:39:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Brian,
Other then a weak appeal to emotion, I don't see anything here to respond to. Steve believes the morality of a punishment is dependent on the amount of pain it inflicts whereas I don't see this opinion reflected in, or based on, the morals of ancient civilizations. The fact is, execution by burning was a socially acceptable form of capital punishment in a large number of civilizations for thousands and thousands of years. I've yet to see any reasonable or logical argument that explains why individuals like Steve think they would still have exactly the same opinion on execution by burning if they had lived in civilized pro-burning Ancient Rome or England.
Mon Jun 09, 04:16:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
You're right, brian_e. Believers can't answer the question (Is it wrong to burn people to death?).
They know, of course, that it is both wrong and cruel to burn people to death, but since it doesn't bother the God of the Bible (in fact he likes it!), they pretend that it doesn't bother them either.
So Jason won't answer the simple question: Is it wrong to burn people to death? He pretends like he just doesn't know.
Mon Jun 09, 06:08:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said: execution by burning was a socially acceptable form of capital punishment in a large number of civilizations for thousands and thousands of years.
Do you believe morality is determined by social acceptability? If a majority of people are okay with same-sex civil unions or marriages in a state A, but not in state B, does that mean they are moral in the first place but not the second? This doesn't make sense to me.
Jason:I've yet to see any reasonable or logical argument that explains why individuals like Steve think they would still have exactly the same opinion on execution by burning if they had lived in civilized pro-burning Ancient Rome or England.
I can't speak for Steve, but I have no way of knowing what I would or wouldn't believe back then. Maybe I would have been adding logs to the fire, it's possible.
But I don't think my beliefs would change whether it's actually right or not. Some countries believe female circumcision is a socially acceptable, or even expected, practice. I don't care what anyone thought 2,000 years ago, or thinks today: it is wrong to mutilate women against their will, or mutilate girls who aren't old enough to have a say in the matter.
For burning people: I don't care who thought it was okay to burn people then or now, it's wrong. We have developed enough culturally as a race (or at least as a society) to realize that it is wrong. Humanity can make advances in all sorts of things (medicine, technology, etc.). I think morality is something that we have also advanced in.
We don't always live up to that morality, it's true. But just like we now know the Earth revolves around the Sun, we also know it's wrong to burn people. It doesn't mean the Earth didn't use to revolve around the sun 2000 years ago, or that it didn't use to be wrong to burn people. We just didn't know any better.
Mon Jun 09, 07:20:00 PM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
I thought any society that critically evaluated the practices of the past, and modified them to reduce the hegemony that select groups (eg. men, Europeans) exercise over others (women, Africans) were self evidently superior from a moral perspective... but I guess I was wrong :(
Tue Jun 10, 02:22:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
I believe, and logically so, that morality is based on what's deemed acceptable by the majority of mankind at the time.
It's simply no good to label actions carried out in another civilization and age as "immoral" simply because we don't share the same views today.
Morals are 'rules of right conduct'. Who determines right? Who determines wrong? Who's the ultimate judge? If it's mankind, then it should be abundantly clear to everyone that the determination of right and wrong change with time.
For example, if people at one time thought it was right to kill criminals but a thousand years later the death penalty was abolished due to a change in public opinion, it's not logical to label the previous decision regarding capital punishment as immoral since capital punishment was "right" in the eyes of society of the time.
Another example would be burning versus lethal injection. Steve says lethal injection is moral because it isn't cruel. However, many are now saying lethal injection is cruel. So, in 100 years from now, if lethal injection is abolished in favour of another, more humane means to kill, does this mean Steve was "immoral" for supporting the use of lethal injection?
I don't support execution by burning today because society has taught me it's unacceptable. If I lived in an era were it was acceptable however, how can I assume I would still believe the same as I do today?
Tue Jun 10, 06:07:00 AM 2008 
 Brian_E said...
Jason said: I believe, and logically so, that morality is based on what's deemed acceptable by the majority of mankind at the time.
I'll agree that, because the majority of our history the people have had little say in this that it appears this way. Democracy has not been around for that long (relatively speaking), and we've seen the demise of slavery, hangings, burnings, and other various tortures. There was no democracy 3000 years ago to speak out against such atrocities. And you conveniently left out the fact that god is approving of the method in this case, which is what this post is all about!
Jason said: Morals are 'rules of right conduct'. Who determines right? Who determines wrong? Who's the ultimate judge? If it's mankind, then it should be abundantly clear to everyone that the determination of right and wrong change with time.
Careful Jason, you almost sound rational here. Are you telling me that your god is not the ultimate judge as to what is right or wrong? The purpose of this entire post was to demonstrate that your god has no problem with punishing people by burning them alive. As I stated above, you are attempting, as cleverly as you can, to sidestep the issue. You say: I don't support execution by burning today because society has taught me it's unacceptable. Are you telling me that 'society' is a better moral compass for yourself that your god? Have we finally deconverted you?
Tue Jun 10, 07:14:00 AM 2008 
 Darren Delgado said...
Jason said...
I believe, and logically so, that morality is based on what's deemed acceptable by the majority of mankind at the time.
It's simply no good to label actions carried out in another civilization and age as "immoral" simply because we don't share the same views today.
I agree, but only in the narrow sense of the word "moral" where morality is decided by the bible.
I can unequivocally state that burning people is wrong in any era. Even if they did something terribly wrong, I do not think they should receive the death penalty by burning. It's barbaric.
And yes, part of the reason I can make this statement is because I grew up in a more enlightened society than the one which produced the bible. You say this like it's a bad thing, rather than an indication that we don't live in dark times anymore, where burning was considered moral, animal sacrifices are commonplace, and there is a legal code for how to beat your slaves.
Morals are 'rules of right conduct'. Who determines right? Who determines wrong? Who's the ultimate judge? If it's mankind, then it should be abundantly clear to everyone that the determination of right and wrong change with time.
In this case, for the better.
Another example would be burning versus lethal injection. Steve says lethal injection is moral because it isn't cruel. However, many are now saying lethal injection is cruel. So, in 100 years from now, if lethal injection is abolished in favour of another, more humane means to kill, does this mean Steve was "immoral" for supporting the use of lethal injection?
I say lethal injection is less cruel than burning people, but still wrong, along with any form of death penalty. What do I win?
I don't support execution by burning today because society has taught me it's unacceptable. If I lived in an era were it was acceptable however, how can I assume I would still believe the same as I do today?
This argument is a non-starter, J. If we lived in caveman days we'd be sleeping next to piles of our own feces. If we lived in the days of burning people, we would probably consider it acceptable but we would be *WRONG*. Things can change for the better. The fact that we live in a society almost completely free from live burnings, and completely free from state-sanctioned live burnings, is evidence that we have improved.
Tue Jun 10, 07:42:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Brian,
Yes God decided that certain crimes were to be punished with death by burning. I'm not arguing He didn't. What I'm saying is that burning by execution wasn't deemed immoral during the age of the Israelites. If God was instructing 21st century believers to burn criminals, you'd have a point. But He isn't, do you don't.
Tue Jun 10, 08:11:00 AM 2008 
 Brian_E said...
Jason said: If God was instructing 21st century believers to burn criminals, you'd have a point. But He isn't, do you don't
So the word of god is then not timeless, as I've heard minister after minister say time and time again? Apparently according to you god's word is trumped by societal norms at the time. Jason, you've now gone beyond wishy-washy. I'm not sure there are words in the english language to describe your brand of christianity.
And besides, you lost miserably when you admitted that your god is OK with punishing people to death by burning for a crime of SEX! Not murder, not child molestation, not crimes against humanity, but SEX WITH THE WRONG PERSON! How can you not see that this is completely insane? That there is no god up there that truly cares about such things? These are the trivialities of primitive men, and not of a god. END OF STORY.
Tue Jun 10, 08:32:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Brian,
Do you understand the difference between the old law and the new law?
God's law was also very clear - your opinion of it is irrelevant. If God said "A is punishable by death", it didn't matter what you thought - you simply didn't do it. Don't break the law, don't suffer the consequences. Kind of like how it works today.
Tue Jun 10, 09:29:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason,
In this and other threads, you don't seem to have directly answered a question, maybe partly because it's always been included along with other questions in the same post.
So my post will ask just one question: is God\'s law and/or punishment subject to what is socially acceptable?
This appears to be your argument: that it was okay for God to tell people to burn people because people thought it was okay to do at the time.
Tue Jun 10, 10:08:00 AM 2008 
 Brian_E said...
Jason,
If you haven't picked a career yet, let me suggest to you used car salesman, because it's clear you've mastered many of their techniques such as misdirection, distraction, and lowballing.
you said:Do you understand the difference between the old law and the new law?
Don't even try and bring this into the discussion. Completely irrelevant! As Steve pointed out in the initial post - "Is there anyone that really believes this is a good idea? Is there anyone who thinks it was a good idea a few thousand years ago? Will it be a good idea a few thousand years from now?"
you said: God's law was also very clear - your opinion of it is irrelevant
So you're telling me that:
1) The crime that is (supposedly) committed doesn't matter
2) The punishment of said crime doesn't matter
3) The manner of execution of the punishment doesn't matter
None of this matters, or my opinion of it is irrelevant, because of god? You are completely insane.
And second, you've now just flip-flopped from your earlier position regarding who decides what is moral at what particular point in time. Let's lay out this whole scenario for you again.
The crime: Sleeping with your wife's mother.
Society today says: whoopty-do
God says: GUILTY
The punishment:
Today: nothing, except your wife may be mad
God: DEATH!
Manner of execution:
Today: Eh, there may be a divorce
God: BURN AT THE STAKE!
Now you tell me, and don't bring your 'old law vs. new law' crap into it, which of the above scenarios do you agree with? Today's society handling of the situation, or your gods. Either answer you give, you lose. Have fun.
Tue Jun 10, 10:29:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
It was okay regardless of who was giving the law because it wasn't wrong at the time.
Indeed this is the whole problem with the argument against execution by burning. How can a past action be deemed wrong if right hadn't yet been established? For example: In 1998, the UN banned countries from buying diamonds from Angola. If you bought a diamond from Angola in 1995, was it wrong? No, because the wrongness of the action didn't yet exist. If in 1500 years from now lethal injection is abolished because it's considered 'cruel and unusual', are people like Steve, who today supports lethal injection, immoral? No, because the wrongness of the action doesn't yet exist.
The definition of morals is: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;
This means that if WRONG doesn't exist for a specific action, there is no distinction available, which in turn means the action can't be considered WRONG.
God's OT laws didn't include anything that was deemed wrong at the time they were given. Therefore, logically, clearly, they're not immoral.
Tue Jun 10, 11:17:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Brian,
I brought up the point about the laws because you stated the word of God isn't timeless. Why?
You think society says that sleeping with your wife's mother is innocent and moral? I need to ask: What planet are you from?
Regarding the punishment (divorce versus burning), I quite happily side with the former. I don't side with the latter because execution by burning today is socially unacceptable and illegal. Was it socially unacceptable or illegal 4000 years ago?
Tue Jun 10, 11:30:00 AM 2008 
 Brian_E said...
Again, never any substance from you. Just misdirection and deflection.
You think society says that sleeping with your wife's mother is innocent and moral?
Never said that you moron. I simply stated the law (and punishment) as god laid it out vs. today's society (specifically the U.S. I should add).
I don't side with the latter because execution by burning today is socially unacceptable and illegal.
Again, you make my point. You're saying society determines the law and not god, even though god seems to have been quite clear here. This is why I said that YOU'RE saying god's word is not timeless; you just stated you favor society's ruling over gods. And you call yourself a christian?
By the way you speak, I suppose if you were a Muslim then you would have no problem with these types of atrocities that occur today, because society, the law and 'god' (Allah here) is OK with it.
Tue Jun 10, 12:13:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
...are people like Steve, who today supports lethal injection, immoral?
I don't support lethal injection, Jason. I am opposed to the death penalty in all its forms. But the intent of lethal injection is to minimize pain, like when putting a dog to sleep. There may be pain involved, but it is not intentional.
Burning someone to death is entirely different. It is intended to cause as much pain as possible. That's why God likes it so much.
Tue Jun 10, 12:40:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Brian,
You said society "whoopty-dos" a man sleeping with his wife's mother. You contrasted this with God saying "GUILTY". Is it moral or immoral to sleep with your wife's mother?
God gave a law to the Israelites in the OT. We're not under this law any more. Today, believers are instructed to follow the laws of land (i.e. render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's) except when they conflict with God's. I believe burning is socially unacceptable and illegal because that's precisely what it is. There is no God-given law to burn people for crimes today and there is no manmade law saying the same.
I think you missed this question as well: Was it socially unacceptable or illegal 4000 years ago to burn someone alive for a crime?
Tue Jun 10, 12:48:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve,
Since God liked execution by burning so much, how many crimes as listed in the old law were punishable by burning to death?
Tue Jun 10, 01:06:00 PM 2008 
 Brian_E said...
Wow, you continue to miss or dodge the point as often as you can. It's almost impressive.
Is it moral or immoral to sleep with your wife's mother?
You miss the point! This post is about god, and what he deems moral/immoral lawful/unlawful, and what the punishments are. No, in the U.S. it's not against the law to sleep with your mother in law. God feels you should be burned to death for it. That's a problem with your god and your religion that you don't seem to get.
God gave a law to the Israelites in the OT. We're not under this law any more
Again, way to totally dodge the point. So it was OK 3000 some odd years ago, but not today? WRONG!
Was it socially unacceptable or illegal 4000 years ago to burn someone alive for a crime?
I think it was to the person being burned, don't ya think?! Especially for a crime of sex? Ridiculous. And your diamond analogy above is so unbelievably inapplicable I'm embarrassed for you. It's not the CRIME that's the focus here, it's the PUNISHMENT. And it's also the fact that your omniscient god should be beyond societal norms regarding the dictation of his law.
Let's make this more personal Jason. Do YOU think god was just and right in specifying this law to the Israelites? Your answer to this question should be a sufficient closure to this topic.
Tue Jun 10, 01:22:00 PM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
Quoth Jason: "You said society "whoopty-dos" a man sleeping with his wife's mother. You contrasted this with God saying "GUILTY". Is it moral or immoral to sleep with your wife's mother?"
I don't think having consensual sex with any adult is immoral. Foolish perhaps, but not immoral.
Jason, your diamond buying analogy is flawed, It is/was ALWAYS immoral to tacitly endorse the slavery by which the Angolan diamonds are/were produced regardless of whether the law had got around to stating prohibiting it or not.
You shouldn't need a codified list of offences (especially one written by Bronze Age savages) to determine right from wrong, moral from immoral. Just use the moral compass that evolution has provided you with.
Tue Jun 10, 01:28:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Brian,
Please answer the question: Is it moral or immoral to sleep with your wife's mother? (FYI, adultery is illegal in some states)
God doesn’t feel you should be burnt to death today for sleeping with your mother-in-law.
The fact it was okay 3000 years ago means it was morally acceptable 3000 years ago. Likewise, the morally acceptable actions we engage in today are right because wrong doesn’t yet exist. If these same actions are considered to be immoral five hundred years from now, does this make us immoral today?
And you didn’t answer my question: Was it socially unacceptable or illegal 4000 years ago to burn someone alive for a crime?
To answer your last question, and to give you the out you’re looking for, of course I believe God was just and right in specifying His laws to the Israelites. The only thing you’re doing is explaining why these laws and punishments are wrong today – what you don’t seem to be getting is we’re not the intended recipients of the law. For the last time, at the time these laws were given, not one of them would have been considered ‘immoral’. They were perfectly suited for a civilization in that particular time period.
Tue Jun 10, 03:18:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Quixotic,
Having (consensual) sex with your wife’s mother is moral…? You think this is “right” conduct?
The diamond analogy works just fine. Countries and individuals like you and I were buying diamonds from Angola for decades prior to 1998. The immorality of such an action didn’t exist because we didn't see anything wrong with what we were doing then.
The problem you’re all creating for yourselves is that you're setting yourself up for admitting right and wrong can never truly be known since it’s impossible to know what the moral standpoint on anything will be in the future.
If a moral act today is considered immoral two thousands years from now, does that make us immoral when we carry out this moral act?
Tue Jun 10, 03:34:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason, thank you for trying to reply. I have been giving you every benefit of the doubt, but I have to agree with brian_e and others that you seem to be shaping your responses to fit your argument almost to the point that you are denying God has any role in the right and wrong, even though the Bible teaches God is the one who laid down both the old and new law.
Do you honestly believe that God does not determine right and wrong, or is it just expedient for this particular argument?
Jason said: It was okay regardless of who was giving the law because it wasn't wrong at the time.
Indeed this is the whole problem with the argument against execution by burning. How can a past action be deemed wrong if right hadn't yet been established?
Then how do you explain what happened to Adam and Eve? Was it Adam or Eve that determined that it was wrong to eat from the tree of knowledge? Was it the serpent? No, it was God who determined right and wrong in this case.
If God was the one who determined this first, essential case of right and wrong (both what was considered to be wrong and the severe punishment for Adam and Eve and all their descendants), then why does God not determine right and wrong in the time of the Israelites, or any other time? Does he no longer believe in right or wrong?
You said: Since God liked execution by burning so much, how many crimes as listed in the old law were punishable by burning to death?
Here's a site that Steve compiled which may be helpful in determining this:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
I don't have time to analyse every verse on there, but by searching for the word "burn" and checking to make sure a cited passage wasn't talking about animals burning, I counted around 50 times that God either burned people/cities, God's chosen people burned people/cities without rebuke, someone threatened that God would burn people/cities, or God said burning people/cities was an appropriate punishment.
So God was involved with a lot of burning. A quick glance seems to show that in only a few cases does God actually say X crime is punishable by death by fire. But there are plenty of cases where people are killed by fire or threatened with burning in the Bible.
Since God burned people himself, doesn't that prove that he thinks it's right to do? Does God only exact punishment based on a given society's mores?
You claim right and wrong is determined by the society. What is God's role exactly if he leaves right and wrong up to a society and metes out punishment based on what a society already thinks is right or wrong?
Maybe you support a Deist sort of God who put everything in motion, but then sits back and does nothing? I'm honestly confused as to what you believe and would appreciate if you could clarify.
Tue Jun 10, 03:46:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason,
You recent posts (written as I was writing mine) still come down to the same issue.
You said: God doesn’t feel you should be burnt to death today for sleeping with your mother-in-law.
So you're basically saying God is nothing more than an executioner (in both senses of the term: one who performs someone else's bidding, and one who executes people). Is this correct?
The Israelites thought it was okay to burn people for such and such, so God obliged by putting it in the law? And by burning people to death himself in other cases?
Jason said: If a moral act today is considered immoral two thousands years from now, does that make us immoral when we carry out this moral act?
It depends on how you define morality. I would say that we tried to act morally, but that our act was immoral.
Some relate morality to conduct (e.g. American Heritage Dictionary, "The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct" © 2006 Houghton Mifflin). Under this definition, you could say that "based on the morals of the time, our conduct was moral."
Some see morality though as a question of right vs. wrong (e.g. WordNet, "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong" © 2006 Princeton University). So if we do something wrong even though we think it's right, it's still wrong. Our intent was arguably moral for the time, but the act was wrong.
God however is the ultimate good in your world view, is he not? The Bible claims he is unchanging, a constant. I would think he wouldn't be bound by changing yardsticks that imperfect humans may have. But if you think he is, then this is your right to believe that.
I view right and wrong as unchanging constants. There is a right and there is a wrong. We as a species are understanding this distinction a little bit better. So people may not have known it was wrong to burn people back then, but it was wrong.
So yes, if we try to act morally today but do something that is wrong, then it is still wrong. Maybe you can't blame us for doing it because we didn't know better, but it's still wrong. God should know better, though. So if he burns people, he is not without blame in my worldview.
Tue Jun 10, 04:11:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Obviously I'm not explaining my position clearly enough and people are getting a little carried away and off topic. Let me summarize.
1. Morality requires the existence of both right and wrong, in some shape or form.
3. Execution by burning as described in the OT law is not immoral from the perspective of the people the laws were given to and the age the laws were given in.
3. God's OT laws didn't include anything that was deemed wrong at the time they were given.
4. Execution by burning is wrong today; God does not ask believers to continue this form of punishment today.
5. The morally acceptable actions we engage in today are right because a wrong doesn’t yet exist. If these same actions are considered to be immoral five thousand years from now, this does not affect the morality of the actions we consider perfectly acceptable today.
Question #1: If in 2010, Europeans refuse to purchase anything made in China because of China's deplorable human rights record, will Europeans who bought something from China in 210AD be considered immoral? Why or why not?
Question #2: If execution by burning is re-instituted in the future, irrespective of the timeframe, does this mean execution by burning in the Bible would then be morally correct again?
Tue Jun 10, 04:50:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason -- the Tom Cruise of Christadelphians -- tries desperately to cling, to his putative, fairy tale, holy book, in an effort to protect his delusional beliefs, that he has invested his entire life in. Bottom line is, if your psycho-fuck god didn't have the foreknowledge to know that causing someone to suffer, in any fashion was immoral, he is neither omniscient nor moral.
Too bad your make-believe, sky-fairy, couldn't have been more concise and clear (or even moral) while handing down his laws on morality, like that of, Mahavira (599BC-527BC), an Indian sage and the patriarch of Jainism. In one, single, sentence, he was able to surpass the entire bible, in regards to morality by saying,
"Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being."
That's a precept people could live by and that you could, actually, attribute to a moral god. Only, your dumb-ass, sick, god couldn't get his mind out of the immoral-gutter -- again, only painting a clear picture, that it wasn't god handing down morals, but that it was painfully, handed down by infallible, superstitious, men.
Imagine, how different our world would be if your god were to have used that single sentence, in the Bible, as it's central religious doctrine, instead of all the bizarre laws and cruel punishments that your demented dip-shit god handed down, that have been misinterpreted, perverted and debated, over the centuries.
Time for your pretty red and blue pills, Jason. Time to go to your happy place, nice and comfy padded room, where you can take a little nappy-poo. Don't worry Jason, you'll get better; the incessant cuckoo sounds, in your head, will go away -- or we hope, anyway.
--S.
Tue Jun 10, 10:59:00 PM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
Jason, I did not suggest having sex with your mother-in-law was the 'right' thing to do... I said it wasn't immoral. There's a difference there.
You also assert that people (including you and I) happily (morally) bought diamonds from Angola up until the point it was made illegal and then - whammo - it's now immoral to do so and we wouldn't think of it.
This theory of morality puts the cart before the horse and denies the process by which laws get changed. Prescient people make decisions based on their inherrent understanding of morality all the time, they set an example to their colleagues, agitate for change... and then wait for the law to catch up. The catching up that the law does here does not indicate a change in morality, just a closer realignment to the underlying morality that most people share and inherit from their ancestors.
Thanks, in no small part to the example set by the inspired word of god, this process has, and is, taking a good deal longer than it should!
Wed Jun 11, 01:05:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
1. Morality requires the existence of both right and wrong, in some shape or form.
Several commenters and I agree with you, what is wrong now is wrong in 50 years and was wrong 2000 years ago.
You seem to talk about different things when you say right/wrong and moral/immoral, can you explain the difference?
I would think in general right=moral and wrong=immoral but I may be wrong.
So unless you explain the right/wrong|moral/immoral difference I will consider the 2 equal.
2. Execution by burning as described in the OT law is not immoral from the perspective of the people the laws were given to and the age the laws were given in.
So here in between the lines I can read that you state the action actually is immoral but you dress it up that "it was not considered so from the perspective of those people"
So you are actually saying that you now have a better morality than the god of that time or are you saying that your god hypothesis did already know that burning is immoral but could not communicate that (now accepted as more right) morality to those people?

3. God's OT laws didn't include anything that was deemed wrong at the time they were given.
So god's morals are society's morals, why do we then need god and why does the OT bible still exist, and is the entire bible not revised to current morals about homosexuality,stemcel research,abortion,rape,burning,...

4. Execution by burning is wrong today; God does not ask believers to continue this form of punishment today.
I'm not really clear on this, where does god specifically say that that is not to be done anymore, no metaphors or "you have to read context", before you wrote that you feel that god doesn't order that, that's not a very reliable way to discern such seemingly very important laws.
5. The morally acceptable actions we engage in today are right because a wrong doesn’t yet exist. If these same actions are considered to be immoral five thousand years from now, this does not affect the morality of the actions we consider perfectly acceptable today.
But they are wrong and will be considered wrong and if someone would have that knowledge and could communicate it to us it would be wrong not to communicate it and such communication should include the reason for wrongness.
If someone with knowledge explained to the lawmakers and executioners that burning in any case does not make their society better, that it does not stop other offenders, that there are better ways to punish and in the case of sleeping with an adult that it is not an actual offense ...(you get the point I hope) then official/legal burning could have stopped a lot sooner, you god should have been able to do that communication don't you think? And as others have pointed out there were already legal and moral codes around at that time which prevented unnecessary harm. It looks like your god is just a bad communicator.

Question #1: If in 2010, Europeans refuse to purchase anything made in China because of China's deplorable human rights record, will Europeans who bought something from China in 210AD be considered immoral? Why or why not?
Already people consider buying from China as immoral, for those reasons. The human rights of China in 210ACE were probably better than those in Europe so at that time the morality would have been reversed, the actual issue you are talking about is: "economically endorsing a society that does not respect human rights" and that is wrong always and if properly explained could be explained to people in 3000BCE.
Now morality is a thing that sometimes works on an individual and sometimes on a society, here an individual buying something she needs is not as wrong as the society endorsing economic relations.
Question #2: If execution by burning is re-instituted in the future, irrespective of the timeframe, does this mean execution by burning in the Bible would then be morally correct again?
If it turns out that there are good reasons that refute every point for the immorality of burning and it can be clearly explained that the kind of burning that is talked about in the bible is the moral thing to do then yes, but don't count on it, the reasons for the immorality of burning are very solid and accepted, as with supernatural claims, the morality for burning will require extraordinary reasons.
Wed Jun 11, 02:09:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
I forgot the checkmark to get email if there are follow comments.
And I want to elaborate a little on the China/Angola diamonds thing.
You also assert that people (including you and I) happily (morally) bought diamonds from Angola up until the point it was made illegal and then - whammo - it's now immoral to do so and we wouldn't think of it.
I entirely agree with you v_quixotic, it is not "whammo", that is also a little what I wanted to point out by taking a step back and describing the actual issue is that that basic morality exists already, not economically supporting a nation at war was not invented by instating the Angola diamonds law.
I'm not saying that we have a (godly) built-in moral code, it is very much something that we discover and that sort of evolves with a species (to state the obvious, yes, animals do have morals, and some are very complex and very close to human morals)
The correct application of those morals in our laws is quite hard and will take quite some time.
Wed Jun 11, 02:25:00 AM 2008 
 Brian_E said...
Please answer the question: Is it moral or immoral to sleep with your wife's mother?
Again, you're always attempting to deflect. My opinion on the matter is irrelevant; your omniscient god's opinion on the matter is what's at question here. Stay on topic.
God doesn’t feel you should be burnt to death today for sleeping with your mother-in-law.
Again, not the point here!!! The point is, is that your god thought it was OK for people to be put to death in a HORRIFIC, TORTUROUS MANNER. You argue that because it was 'socially acceptable' at the time that it was OK for god to do so. These people were neanderthals compared to us, and I would expect this kind of thining and behavior from them. I would NOT expect that kind of thinking and behavior from an omniscient god; I would EXPECT him to set a BETTER EXAMPLE for these people. Your argument is nothing more than a cop-out for the irrational and barbaric behavior of your god.
of course I believe God was just and right in specifying His laws to the Israelites
And the fact that you're OK with his behavior demonstrates that you do not possess a rational bone in your body. You lack the facilities to differentiate between the behavior and thinking of primitive men and that of a supposedly omniscient creator.
Wed Jun 11, 06:46:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Hugo,
1. If something is wrong now it'll be wrong in 50 years from now? How can you possibly know that? Prove to me that what is morally acceptably today won't be immoral in four thousand years from now. Prove to me how something can be wrong today when no wrong yet exists.
2. There’s no reading between the lines here. Execution by burning as described in the OT law is not immoral from the perspective of the people the laws were given to and the age the laws were given in. That’s all I’m saying here. Do you agree or disagree?
3. We’re talking about the wrongness of execution by burning 4000 years ago, not stem cell research or abortion. The point remains: God's OT laws didn't include anything that was deemed wrong at the time they were given. Do you agree or disagree?
4. The implementation of the new law through Christ is clearly and well documented in Scripture. The point remains: God does not ask believers to continue this form of punishment today.
5. Hugo, I must say, your logic is shocking. Firstly, how can something be considered wrong when a wrong doesn’t exist? How can execution by burning by wrong when no one at the time thought it was wrong? Secondly, by your logic, no one can ever truly know what is right or wrong. If today’s morality is based on the changing moral attitudes of future generations, you have no idea if the right you’re doing today isn’t actually wrong.
And as others have pointed out there were already legal and moral codes around at that time which prevented unnecessary harm. It looks like your god is just a bad communicator.
The Code of Hammurabi, law #153. If the wife of one man on account of another man has their mates (her husband and the other man's wife) murdered, both of them shall be impaled. Law #155: If a man betroth a girl to his son, and his son have intercourse with her, but he (the father) afterward defile her, and be surprised, then he shall be bound and cast into the water (drowned). Law #157: If any one be guilty of incest with his mother after his father, both shall be burned.
Are these laws preventing “unnecessary harm”? How do you think the ancient Babylonians defined “unnecessary harm”?
Question #1: Laughable. Hugo, are you seriously suggesting it was immoral for a country to buy products from China in 210AD because of what was to happen 1800 years later???
Question #2: So if the morality of a past action is dependent on present-day morals, your opinion of the morality of execution by burning is at best conjecture and at worst irrelevant since you have no idea if in fifty, a hundred, or twelve hundred years from now society will have a different take on it.
Would this work in a court of law, do you think? If you shot your wife because she slept around and then told a judge that at some unforeseen point in the future, society might very will consider it moral to execute an adulterous partner, would you be set free? If you’re sent to jail any way, could you argue it’s an immoral act since a future society might consider it immoral to put criminals in jail…? Oh the fun we could have… :)
Wed Jun 11, 06:46:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Brian,
I've dutifully answered your questions while you disrespectfully continue to ignore mine. Since you're clearly not interested in a mutual exchange, I'm sorry but I will have to bow out of our conversation.
Thanks.
Wed Jun 11, 06:53:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
1. your statement:
"Morality requires the existence of both right and wrong, in some shape or form"
contradicts with needing proof of a changing morality.
You make no sense, so morality does not exist and is completely dependent on the existing culture, and god grows with that culture, then there exists no morality, we define it as we go along and what is moral now may not be in the future and vice versa.
I don't think that, well established moral codes stand the test of time, murder, not as the simple commandment but within our laws with exceptions for euthanasia, self defense, .... has become a moral code that will remain moral an can be used to describe old cultures as moral or immoral (regardless of what they them self thought about it)
2. what does it matter what their perspective was, please explain how them thinking it is OK makes the act moral?
3. I'm not a historian but I know a little and from seeing other OT laws I think it would not have been too hard to teach those people some more modern/humane laws.
Are you actually saying (like us unbelievers do) that the OT is nothing more than a book written by men?
And you didn't answer, why is the bible than still used at all today if it is only applicable to the time it was written?
4. no, the implementation of the new law if very confusing, christ says that the OT laws are still in effect and then goes on to contradicts a few, as I said your god is a bad communicator. But specifically on burning you talk about feeling and knowing that burning is not wanted by god anymore please explain a bit more specific.
And why did it take so long after this new law for burning to be abolished (BY THE CHURCH)? (and you can add slavery to that too)
5. Please prove first that no one at the time thought execution by burning was wrong.
Q1 you did not read my comment
Q2 you did not read my comment,
I will say that certain already convicted people do benefit from re-defined laws that make certain crimes less severe (and vice versa)
And I don't think you have much fun :)
Wed Jun 11, 07:48:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Hugo,
1. "Group morality develops from shared concepts and beliefs and is often codified to regulate behavior within a culture or community. Various defined actions come to be called moral or immoral..." (wikipedia) Morals change - it's a fact of life and a fact supported by history. Hence, execution by burning was morally acceptable at the time the law was given. Our morals today regarding the same are utterly and entirely irrelevant.
You also say “regardless of what they them self thought about it”. Hugo, we’re discussing laws given to the Israelites 4000 years ago. It’s not about us. It’s about them. I trust you can see the difference.
2. It matters about their perspective because we’re talking about laws given to the Israelites 4000 years ago. The laws regarding execution by burning were considered acceptable and right by the Israelites, contemporary civilizations, and civilizations to follow. The immorality of this punishment arguably didn’t come into existence until just a few centuries ago. Without a wrong, by definition the act can’t be considered immoral. So, since there was no wrong attached to execution by burning 4000 years ago, it wasn't immoral 4000 years ago.
3. Whether or not it would have been easy or hard to teach the Israelites more “modern” laws is irrelevant. The laws were what they were at the time. I’ll ask again: God's OT laws didn't include anything that was deemed wrong at the time they were given. Do you agree or disagree?
And you didn't answer, why is the bible than still used at all today if it is only applicable to the time it was written?
It's not only applicable to the time it was written.
4. It’s not confusing. “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” (Gal 3:24-25) Seems pretty straightforward to me. Believers are under the new law, not the old.
5. First, please answer my question: How can something be considered wrong when a wrong doesn’t exist? Secondly, by your logic, no one can ever truly know what is right or wrong. If today’s morality is based on the moral attitudes of future generations, you can't have any idea if the right you’re doing today is actually right. How do you respond? Thirdly, the Romans used execution by fire, the Greeks used it, the Babylonians used it, the Assyrians used it, the Israelites used it, etc. etc. If it was considered immoral back then, where's the evidence?
Regarding the Code of Hammurabi, are the laws I mentioned preventing “unnecessary harm”? How do you think the ancient Babylonians defined “unnecessary harm”?
Q1 you did not read my comment
I did. I asked, If in 2010, Europeans refuse to purchase anything made in China because of China's deplorable human rights record, will Europeans who bought something from China in 210AD be considered immoral? Why or why not?
You said it’s wrong to "economically endorse a society that does not respect human rights".
Fine. But you haven't answered the question. How can it be immoral to buy something from China in 210AD if it only became immoral to do so in 2010?
Q2 you did not read my comment,
I did. You said “If it turns out that there are good reasons that refute every point for the immorality of burning and it can be clearly explained that the kind of burning that is talked about in the bible is the moral thing to do then yes…”
Thus, my response was: So if the morality of a past action is dependent on present-day morals, your opinion of the morality of execution by burning is at best conjecture and at worst irrelevant since you have no idea if in fifty, a hundred, or twelve hundred years from now society will have a different take on it.
Wed Jun 11, 11:32:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
It doesn't matter if a society deems something permissible, if that were actually the case then we would not have the problems that we have today, you'd just move to a society that agreed with you or start your own society.
The world is full of societies who say that such and such of the other society is wrong and certain wrongs become universal and from that point any society (in any time) can be declared wrong, if that were not the case it would not have been possible to prosecute nazi's the society that they lived in agreed with their conduct.
It is remarkable that you are so quiet about your god can you answer this simple question:
Is God moral or immoral?
Wed Jun 11, 12:44:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
The world was full of societies 4000 years ago who didn't think it was immoral to execute by burning and burning by execution wasn't considered wrong until much, much later. Therefore, execution by burning wasn't immoral 4000 years ago.
This is a perfectly reasonable and sound conclusion.
However, there's no basis whatsoever for claiming a newly developed universal wrong somehow affects a history in which this wrong didn't exist. This is so completely illogical and unreasonable, it's unbelievable you're trying to pass it off as a valid argument. Are you really prepared to condemn the Aztecs for violating the Geneva Convention???? Are you going to criticize the Code of Hammurabi for not following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights??? We cannot judge history by our standards, it's impossible. And quite frankly, I'm shocked there are people who are suggesting otherwise. Today's moral standards are for today, they're not for 100 years ago or 4000 years ago or 1200 years in the future.
Execution by burning was completely acceptable in another time and another place. It's not today. This is the reality of the situation. Why this is so difficult to grasp is truly beyond me.
Wed Jun 11, 05:45:00 PM 2008 
 Brian_E said...
Why this is so difficult to grasp is truly beyond me
Why it is so difficult for you to grasp that YOUR GOD is expected to behave beyond the 'societal norms' of a given time period when dispensing out his justice is beyond the comprehension of every rational reader here!
You failed Jason. Colossally.
Wed Jun 11, 05:56:00 PM 2008 
 Darren Delgado said...
jason wrote...
1. If something is wrong now it'll be wrong in 50 years from now? How can you possibly know that?
Because burning people is always wrong.
Will it be *considered* acceptable by society in 50 years, as it was by the barbaric primitive Middle Easterners responsible for the Bible? I would go ahead and say "probably not". But even if it is, it doesn't matter because burning is wrong. Does this answer your question?
Prove to me that what is morally acceptably today won't be immoral in four thousand years from now. Prove to me how something can be wrong today when no wrong yet exists.
Again, you're using a very narrow definition of the word "moral". "Acceptable by society" is one valid definition of the word "moral" but it's irrelevant here. There are societal morals and there are universal morals.
Burning people to death is horrific, and (IMO) universally wrong in any era, and I also believe that our species has evolved with an innate aversion to such barbarism.
3. We’re talking about the wrongness of execution by burning 4000 years ago, not stem cell research or abortion. The point remains: God's OT laws didn't include anything that was deemed wrong at the time they were given. Do you agree or disagree?
I would agree, but I think his point is that the question you're asking is irrelevant. Of course the crazy things in the bible conform with the barbaric beliefs of the times, because the people who wrote the bible came out of that crazy society!
Wed Jun 11, 09:30:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Of course bible-god thinks it is moral to burn people to death...he did come, to his people, as a burning bush.
--S.
Wed Jun 11, 10:16:00 PM 2008 
 Hugo said...
I would agree, but I think his point is that the question you're asking is irrelevant. Of course the crazy things in the bible conform with the barbaric beliefs of the times, because the people who wrote the bible came out of that crazy society!
Exactly, it is strange, everyone, including jason considers burning wrong only jason seems to have a need to defend it.
He also cannot have it both ways to say that the bible is of that time and that it applies to our time also, (believers logic, I'm sure it could accept a square circle). If the bible is of that time he has to accept updated versions every time society changes (and even the NT is long due for an update too).
I am happy that I live in a society that can say that burning (living) people is completely wrong, if we find a tribe of monkeys that has developed the capacity and society that burns their members I will be able to say to my daughter that I and my society consider that society wrong, jason would have to concede that it is not wrong because all the monkeys agree that it is right and if he or his child were one of the monkeys he'd be doing the same thing.
Wed Jun 11, 10:29:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Darren,
No, execution by burning hasn't "always" been wrong. This is a completely false statement.
Thu Jun 12, 04:53:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
I shall repeat: There's no basis whatsoever for claiming a newly developed universal wrong somehow affects a history in which this wrong didn't exist.
Is anyone here prepared to condemn the Aztecs for violating the Geneva Convention???? Has history?
Is anyone here going to criticize the Code of Hammurabi for not following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights??? Has history?
How can it be immoral to buy something from China in 210AD if it only became immoral to do so thousands of years later? History doesn't support or validate, in any way, a claim of this nature.
We cannot judge history by our standards, it's impossible. And I'm shocked there are those who are suggesting otherwise. We can judge those in the past only by the standards of their time. There were no laws that God gave to the Israelites which would have been considered universally immoral at the time they were given. This is an unbiased fact and quite frankly, it settles the argument.
Today's moral standards are for today, they're not for 100 years ago or 4000 years ago or 1200 years in the future. Judging history in terms of today's "morality" is pointless. Plain and simple.
Thu Jun 12, 05:42:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Is anyone here prepared to condemn the Aztecs for violating the Geneva Convention???? Has history?
Yes, they were immoral and I condemn them for it and I will tell anyone that that kind of a society is immoral and should be changed if someone had the chance to contact them (hellooooo god?)
Is anyone here going to criticize the Code of Hammurabi for not following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights??? Has history?
Same thing, YES it is immoral, I condemn it and will refuse to live by it and will not support societies that do and if someone had the chance to talk to the creators they should educate them, if they do not I also condemn them as immoral (hellooooooo god?)
How can it be immoral to buy something from China in 210AD if it only became immoral to do so thousands of years later? History doesn't support or validate, in any way, a claim of this nature.
Here you go a little wrong, buying something from China is not wrong, if I buy a piece of clothing from a good Chinese company that values it's employees then it is indeed a good moral act (nobody wants the Chinese to starve, we want the regime to change)
So in 210AD the Chinese regime was not what it is today and more than likely conditions were better than elsewhere in the world, as I said before, in 210AD it was probably the Chinese who should not buy from the West so that they would not support the vile theocracies that ruled at that age.
You seem to have some trouble with discerning the immoral act from the commandment, when you are being told "don't buy from China", people should not just follow (like sheep) they should look at the reasons for those "commandments" and consider whether the cause is good or bad (I guess it's just wishful thinking).
Thu Jun 12, 06:03:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said: Judging history in terms of today's "morality" is pointless. Plain and simple.
It may be a pointless exercise in your opinion. This whole thing started because we were examining laws that your God handed down to the Israelites, as reported in his holy book.
I and others find burning people alive reprehensible. But since God ordered it, he must not find it reprehensible. Which means God's morals were/are different than ours, right?
Thu Jun 12, 06:10:00 AM 2008 
 Brian_E said...
Isn't it amazing that time and time again Jason leaves his GOD out of the argument and instead chooses to simply compare civilizations???
Thu Jun 12, 06:48:00 AM 2008 
 Darren Delgado said...
Jason said...
Darren,
No, execution by burning hasn't "always" been wrong. This is a completely false statement.
I believe this conversation is at an impasse and this is why. The two opposing sides of this argument are using differing versions of the word "moral". As I said in my last comment, the definition of the word you are applying is indeed valid, but it is inapplicable here.
There is a fundamental difference between you and me. You have a sliding scale of right and wrong that conforms to what the majority of the people believe in a certain area. I believe this is a narrowly correct, but not really useful definition of "morality". For example there are certain prevailing aspects of US culture which, by your definition, would be "moral" but which I find morally repugnant (lethal injection is one which you brought up, belief in god and the bible, and that they should be intertwined with religion, is another). Should I reconsider my belief that these things are repugnant just because the majority of people disagree with me? The fact that many or most people agree with the way things are does not make it moral.
There are some things that most people around the world should be able to agree are just wrong; burning people alive is a good example of one of them. Slavery is another. The fact that these two things have been largely shunned by the world at large is an example of progress, not a wishy-washy "that's just the way things are now" non-event. In fact the only people who I can find who are morally ambivalent enough to not take a firm stance against burning people alive are religious people. Now why would this be?
I think you're most likely a good person, so my hunch is that you are working backwards, trying to justify the crazy things in the bible, rather than looking inside for a version of morality with some more clarity. Under this version of "morality" that you're advancing here, slavery isn't wrong, forced female circumcision isn't wrong, etc. In other words, an absolutely terrible way to go through life. And you know better than that.
Thu Jun 12, 10:03:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Hugo,
You condemn the Aztecs for violating the Geneva convention and the Code of Hammurabi for not following the UDHR…please, please tell me you’re kidding…
Let me ask you: Has history condemned the Aztecs for violating the Geneva convention and the Code for not following the UDHR?
And you’re still refusing to answer the question. I don’t care about what you think is right or wrong – we’re looking at what society says is right or wrong. I’ll ask yet again: How can it be immoral to buy something from China in 210AD if it only became immoral to do so thousands of years later?
Thu Jun 12, 10:13:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
It’s not just a pointless exercise, it’s impossible. We can judge those in the past only by the standards of their time. Why is this even being argued?
The simple, basic, fact of the matter is this: At the time God handed down the law regarding execution by burning, it wasn’t immoral. History unequivocally proves this by considering how many other nations used exactly the same method of punishment and at what point in history society put a stop to it. There were no laws that God gave to the Israelites which would have been considered universally immoral at the time they were given.
These are inarguable facts.
Whether or not you and I, in the 21st century, with our particular standard of morals, disagree with execution by burning is irrelevant. It plays no part whatsoever in determining the morality of the laws 4000 years ago. Morals were different back then. Society was different back then. And God gave laws that were socially acceptable at the time. Quite honestly, I’m stunned this is being debated.
Nonetheless, today, morals have changed. Society has changed. And the law has changed as well.
God’s rules have stayed exactly the same – the wages of sin is death. This is consistent throughout Scripture.
Thu Jun 12, 10:29:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Darren,
In other words, you're saying what is moral is based on individual opinion except in those cases where your opinion is supreme. Even if you disagree with the majority, you still consider yourself to be right. I think this is the most narrow view of morality possible and is reflective of the lack of objectivity here.
Whether or not the world "should have" agreed that burning is wrong is completely irrelevant since this is an opinion based entirely on the standards of today. Should the world have "agreed" it's wrong to buy products from China? There was nothing immoral about buying from China up until only a few decades ago. Likewise, there was nothing immoral about burning by execution up until only a few centuries ago.
I'm not morally ambivalent - I simply happen to appreciate I'm not the Grand Moral Dictator of the universe and that I live in a very, very different world then people in the past. I'm also not arrogant enough to claim that anyone who's ever existed who doesn't follow the same standard of morals as I do today, that they're all immoral. This is ridiculous.
Thu Jun 12, 11:10:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said: God’s rules have stayed exactly the same
You argued elsewhere that this is not so, that the old rules no longer apply because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
God also no longer goes out and burns people himself, as far as I know. You seem to think this is because it's no longer morally acceptable to humans.
These two things, along with others, tend to indicate God's rules have changed. He expects different things from us, and he punishes people differently. Am I mistaken?
the wages of sin is death.
The full context of this is, from Romans 6 (NIV):
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
19I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[b] Christ Jesus our Lord.
If you become a slave to God, then the wages of sin are not death, but eternal life. If you don't believe in Jesus, and/or you're against being a slave to anything or anyone, then you get death.
Thu Jun 12, 01:10:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
The reference to the rules not changing was in reference to sin and death as I believed I clearly indicated by referencing "the wages of sin is death". It's a law that's consistent throughout Scripture.
You misunderstand the promise of eternal life. It's not "the wages of sin is eternal life"... Man sins whether they're a believer or not as Romans 6:15 clearly indicates. It's also why Jesus instructs his disciples to mention this in their prayers: "Forgive us our sins..." (Luke 11:4) Since man sins, man dies. This is a basic Scriptural teaching.
Thu Jun 12, 07:38:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason,
I understand the promise of eternal life; it was one of the last things that kept me holding on to my Christian beliefs.
We are talking about two different types of deaths. I realize sin leads to death of the body for both believers and non-believers. But for believers, the sins are forgiven (through grace/forgiveness of Jesus, belief in Jesus, and/or good deeds) and they are granted eternal life.
My point was that believers are not punished with eternal death, in spite of their sins. Sorry if I was unclear on this.
I dislike that we are supposed to be like "slaves" (NIV) to Jesus in order to get this reprieve from eternal death, which was my secondary point. But we have already discussed the slavery issue elsewhere.
Thu Jun 12, 07:51:00 PM 2008 
 Darren Delgado said...
Jason said...
In other words, you're saying what is moral is based on individual opinion except in those cases where your opinion is supreme. Even if you disagree with the majority, you still consider yourself to be right.
No, I am saying that there are certain universal moral truths which are not subject to disagreement. One of them is that killing another human being (say, by burning) is wrong.
To our great credit, our society has mostly achieved that one ideal (killing is wrong). Although we in the US are still struggling to give up the death penalty, most of the civilized world has abandoned it. There are still immoral people who kill, but they are punished and shunned by society. In the bible they were celebrated, so long as God commanded them to do the killing.
I think this is the most narrow view of morality possible and is reflective of the lack of objectivity here.
If being objective requires me to be unable to state that burning human beings alive is always wrong, without a week's worth of hedging, I am proud to not be objective. This is not an issue we should be objective about. Along with slavery, rape, lynchings, etc., it is universally wrong to burn people alive.
The only reason you're hedging on it is because the deity you believe in, supposedly once sanctioned it as acceptable. Society used the cover of god to sanction all this nasty stuff because society was primitive.
Whether or not the world "should have" agreed that burning is wrong is completely irrelevant since this is an opinion based entirely on the standards of today.
The standards of today are BETTER. (Not perfect, but better.) One way to measure this is that burning people alive is widely considered evil, nasty and ridiculous to the point of silliness.
Should the world have "agreed" it's wrong to buy products from China? There was nothing immoral about buying from China up until only a few decades ago.
There is still nothing immoral about buying from China. It is just a method to punish the Chinese government for its immoral behavior.
Likewise, there was nothing immoral about burning by execution up until only a few centuries ago.
No, not in the sense that "immoral" means "conforming with the majority." However, in the universal sense, it was wrong then and it will always be wrong.
I'm not morally ambivalent - I simply happen to appreciate I'm not the Grand Moral Dictator of the universe and that I live in a very, very different world then people in the past.
Right -- you live in a better world, where you don't have to live in fear of pissing off the wrong person and getting legally burned.
I'm also not arrogant enough to claim that anyone who's ever existed who doesn't follow the same standard of morals as I do today, that they're all immoral. This is ridiculous.
The people who lived in the time of barbarism being referred to here were not "all immoral". The prevailing attitudes of the time, however, were immoral. Any society that believes in burning and stoning and animal sacrifice as normal and healthy has a lot of problems.
Thu Jun 12, 08:11:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Darren,
Please prove to me execution by burning was a universal moral wrong 4000 years ago.
Also, read the China analogy again. In it, I stated a hypothetical situation and followed it with a question. It went something like this: If in 2010, Europeans refuse to purchase anything made in China because of China's deplorable human rights record, will Europeans who bought something from China in 210AD be considered immoral? Why or why not?
Out of curiousity, do you condemn the Aztec's for violating the Geneva Convention?
Thu Jun 12, 09:38:00 PM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Unless really new points are made this is my last comment because it is pointless to keep restating the same thing.
jason substitute Nazi's for Aztec and ask the same question.
Do you condemn the Nazi's for doing what they believed was the right and moral thing to do?
What does it matter if it is 60 or 4000 year?
Fri Jun 13, 12:55:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Hugo,
Humanity collectively condemned the Nazi's for their actions. If nothing else, this should be a clear indication regarding the immorality of what they did.
Did humanity condemn the Aztec's for violating the Geneva Convention? Has humanity EVER condemned the Aztec's for violating the Geneva Convention?
And I'll ask again: How can it be immoral to buy something from China in 210AD if it only became immoral to do so thousands of years later?
Fri Jun 13, 06:09:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Humanity collectively condemned burning.
(PS. there are still Nazi's and Nazi sympathizers around so I take it "Humanity collectively" does not every single human)
I broke my "last comment" promise just this once for this "one-liner" because again it is nothing new.
Fri Jun 13, 06:16:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason,
I think you could clear everything up for us by explaining how you personally decide what is right or wrong.
Take burning people to death as an example. Do you take a survey to decide if that is immoral? Do you decide based upon what the Bible says? Do you let your religious leaders decide for you? Or what?
Fri Jun 13, 07:20:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Hugo,
Prove humanity collectively condemned burning. Surely there must historical evidence of humanity decrying the use of this method of capital punishment...
Did humanity condemn the Aztec's for violating the Geneva Convention? Has humanity EVER condemned the Aztec's for violating the Geneva Convention?
Fri Jun 13, 12:38:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve,
I personally decide what is right or wrong based on what Scripture says about the matter and when the two don't conflict, the laws of the land.
Regarding execution by burning, I believe it's immoral today because 1. the NT doesn't command it and 2. it's illegal.
Fri Jun 13, 12:44:00 PM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Regarding execution by burning, I believe it's immoral today because 1. the NT doesn't command it and 2. it's illegal.
Now I really quit, that is quite disturbing I really hope for those around you that those are not really the only 2 reasons.
Fri Jun 13, 02:25:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Hugo,
I know you're looking for an out, but before you quit I'd like answers to the questions you've avoiding for quite some time now. Surely they're not too difficult for you..?
1. Can you prove humanity collectively condemned execution by burning 4000 years ago?
2. Did humanity condemn the Aztec's for violating the Geneva Convention? Has humanity EVER condemned the Aztec's for violating the Geneva Convention?
Fri Jun 13, 02:56:00 PM 2008 
 Darren Delgado said...
jason wrote...
Please prove to me execution by burning was a universal moral wrong 4000 years ago.
I can play that number: Please prove to me that God exists and that I should pay attention to what he says. Whoops! Looks like we are at an impasse.
Burning people alive is wrong, along with slavery and any other form of torture. I know it because I have common human sympathy for my fellow human beings, something which I believe is innate to our species and can only be removed or diminished by force -- say, through poor upbringing, or neglect, or religious indoctrination creating ambivalence about burning people, etc.
There is no "proof" that it is wrong, it just is.
Also, read the China analogy again. In it, I stated a hypothetical situation and followed it with a question. It went something like this: If in 2010, Europeans refuse to purchase anything made in China because of China's deplorable human rights record, will Europeans who bought something from China in 210AD be considered immoral? Why or why not?
Neither purchase is an immoral act, in 210 AD or 2010 AD. It's just a tool to punish China in the pocket for their immoral behavior. If you need a part for your car and the only place it's made in China, it's not immoral to patronize them.
Out of curiousity, do you condemn the Aztec's for violating the Geneva Convention?
What a pointless question. Of course not, I condemn the Aztecs for peforming ritual human sacrifices (and acceptance of slavery).
The Geneva Conventions are just a tool, like the China boycott.
Fri Jun 13, 08:13:00 PM 2008 
 Hugo said...
It's not that I'm looking for an out its just that it's pointless to keep posting the same things.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not willfully ignorant, so here goes again.
1. Can you prove humanity collectively condemned execution by burning 4000 years ago?
what does it matter, we're doing it now!
(plus can you prove that it was collectively accepted? that there were no societies (no matter how small) that were against burning?)
2. Did humanity condemn the Aztec's for violating the Geneva Convention? Has humanity EVER condemned the Aztec's for violating the Geneva Convention?
Like China and like darren says the convention is a tool an attempt to describe a moral wrong, the Aztec society does not exist anymore but if it did then yes even if they had survived for 5000 years by sacrificing virgins and captured prisoners and their society was generally ok with it then now we and I would still be condemning them and possibly invading them to set them straight as with the Nazi's as with Saddam, ... laws and social acceptance does not make something moral, is the only thing stopping you from burning someone REALLY only because it is not mentioned in the NT and because it is illegal?
Are you really one of those persons who would rape and steal if it were not illegal anymore.
I can honestly say that even without laws I would never burn someone, I would not even steal no matter what some book said.
Really jason think about it
If prominent influential christians would agree that the NT could be interpreted to condone, even promote burning and started campaigning this and laws were accepted would you line up to volunteer to light the stake or support the law? (don't tell me that it cannot happen, the US has already approved torture in Guantanamo, if another 9/11 were to happen who can tell what measures would be put in use!)
If you would be against it, WHY?
Sat Jun 14, 12:08:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Darren,
If there's no proof it's wrong, then your claim it was universally wrong 4000 years ago is nothing more then conjecture and will subsequently be ignored. Unless of course you're willing to believe God exists simply because I say so...?
I can prove humanity used this form of execution right up until a few hundred years ago - and no where is there evidence that humanity, at any point in time, collectively decried the use of this form of punishment. Logically speaking, this tells me execution by burning wasn't considered immoral.
Darren, you're not getting the hypothetical China analogy. It's really quite simple. If in 2010, Europeans refuse to purchase anything made in China because of China's deplorable human rights record, will Europeans who bought something from China in 210AD be considered immoral? Why or why not? Answer the question and stop playing the fool.
You don't condemn the Aztec's for violating the Geneva Convention? Why not? They clearly broke international laws rules regarding treatment of prisoners of war! Surely there must be evidence of condemnation for such crimes...?
Sat Jun 14, 12:12:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Hugo,
Let me ask again (I'm assuming you're capable of providing a 'yes' or 'no' answer). Can you prove humanity collectively condemned execution by burning 4000 years ago?
Yes or no?
The basic fact that huge civilizations used such a method of punishment for such a long period of time without ANY shred of evidence that humanity ever objected to such behaviour is proof in itself. If it was a universal wrong at that time, there's no record of anyone ever objecting to it. How can this be if it was a universal wrong? Gosh, maybe because it wasn't a universal wrong!
I'm asking for evidence it was a universal wrong at the time as you so claim. Either you have it or you don't. Which is it?
Regarding the Aztec's, you're still refusing the answer the question: Has humanity EVER condemned the Aztec's for violating the Geneva Convention? Yes or no.
Sat Jun 14, 12:26:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Let me try and let you guys off the hook. The fact is morals have evolved. This is without doubt. So unless someone can prove the universal moral system had evolved to a point so that 4000 years ago it was universally immoral to execute by burning, there's nothing else you can argue that will validate your claims that the laws regarding burning given to the Israelites was wrong.
As wikipedia states: "A primary criticism of moral absolutism regards how we come to know what the "absolute" morals are. The authorities that are quoted as sources of absolute morality are all subject to human interpretation, and multiple views abound on them. For morals to be truly absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority. Therefore, so critics say, there is no conceivable source of such morals, and none can be called "absolute". So even if there are absolute morals, there will never be universal agreement on just what those morals are."
So, in summary, you either have proof to support your claims that execution by burning as a universal moral wrong is as old as humanity or you don't.
Sat Jun 14, 12:42:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
No one here has to 'prove' anything to you, Jason.
It is your God that burns people to death and demands that we do the same. If you are OK with that (which apparently you are), then the Bible is for you. But if you object to type of thing, then you should reject the Bible and its people-burning God.
Sat Jun 14, 01:39:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve,
Then you admit you have no proof that execution by burning was a universal moral wrong at the time the law was given. This is fine by me. Should have mentioned this right up front - you could have saved everyone quite a bit of time.
Sat Jun 14, 02:36:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
You are the only one interested in proofs for "universal moral laws," Jason.
If you are happy with a god that burns people to death and commands us to do likewise, then the Bible is the book for you, Jason. You and your cruel god deserve each other.
I think I understand your position, Jason. It was OK for God to demand that certain people be burned to death, because he did that before the Geneva Conventions (I have no idea why you think that would matter, but I guess it was the best excuse you could think of at the time) and before the New Testament revoked God's Old Testament laws. And you have no problem with God burning people to death because God can do whatever the hell he wants and you will call it good. I completely understand. It is vicious, disgusting, cruel, and immoral. But it's what you believe.
Sat Jun 14, 04:06:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Yes, yes, a primitive, superstitious, culture, who couldn't even keep shit out of their own food and thought god was mad at them because the skys grew dark, also caused people to suffer horribly, by burning them, alive. This is the same culture that made up the laws of the day and then used god's imaginary, voice, to lend credibility, to a monstrous institution, that had no divine authority.
But Jason is a dense asshole, stricken with religious blindness, trying desperately to protect his flimsy, beliefs.
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
-- Susan B. Anthony in 1896
--S.
Sat Jun 14, 05:11:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve, are you confirming you have no evidence to support your claims that execution by burning was a universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites?
A simple yes or no will do. Which is it?
Sat Jun 14, 06:06:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Steve, are you confirming you have no evidence to support your claims that execution by burning was a universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites?
I have never claimed "that execution by burning was a universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites." I don't know or care what the people in the late bronze age may have thought about it. You are the one who brings it up in a pathetic attempt to excuse the barbarous actions and commands of your god. Give it up, Jason. You've lost.
I understand that you are uncomfortable defending a God that burns people to death and commands believers to do likewise. But that is what the Bible says.
God is proud of burning people to death; why are you so ashamed of it?
Sat Jun 14, 06:38:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve,
Actually, Darren said "Burning people to death is horrific, and (IMO) universally wrong in any era..." and "it is universally wrong to burn people alive" and "...in the universal sense, it was wrong then and it will always be wrong." Hence I was merely asking him for proof that execution by burning was a universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites. Thanks for jumping in though. Now, was it a universal morale wrong back then, Steve?
And Steve, I'm well aware you don't care about what other people thought in other time periods. But when we're talking about the morality of laws given to another culture 4000 years ago, it really, really helps to care... Step out of your ethnocentric bubble just for a minute. Yes, you can go back when we're done!
The Bible certainly does say that God instructed the Israelites to execute by burning and the Bible also says we're no longer under this old law. Sorry, I thought this had been established already...?
Sat Jun 14, 07:09:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason said: "I was merely asking him [Darren] for proof that execution by burning was a universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites. Thanks for jumping in though."
Oh, you were asking Darren, eh Jason? And I "jumped in"?
Then why did you address your question to me? Here's what you said: "Steve, are you confirming you have no evidence to support your claims that execution by burning was a universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites?"
First you lie and then you lie again to get out of it. I guess you'll be in lake of fire being burned with the unbelievers like it says in Revelation 21:8. Good thing you think it's OK for God to burn people to death!
Next you say: "The Bible certainly does say that God instructed the Israelites to execute by burning and the Bible also says we're no longer under this old law. Sorry, I thought this had been established already...?"
You haven't "established" that the Old Testament laws no longer apply to Christians. You haven't established a single thing since you've been here.
Sat Jun 14, 07:24:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Come on, Steve, this isn't a kindergarten playground and I know you're not a child. I was asking Darren and Hugo for proof that execution by burning was a universal moral 4000 years ago. Enough with the act, okay?
Regarding the new law versus the old law, I'm not interested in doing this dance again. We've been over it a dozen times but you continually, and quite intentionally it seems, turn a blind eye to one of the most clearly addressed teachings in Scripture. Jeremiah 31:31, Matthew 26:28, Mark 16:16, Acts 6:14, Acts 10:15-28, Romans 7:4-6, Acts 13:39, Acts 15, 2 Corinthians 3:6, Galatians 3, Galatians 4, Hebrews 7, Hebrews 8 and Hebrews 10. Read. It's all right there.
Was execution by burning a universal moral wrong 4000 years ago. Yes or no.
Sat Jun 14, 09:25:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Conscience-impaired, Jason asked, Was execution by burning a universal moral wrong 4000 years ago. Yes or no.
YES.
Because, we as civilized, educated, people can comprehend, that when you do something to a person that is consensual and feels good to them -- then it's GOOD.
Also, as civilized, educated, people, with a sympathetic human conscience, we can easily evaluate, that when a person causes harm or tortures a person, non-consensually, causing the person to suffer, or to die -- then that's BAD.
Burning someone to death is a hideous, immoral act and a monstrous violation of human rights, in the future and in the present and in the past -- even, 4,000 years ago.
Jason, you are a mindless, drone, dumb-fuck. You are the equivalence of the insane, brain-dead, religious zealot, wallowing in delusion, proselytizing, on a street corner.
--S.
Sun Jun 15, 12:22:00 AM 2008 
 Darren Delgado said...
Actually, Darren said "Burning people to death is horrific, and (IMO) universally wrong in any era..." and "it is universally wrong to burn people alive" and "...in the universal sense, it was wrong then and it will always be wrong." Hence I was merely asking him for proof that execution by burning was a universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites.
Steve asked you your *opinion* on whether burning is universally wrong. To date, you have not offered any personal opinion on whether burning is wrong, only equivocating BS about how it is wrong in this era but not that one and hey, nothing is really wrong if you really think about it. Reducing the argument to absurdism.
So, in the complete absence of any strong moral statement from you, I am offering my opinion. It is my belief that burning is universally wrong. Just like it is your belief that God wrote the bible, approved of burning people, then reversed himself and declared burning a thing of the past (for unknown reasons). There is no "proof" for this statement, but I don't value the judgment of those people who think burning people alive was morally acceptable in any era.
Apparently our beliefs (which seem pretty straightforward to me) require proof while yours (about an invisible man in the sky) don't. Why is this?
Thanks for jumping in though. Now, was it a universal morale wrong back then, Steve?
Steve didn't say that, I did. Don't conflate two different arguments because you're losing the debate on both fronts.
The Bible certainly does say that God instructed the Israelites to execute by burning and the Bible also says we're no longer under this old law. Sorry, I thought this had been established already...?
No, that's definitely been established; the problem is that the culture of the time was morally challenged and endorsed horrific, immoral things like burning people alive, so of course the phony mythological stories which sprang forth from that era would support those horrific things.
Sun Jun 15, 11:07:00 AM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason, cuckoo for cocoa puffs, said, The Bible certainly does say that God instructed the Israelites to execute by burning and the Bible also says we're no longer under this old law. Sorry, I thought this had been established already...?
It has only been established in your fucked-up, delusional, brain, Jason. Even, by debating, if the old law was replaced by the new law is reason enough to conclude that there are other interpretations of scripture, thereby proving god's supposed plan of communicating his all-important good news is seriously flawed. You just assume you have the right interpretation, by deluding yourself, in the midst of all the other Christians who delude themselves, proclaiming they hold the one true, right, interpretation of scripture.
THE UNITED CHURCH OF GOD HOLDS THIS INTERPRETATION:
Many assume that, because Jesus Christ instituted the New Covenant, God's laws are thereby made obsolete. They lean on this argument to ignore His commandments. But what does Jesus Himself say?
He answers: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill [actually 'fill to the full,' meaning fully explain or fully express]. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away [and they clearly haven't passed away], one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-19).
Notice how Hebrews 10:16-17 summarizes the New Covenant: "'This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them.' Then He adds, 'Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.'" This is perfectly consistent with Christ's words. God's laws aren't annulled under the New Covenant; they are written into our hearts and minds so we might obey Him better.
A new covenant wasn't needed because the laws included in the Old Covenant were inadequate or faulty. Rather, the New Covenant was needed because, as Hebrews 8:8 tells us, "God found fault with the people ..." (NIV). The fault was in the nature of the people themselves (verses 7-9)—the fact that human beings are naturally hostile to God's laws rather than spiritually minded and willing to obey (see Romans 8:5-8).
What people need to have changed is their heart, not the laws that define sin—sin being the violation of God's law (1 John 3:4). Such change in the heart is possible only when people receive God's Spirit. That's why the focus of the New Covenant is on providing the way and the means for sins to be forgiven so people may receive the Holy Spirit.
I'm sure your free time, at the loony bin, has expired. It's time to get off the computer and take your nappy-time, medicine and go back to your wall-to-wall padded room, so you can dream; you and Jesus are skipping through a meadow hand in hand, wallowing in delusional bliss, listening to the song -- Jesus Loves Me -- in your head.
Jesus loves me! This I know,
For the Bible tells me so.
Little ones to Him belong;
They are weak, but He is strong.
Refrain:
“Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.
La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, cuckoo, cuckoo, la, la, la.
--S.
Sun Jun 15, 12:49:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Darren,
Since you have no proof that execution by burning was a universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites, you have no basis for claiming to be correct, or, more appropriately, you have no basis for claiming I'm incorrect.
If execution by burning wasn't an established universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites, it cannot be said it was wrong. This is basic logic.
Apparently our beliefs (which seem pretty straightforward to me) require proof while yours (about an invisible man in the sky) don't. Why is this?
Are you saying you've never requested a Christian provide evidence to support his or her claims???? Get real. Enough with the sad story already.
Steve didn't say that, I did. Don't conflate two different arguments because you're losing the debate on both fronts.
I'm asking Steve if he thinks execution by burning was a universal moral wrong because no one else seems capable of answering this simple question.
No, that's definitely been established; the problem is that the culture of the time was morally challenged and endorsed horrific, immoral things like burning people alive, so of course the phony mythological stories which sprang forth from that era would support those horrific things.
Morally challenged? Really? Show me any legitimate 21st century source that calls ancient civilizations "morally challenged". Can you at least do this?
Sun Jun 15, 02:29:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
If execution by burning wasn't an established universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites, it cannot be said it was wrong. This is basic logic.
Yeah just like 2+2=5, basic logic.
Holy shit, Jason, you are truly fucked in the head. I think Jesus just cracked and scrambled the last in egg in your head.
This is your
brain on religion. Any questions?
--S.
Sun Jun 15, 11:00:00 PM 2008 
 Darren Delgado said...
jason said...
Since you have no proof that execution by burning was a universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites, you have no basis for claiming to be correct, or, more appropriately, you have no basis for claiming I'm incorrect.
By the same logic, since you have no proof that God exists, you have no basis for giving a shit about what he supposedly told people to do in the bible. But you go right on believing it anyway, trouper that you are.
As I said in the last post, I know that burning is wrong because I have common human decency. I believe you do too, since you hedgingly admitted burning is wrong "in this era", although you can't go the Full Monty and admit that it's always wrong because that would force you to deny the pretzel logic that is in the bible.
If execution by burning wasn't an established universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites, it cannot be said it was wrong. This is basic logic.
So is there anything that is universally repugnant to you? We know burning is sometimes OK for you, and slavery. How about rape? Torture? Fixing NBA basketball games?
Are you saying you've never requested a Christian provide evidence to support his or her claims???? Get real.
I'm saying, if I held you to the same standard of proof that you are holding me to, you would be in a lot of rhetorical trouble.
You believe God exists, and did all this inexplicable, cruel bizarre shit, for whatever reasons you have. That's your prerogative and you and I and everyone else reading this knows that asking you to "prove" the existence of God would be a waste of time.
I believe that burning people is wrong, because of empirical evidence. I have burned various parts of my body accidentally throughout my life now and then, and it sucks. An all-consuming full body burning inflicting death would be unimaginably painful. I wouldn't want a full body burning inflicted on anyone, even the most heinous of criminals.
How do I "prove" that something like torture, burning alive, slavery, etc. is universally wrong? You can't. It's just something that makes society worse when it exists, drags down the human race, and we are a better society for having gotten rid of it. Better still if we get rid of the death penalty altogether, but as Steve pointed out at least we have made that humane, a step up from what's suggested in the bible.
I'm asking Steve if he thinks execution by burning was a universal moral wrong because no one else seems capable of answering this simple question.
"Yes. It is."
Now your turn to answer a question: is burning people alive a good thing to do, under any circumstances? If yes, what circumstances would those be? Is it acceptable in another era not our own? If God changed his mind and instructed you to burn someone alive, would you spring to action?
I don't really expect you to answer these questions straightforwardly, since you won't answer Steve's very straightforward questions either, but what the hell.
Sun Jun 15, 11:39:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Darren,
Since you have no proof that execution by burning was a universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites, you have no basis for claiming to be correct, or, more appropriately, you have no basis for claiming I'm incorrect.
As I said in the last post, I know that burning is wrong because I have common human decency. I believe you do too, since you hedgingly admitted burning is wrong "in this era", although you can't go the Full Monty and admit that it's always wrong because that would force you to deny the pretzel logic that is in the bible.
What you're continuing to ignore is that burning by execution hasn’t always wrong unless you can somehow show that a 'common human decency' existed at the time the law was given that condemned such an action. I don’t think you can. Can you?
I also don’t think you can even prove ‘common human decency’ has remained unchanged for the past 4000 years. Can you?
So is there anything that is universally repugnant to you? We know burning is sometimes OK for you, and slavery. How about rape? Torture? Fixing NBA basketball games?
Non sequitur. My point was that if execution by burning wasn't an established universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites, it cannot be said it was wrong. This is basic logic. I don’t see how you could disagree with this. If it’s not wrong, it’s not wrong. What don’t you agree with?
I'm saying, if I held you to the same standard of proof that you are holding me to, you would be in a lot of rhetorical trouble.
You already consider Christians to be in a lot of rhetorical trouble. The point is, the standard of proof you expect from Christians is now being placed on your lap and like many others here, you have nothing to offer except idle ethnocentric conjecture.
I believe that burning people is wrong, because of empirical evidence. I have burned various parts of my body accidentally throughout my life now and then, and it sucks. An all-consuming full body burning inflicting death would be unimaginably painful. I wouldn't want a full body burning inflicted on anyone, even the most heinous of criminals.
That’s fine. But we're not talking about the 21st century. 200, 500, 1000, 4000 years ago, people did execute by burning without any record it was considered to be morally wrong. Stating your opinion on the matter doesn’t affect history. I'm sorry.
How do I "prove" that something like torture, burning alive, slavery, etc. is universally wrong? You can't. It's just something that makes society worse when it exists, drags down the human race, and we are a better society for having gotten rid of it. Better still if we get rid of the death penalty altogether, but as Steve pointed out at least we have made that humane, a step up from what's suggested in the bible.
Drags down the human race? Society made huge advances, morally, culturally and technologically when execution by burning was still being practiced. Pick up a history book.
That aside though, because you’re finally now admitting it can’t be proven execution by burning is universally wrong, you can’t claim it was morally wrong at the time for people to be executed in this manner. If it wasn’t immoral then quite obviously it wasn’t immoral. Therefore, execution by burning wasn’t considered immoral at the time God gave this law to the Israelites. Ergo, your entire argument falls apart.
I'm asking Steve if he thinks execution by burning was a universal moral wrong because no one else seems capable of answering this simple question. - "Yes. It is."
Does he have the proof you claim doesn't exist?
Now your turn to answer a question: is burning people alive a good thing to do, under any circumstances? If yes, what circumstances would those be? Is it acceptable in another era not our own? If God changed his mind and instructed you to burn someone alive, would you spring to action?
Yes. Yes. Yes. What’s the relevance of this to the laws God gave the Israelites?
I’ve answered every question asked of me and I expect the same in return.
1. Show me any legitimate 21st century source that calls ancient civilizations "morally challenged". Can you at least do this?
2. Where is there evidence that humanity, at any point in time, collectively decried the use of execution by burning?
Mon Jun 16, 06:38:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Now your turn to answer a question:
1. is burning people alive a good thing to do, under any circumstances?
2. If yes, what circumstances would those be?
3. Is it acceptable in another era not our own?
4. If God changed his mind and instructed you to burn someone alive, would you spring to action?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. What’s the relevance of this to the laws God gave the Israelites?
I never thought he'd answer so clearly.
(answer 2 might need some more flesh but I guess by saying "Yes" you mean that you would find any situation acceptable)
Okay, jason by those answers you are officially an immoral human being.
Jeez, burning people is a good thing, I hope law enforcement is reading along and starts to keep tabs on you (that's some wishful thinking on my part).
Mon Jun 16, 06:50:00 AM 2008 
 Dave said...
It’s not without irony that Jason is perhaps Steve’s biggest asset in converting people away from Christianity. Giving up on religion is not easy, but Jason is a shining example of why it must be done.
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics said "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
I am sure, Jason, you are a good person, but rarely has one demonstrated so well how Christianity can make someone morally bankrupt. You need to file for Chapter 13.
Mon Jun 16, 08:47:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Hugo,
If God commanded believers to burn someone alive for a crime, and there’s no really no reason to imagine He would, be definition, a Christian would believe it to do be right. This is why I have to answer “yes” to #1 since the “any” circumstance includes a direct commandment from God. Outside of a commandment from God, as stated a half dozen times already, I don’t think there’s any moral justification for executing someone by burning today.
Now I’d like answers to the questions you continue to ignore.
1. What you're continuing to ignore is that burning by execution hasn’t always wrong unless you can somehow show that a 'common human decency' existed at the time the law was given that condemned such an action. I don’t think you can. Can you?
2. I also don’t think you can even prove ‘common human decency’ has remained unchanged for the past 4000 years. Can you?
3. If execution by burning wasn't an established universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites, it cannot be said it was wrong. This is basic logic. I don’t see how you could disagree with this. If it’s not wrong, it’s not wrong. What don’t you agree with?
4. Show me any legitimate 21st century source that calls ancient civilizations "morally challenged". Can you at least do this?
5. Where is there evidence that humanity, at any point in time, collectively decried the use of execution by burning?
Mon Jun 16, 11:28:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Dave,
There are many, many, many people out there who know it's impossible to judge past actions based on the morals today. This is why teachers don't tell their students the Aztecs were immoral and history books don’t condemn ancient civilizations for their behaviour. In other words, nothing I’m saying here is anything new.
Secondly, what does religion have to do with this? We could be talking about the Assryians or Persians for all anyone cares - it doesn't make a difference. I've never read or heard anyone say the Babylonians were 'morally bankrupt' because of their laws, have you?
Until you can logically explain why we should be judging ancient history based on the moral standards of the 21st century, I will continue to reject this entire argument. It's ridiculous and based on nothing more then blind ignorance and ultra- ethnocentrism.
Mon Jun 16, 12:31:00 PM 2008 
 Dave said...
Jason, you make good points about the human moral standards of past civilizations, and I have not participated in those discussions. I think, however, the subject is bigger then that. I mean, we are talking about an omnipotent omniscient perfect loving god here, and I think he is the last guy that would argue that morals depend on what society happens to be up to at the time. Seems it should be the other way around, that god should be constant and unchanging. God should be setting those moral standards, not just going along with them, even offering guidelines for people burning, stoning, owning slaves, etcetera.
I have German ancestry in my family, and I have often wondered if I lived just a little earlier in Germany would I have gone along with what was happening during Hitler’s time. I guess that if I was the religious person I was 6 years ago, I probably would have gone along with it, just as you admitted you would be burning folks if you were alive back then. With my present mindset as an ex-Christian, however, I believe I would not have gone along with it. Did history ever record the feelings or inaction of such people? No. But what choices did they have to express themselves back then? And what would the consequences have been? Today, with the internet, folks like Steve and others here finally have an equal voice that is heard by millions. Conversations like this reveal the true character of Christianity and other religions and are exposing it for what it really is.
Welcome to the revolution!
Mon Jun 16, 01:17:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Dave,
The simple fact is God gave the Israelites laws that operated perfectly and morally within the existing system of conduct. There was nothing morally wrong with any of them. Therefore, they weren't immoral. Matter settled.
Could God have introduced lethal injection to the Israelites or some "morally acceptable" punishment to a crime? Sure He could of. But He didn't. This doesn't affect the moral acceptability of execution by burning at the time.
This conversation actually has very little to do with Christianity or religion, Dave. These kinds of conversations are taking place in many different places by many different people from all walks of life, some religious and some not. The question being asked is: How can people judge their ancestors based on the morals of today? It's simply not possible. Many agree, many disagree, but as of yet, I haven't found one valid argument that would change my mind and after having read the responses here and seen the general unwillingness to provide any shred of proof or answer even the most basic of questions, it's only validated my position.
Mon Jun 16, 07:03:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Nut-case Jason, stomping his foot like a two year old, said, The simple fact is God gave the Israelites laws that operated perfectly and morally within the existing system of conduct. There was nothing morally wrong with any of them. Therefore, they weren't immoral. Matter settled.
The matter is only settled in your fucked-up, delusional, cranium-cavity.
It's not a fact, Jason, it's antiquated, lore mixed with the supposed voice of god, to lend legitimacy and a false sense of authority -- a delusion that you desperately cling to. In reality, the simple truth of the matter is, primitive, superstitious, uncivilized, men, came up with those absurd, laws and barbaric, vile, forms of torture, as punishment. In essence, you are condoning the immoral actions of ignorant, barbaric torturers, that are veiled with your illusionary, god. You are the insane captain of delusions, on a sinking dingy, in the middle of the ocean, in a raging storm -- you got nothing.
--S.
Mon Jun 16, 11:51:00 PM 2008 
 Hugo said...
So much wrong, so little time to respond.
jason, you have a very dangerous mind, by you own admission if your god speaks to you (ie. if you hear voices) you'll not even stop if it/they tell you to kill, even burn people!
There are institutions for people like you.
Everything needed to create a humanity that does not burn people has been said in this thread yet you still need to be able to find burning a good thing and leave an open door to allow burning someone someday.
Really, really think about this:
jason wrote:
Humanity collectively condemned the Nazi's for their actions. If nothing else, this should be a clear indication regarding the immorality of what they did.
How can you say that when there were (and STILL ARE) countries hiding Nazi war criminals, when the Nazi society accepted the Nazi way of life, the laws were acceptable to the people that lived at that time (even outside Germany) and even now there are a lot of people who would like nothing better than to reinstate such a society (look up ratlines, neo nazis, ...).
If you cannot find the Aztecs morally deprived and if you cannot condemn the Aztecs for what they did then you cannot possibly condemn the Nazi's.
You say that the Aztecs are not condemned but they are, every law against violence that we have is a condemnation of the Aztecs, if a society would rise based on Aztec laws then it would be the top priority of the UN and it would be invaded ASAP.
I do not like to discuss too much with someone who has the mindset that would allow him to burn me if he was desperate enough, I try to write a response but this keeps popping to the front of my mind, if this were real life I'd put some distance between us.
The way I've been brought up (without religion, in Belgium that is possible) I know that I would never do that, I'd turn myself in if I started hearing things like that, I do not need laws to stop me from burning people.
Tue Jun 17, 12:32:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Hugo,
Incredibly, you're still ignorant on my standpoint of execution by burning. Let me explain it to you again in simplistic terms: I think execution by burning is wrong today. I think execution by burning was morally acceptable 4000 years ago. I have never passed a personal judgment on this kind of behaviour other then stating the acceptability of it as historical fact. I've continually explained we're in no position to judge either way and that we can only comment on the rightness or wrongness of execution by burning based on the moral standards at time the law was given. Don't misrepresent my beliefs on the subject.
Regarding the Aztecs, no one considers the Aztecs morally deprived and I've already asked for evidence supporting the claim suggesting otherwise (Question #4 below).
The laws nations pass today aren't moral judgments on previous civilizations. This is absolutely absurd. Get your head out of the sand. When was the last time you heard a politician say "We're now legalizing marijuana which means any culture that ever existed that didn't have this same law is now officially condemned"?
Since I've been dutifully answering your questions, I expect some common courtesy in return.
1. What you're continuing to ignore is that burning by execution hasn’t always wrong unless you can somehow show that a 'common human decency' existed at the time the law was given that condemned such an action. I don’t think you can. Can you?
2. I also don’t think you can even prove ‘common human decency’ has remained unchanged for the past 4000 years. Can you?
3. If execution by burning wasn't an established universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites, it cannot be said it was wrong. This is basic logic. I don’t see how you could disagree with this. If it’s not wrong, it’s not wrong. What don’t you agree with?
4. Show me any legitimate 21st century source that calls ancient civilizations "morally challenged". Can you at least do this?
5. Where is there evidence that humanity, at any point in time, collectively decried the use of execution by burning?
Tue Jun 17, 08:17:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
I quit, it's like talking to a brick wall.
This were your answers were they not?
1. is burning people alive a good thing to do, under any circumstances?
2. If yes, what circumstances would those be?
3. Is it acceptable in another era not our own?
4. If God changed his mind and instructed you to burn someone alive, would you spring to action?
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. What’s the relevance of this to the laws God gave the Israelites?

I see no "in this era" in that first answer so you find that there could be circumstance even today to justify burning people.
You have a dangerous mindset, stay in Canada.
Your questions have been answered, answer mine.
Tue Jun 17, 08:24:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Hugo,
Yes, they were my answers. I explained my thought process behind them and even just finished clarifying my position on execution by burning. What else do you want?
Please don't lie - my questions haven't been answered. By anyone. Please do so now.
Tue Jun 17, 09:44:00 AM 2008 
 sconnor said...
If everyone had the same fucked-up deluded thinking Jason has we would still be living in the dark ages. Can't you see it's morally acceptable to burn people to death; it's morally acceptable to own people; it's morally acceptable to abuse children and beat them with a rod, cause god says so. Jason is a mindless, coward and could never stand up and say these vile and immoral acts are unacceptable. It took truly, courageous people (people NOT shackled by superstition and the supposed authority of god) to stand up and voice that these acts were horribly wrong and went against everything that is humane. Jason is a follower, a puppet of his fucking, retarded, Christadelphian, cult, blinded by delusions and ignorance.
Darren asked, So is there anything that is universally repugnant to you? We know burning is sometimes OK for you, and slavery. How about rape? Torture? Fixing NBA basketball games?
Asshole Jason, not answering said, Non sequitur. My point was that if execution by burning wasn't an established universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites, it cannot be said it was wrong. This is basic logic. I don’t see how you could disagree with this. If it’s not wrong, it’s not wrong. What don’t you agree with?
Once again, Jason is playing with big words that he has no idea how to use. Here's an example of a non sequitur, you might understand:
Jason is an asshole, Canadian. Therefore everyone from Canada is an asshole.
Darren's questions is valid and completely relevant to the discussion, but you can't honestly answer it, because it blows your position out of the water. You are a pussy-ass, cowardly, motherfucker, who, if it was left in your lap, how the path of humanity was to be traveled, we would still be eating our food laced with feces, beating our slaves and burning witches, all the while justifying it with -- because god says so.
--S.
Tue Jun 17, 01:11:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
I just saw how much this topic exploded since last time I looked.
Jason said "I've continually explained we're in no position to judge either way and that we can only comment on the rightness or wrongness of execution by burning based on the moral standards at time the law was given."
Okay, then for the sake of argument, let's not judge them for the moment. I'll put a series of questions for you or others to respond to, and I'll respond to your list and other points you made.
This is a site and blog about religious issues. So let's not judge the Israelites on what they did. Let's only consider God for now. As a believer, can you please tell us what God thinks of burning people to death, based on what he says and does in his holy book?This way, we will know what God thinks on the matter.
Jason said: Regarding the Aztecs, no one considers the Aztecs morally deprived
I think the Aztecs, when they sacrificed and tortured people, were both morally deprived and depraved. Their moral deprivation (lacking the necessary moral system) arguably excuses to some extent their depravity (perversion/immorality).
But it doesn't mean sacrificing and torturing people was right, it just means they didn't know any better. Maybe if God wasn't so busy telling the Israelites not to mix fabrics in clothing, he could have visited the Aztecs to tell them not to sacrifice people.
God didn't tell the Aztecs not to sacrifice people. Do you think God was okay with the Aztecs sacrificing people?
Jason said: 1. [...] Burning by execution hasn’t always wrong unless you can somehow show that a 'common human decency' existed at the time [...] I don’t think you can. Can you?
If you (or someone else) can provide a more precise definition of "common human decency", maybe this can be explored further.
In any case, I would think "common" human decency, by definition, would be what was "common" at the time. So maybe you've/we've been confusing morality and common decency all this time. It was wasn't considered indecent to burn someone alive in those days among the Israelites and other civilizations. The Bible seems to indicate that people (or at least the authors of the Bible) generally were okay with the horrors contained in it, as long as God give his okay on them.
Was God okay with the Israelites burning people?
Jason said: 2. I also don’t think you can even prove ‘common human decency’ has remained unchanged for the past 4000 years. Can you?
I may disagree with others here, but I don't think CHD has remained unchanged. Giving the person ahead of you in line a penny if they're a cent short would be a decent thing to do, but is it immoral not to? I think decency and morality aren't the same thing.
Do you have a source (the Bible, or elsewhere) showing us the difference between common human decency and morality? Does either stem from God?
Jason said: 3. If execution by burning wasn't an established universal moral wrong at the time the law was given to the Israelites, it cannot be said it was wrong. This is basic logic. [...] What don’t you agree with?
The word "establish" here is the problem, so I disagree with your premise. I checked, and you are the one who introduced it into the conversation. There was nothing I know of that was discovered "establishing" that burning people was wrong in ancient times.
Do you consider the old law as proof of God "establishing" the fact that burning people was moral back then?
Jason said: 4. Show me any legitimate 21st century source that calls ancient civilizations "morally challenged". Can you at least do this?
I would think most legitimate scholars wouldn't put a familiar expression like "morally challenged" into a serious academic journal, just as they wouldn't write in a scholarly review that believing the Earth is flat is "utterly ridiculous", even if it is.
So while a scholar may have said this somewhere, I'm not going to look for it. In our semi-casual discussion on here, I think morally challenged (which darren introduced) is an appropriate term, although maybe not politically correct. Vision exists even if a given individual or group of individuals lacks it (visually-challenged). Morality exists, even if a given individual or group lacks it (morally-challenged).
Did Jesus consider the old law morally challenged since he fulfilled and replaced it with the new law?
Jason said: 5. Where is there evidence that humanity, at any point in time, collectively decried the use of execution by burning?
I know of none. It's kind of like water boarding: the right not to be tortured is considered a human right under the UN Declaration of Human Rights, but it doesn't specifically mention burning or water boarding. It would be darn near impossible to list all forms of torture and killing.
In any case, your implicit argument here is that things are only wrong if they are collectively decried. I disagree with the premise.
Do you think that something is wrong only if there is a universal edict establishing that it is wrong? Would you consider the Ten Commandments or Jesus' new commandments universal edicts, even though there were not agreed upon by all nations then or now?
Fri Jun 20, 03:21:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
Thanks for the responses but instead of beating a dead horse, here's the issue:
1. There’s no evidence society condemned execution by burning during the time of the Israelites
2. There’s no evidence that execution by burning was a universal wrong at the time of the Israelites
Considering these two points, it’s a logical, straightforward conclusion that execution by burning wasn’t immoral at the time of the Israelites. It’s as simple as that.
Dealing with one other issue, you said “In any case, your implicit argument here is that things are only wrong if they are collectively decried. I disagree with the premise.”
By disagreeing with this premise, you’re saying something can be considered wrong if only a few individuals say they are. In which case, something can also be considered right if only a few individuals say it is. Therefore, if the Israelites said execution by burning isn’t wrong, it isn’t wrong, and your argument fails.
Sat Jun 21, 06:12:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason, Thank you for your reply. You are jumping the gun on your conclusion, however.
The premise is that things are only wrong if they are collectively decried is. Refusing this premise does not mean that I must accept that "something can be considered wrong if only a few individuals say they are".
Rejecting the premise in no way forces me into your proposed premise; it's not one or the other. I might think something is only wrong if it kills 10 people or more, or only if it occurs on February 11th, or only if it causes the Yankees to lose. I might think nothing is wrong no matter what God, Oprah, or anyone else says.
There are nearly infinite possibilities of what my premise might be after I reject yours. In reality, I believe that burning someone to death is wrong regardless of who does or doesn't say it's wrong, regardless of what time period it occurs. I do not believe something must be collectively decried for it to be wrong. Your examples about trade with China indicate you believe trading with them is wrong due to their human rights record. The US and most countries have normal trade relations with China, and there is mostly silence on their abuses. But you and I still believe it's wrong. Are we mistaken?
By the way you said "if the Israelites said execution by burning isn’t wrong, it isn’t wrong". God is the one who said burning was okay (Leviticus 20:14). So do you mean "If God said execution by burning isn't wrong, it isn't wrong"?
Finally, you repeatedly chastised people for not replying to your questions. I've replied to yours, and you and others are welcome of course to point out other possible problems you see in my answers.
You haven't answered mine yet. You mention "beating a dead horse", but I think the majority of my questions haven't been addressed elsewhere yet. They're in bold, so I won't repeat them here. I would appreciate it if you (and/or other Christians) could reply to these.
Sat Jun 21, 11:19:00 PM 2008 
 Hugo said...
I think a question jason has to answer for himself is:
Have humans changed so much that burning did not hurt during his god's time and it fucking hurts now?
Sun Jun 22, 03:15:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
Considering the topic, the problem you have to yet address is if something can be wrong even if the action or behaviour is not collectively condemned by humanity, then anyone is just as justified to say it's not wrong. My opinion must be just as acceptable as yours since there is no universal means to judge which one of us is correct.
In other words, if something can be wrong even if humanity doesn't collectively say it's wrong, then what are you using as the basis for judgment?
So do you mean "If God said execution by burning isn't wrong, it isn't wrong"?
Sure. God, the Israelites, the Babylonians, the Aztecs. Whoever. If they said it wasn't wrong. it wasn't wrong. You must accept this as a valid argument considering the absence of a universal edict stating such behaviour was wrong.
Answers to your questions:
1. As a believer, can you please tell us what God thinks of burning people to death, based on what he says and does in his holy book?
Believers aren't not told what God thinks about burning people to death.
2. God didn't tell the Aztecs not to sacrifice people. Do you think God was okay with the Aztecs sacrificing people?
I think God was quite unconcerned with the actions of the Aztecs. His chosen people were the Israelites.
3. Was God okay with the Israelites burning people?
God expected the Israelites following His commandments, whether that meant stoning or burning someone to death for breaking the law.
4. Do you have a source (the Bible, or elsewhere) showing us the difference between common human decency and morality? Does either stem from God?
a) No b) Who's sense of human decency and morality are we talking about?
5. Do you consider the old law as proof of God "establishing" the fact that burning people was moral back then?
No, and there's no reason to.
6. Did Jesus consider the old law morally challenged since he fulfilled and replaced it with the new law?
No.
7. Do you think that something is wrong only if there is a universal edict establishing that it is wrong? Would you consider the Ten Commandments or Jesus' new commandments universal edicts, even though there were not agreed upon by all nations then or now?
Something can be considered wrong if just one person says it is. Something can also be considered right if just one person says it is. The point is, how can anyone objectively judge history if it's based on (subjective) opinion? You can't - and thus, the argument that execution by burning is immoral isn't based on anything more then conjecture.
A few more relevant points:
"If we are to pass moral judgment upon the founding fathers, our judgment must follow the basic conditions of moral evaluation. This means that we must "take the moral point of view," which entails, in part, that we must (a) utilize principles that are general, and (b) regard ourselves as spectators, rather than directly interested individuals... From the moral point of view, denotatively particular persons have no preference. Our forebearers could not foresee us, and even if they could have, they shouldn't have. Moral rules apply to persons only if these persons have general qualities, or relations, to which these rules have application." (reference)
Presentism is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past. Most modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. (wiki)
"Presentism, at its worst, encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation. Interpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior; the Greeks had slavery, even David Hume was a racist, and European women endorsed imperial ventures. Our forbears constantly fail to measure up to our present-day standards. This is not to say that any of these findings are irrelevant or that we should endorse an entirely relativist point of view. It is to say that we must question the stance of temporal superiority that is implicit in the Western (and now probably worldwide) historical discipline. In some ways, now that we have become very sensitive about Western interpretations of the non-Western past, this temporal feeling of superiority applies more to the Western past than it does to the non-Western one. We more easily accept the existence and tolerate the moral ambiguities of eunuchs and harems, for example, than of witches. Because they found a place in a non-Western society, eunuchs and harems seem strange to us but they do not reflect badly on our own past. Witches, in contrast, seem to
challenge the very basis of modern historical understanding and have therefore provoked immense controversy as well as many fine historical studies." (reference)
Chronological snobbery is a logical fallacy coined between friends C. S. Lewis and Owen Barfield describing the erroneous argument that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior when compared to that of the present. (wiki)
Mon Jun 23, 08:00:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mon Jun 23, 03:22:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said: Considering the topic, the problem you have to yet address is if something can be wrong even if the action or behaviour is not collectively condemned by humanity, then anyone is just as justified to say it's not wrong.
I agree that this is a problem, to which I don't currently have a solution. Everyone can't just declare that he or she alone knows what is moral or not.
But you don't have a solution for your point of view, either. There is no "collectively" accepted definition of what "collectively condemned" would even mean.
If defining something as morally wrong means a majority of people would need to condemn something, do you propose we poll 6 billion people (or however many there are at a given time) to get their view on whether or not something is wrong, and anything over 50% is declared immoral?
If you mean just a majority of national governments, do we count ones such as North Korea where the government clearly doesn't represent the will of its people?
Do you think each nation must hold a referendum to determine what is or isn't moral in its country? Can morality change back and forth from year to year? Please explain what you mean by "collectively condemned" and how you propose this would be determined.
I think morality can't be put up to a popular vote. I've read in various places that if you had held a referendum on school integration and other issues related to racial equality in the US south in the 1950s or 1960s, there's a good possibility the majority would have been fine with continuing to withhold civil rights from African Americans. Does this mean it was immoral in the South to integrate schools since it wasn't collectively agreed upon?
No, of course not. Fortunately, the politicians in Washington DC were (for once) more enlightened about the right thing to do, and African Americans were soon allowed to go to the same schools, drink in the same water fountains, etc.
I don't know how to officially determine what is wrong or what is right, but it's certainly not by what most people collectively think. You think morality itself evolves over the ages; I think our understanding of morality changes, but acts remain right or wrong regardless of what percentage of people do or don't agree with them at a given time.
I'll try to briefly address your other points in another post.
Mon Jun 23, 03:48:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said: Believers aren't not [sic] told what God thinks about burning people to death.
We are told God burns people to death. We are told he commands people to burn others to death given a certain crime. Doesn't this show that God thinks burning to death is acceptable in some circumstances? Or did he only used to think it was acceptable, and he's changed his mind?
I think God was quite unconcerned with the actions of the Aztecs. His chosen people were the Israelites.
God's changed his mind about who his chosen people were. After Jesus came, we are all his chosen people, aren't we? (John 3:16 comes readily to mind). The height of the Aztec empire was well after Jesus' first coming. (Wikipedia) Why would God not care about the Aztecs, then?
God expected the Israelites following His commandments, whether that meant stoning or burning someone to death for breaking the law.
So in other words, yes he was okay with the Israelites burning people.
Who's sense of human decency and morality are we talking about?
Humanity's sense of human decency and morality. Don't these come from our creator? If not, where does morality and/or decency come from?
No, and there's no reason to [consider the old law as proof of God "establishing" that burning people was moral back then]
So if the old law didn't establish that burning people was okay, was it God's actions (i.e. burning people himself) that established this?
You also indicated that Jesus did not consider the old law morally challenged. The morality in the two appears strikingly different (love thy neighbor as thyself vs. burn thy neighbor if he didst something wrong). Do God the son and God the father have different moral codes (good cop, bad cop)?
You cited noted Christian authors C.S. Lewis and Owen Barfield as believing it to be erroneous to hold that "the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior when compared to that of the present."
I never said thinking, art, science, or morality for that matter of an earlier time was "inherently" inferior. I take each individual case and judge it on its merits. Ancient Egyptian architecture was unmatched in some areas of architecture. We couldn't build a Great Pyramid nowadays if we wanted to. Leviticus 19:35 says that others should be treated fairly, which is a very moral stance to take. I take issue with burning people to death, however. It's not wrong just because it's old or different. It's wrong because it's cruel.
You included talk of presentism in your post as well. I agree historians should not take a stance on morality. They are like reporters: they are there to tell the facts. It is up to us as individuals and as a society to consider the mistakes of our ancestors and learn from them. Otherwise, we would never learn; we might still be burning witches in Salem to this day.
Mon Jun 23, 04:39:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Everyone can't just declare that he or she alone knows what is moral or not.
Precisely.
There is no "collectively" accepted definition of what "collectively condemned" would even mean.
Thus, my argument. We cannot judge the actions of our ancestors based on the morals of today. We can only pass judgment by considering and based on the morals of the time and place in which the action took place.
Please explain what you mean by "collectively condemned" and how you propose this would be determined.
I mean the vast majority of mankind agreeing on what is right and what is wrong. To me, this is the only way to prove a universal wrong (or right), something both Darren and Hugo claim execution by burning is. As for how this would be determined, I wanted to know this as well which is why I was asking for evidence supporting their claims of a universal wrong. By way of reference: Moral absolutistism
...but acts remain right or wrong regardless of what percentage of people do or don't agree with them at a given time.
Untrue. It wasn't 'wrong' to clear cut a forest 3000 years ago. It wasn't 'wrong' to kill a dodo bird 50,000 years ago. It wasn't 'wrong' to draw and quarter criminals 400 years ago. It wasn't 'wrong' to smoke on an airplane 50 years ago. And the list goes on ad infinitum.
Which acts are you specifically talking about and how do you know they're always wrong or always right (apparently irrespective of how many people actually agree with you)?
Exactly who decided, and when, which acts would always be considered immoral or moral? As you said "Everyone can't just declare that he or she alone knows what is moral or not".
Mon Jun 23, 04:42:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
We are told God burns people to death. We are told he commands people to burn others to death given a certain crime. Doesn't this show that God thinks burning to death is acceptable in some circumstances? Or did he only used to think it was acceptable, and he's changed his mind?
He didn't change His mind - He established an old law that would ultimately give way to a new law. Hebrews 10:1 "The old system in the law of Moses was only a shadow of the things to come..."
God's changed his mind about who his chosen people were.
The Jews have always, and will always, be God's chosen people.
After Jesus came, we are all his chosen people, aren't we? (John 3:16 comes readily to mind).
It's off topic but this verse doesn't talk about God changing his mind about who His chosen people are.
The height of the Aztec empire was well after Jesus' first coming. (Wikipedia) Why would God not care about the Aztecs, then?
Perhaps you should get to the root of your Aztec argument because I'm not sure where you're coming from...
So in other words, yes he was okay with the Israelites burning people.
In terms of following a commandment regarding a man sleeping with his mother-in-law, yes.
Humanity's sense of human decency and morality. Don't these come from our creator? If not, where does morality and/or decency come from?
You asked me if "[common human decency and morality] stem from God. I'm asking you to define "humanity's sense of human decency and morality". Is it anything that anyone says is right or wrong or is it something more?
So if the old law didn't establish that burning people was okay, was it God's actions (i.e. burning people himself) that established this?
Who knows?
You also indicated that Jesus did not consider the old law morally challenged. The morality in the two appears strikingly different (love thy neighbor as thyself vs. burn thy neighbor if he didst something wrong). Do God the son and God the father have different moral codes (good cop, bad cop)?
Nope. But society did, in the same way we have a different moral code then 100 years ago.
I take issue with burning people to death, however. It's not wrong just because it's old or different. It's wrong because it's cruel.
It was a cruel world 100, 500, 4000, 5000, 10000 years ago. Take your pick. This doesn't make anything inherently wrong. It just makes the time and place vastly different then ours today.
You included talk of presentism in your post as well. I agree historians should not take a stance on morality. They are like reporters: they are there to tell the facts. It is up to us as individuals and as a society to consider the mistakes of our ancestors and learn from them. Otherwise, we would never learn; we might still be burning witches in Salem to this day.
That's fine but the point still remains: historians don't take a stance on morality because they're there to tell the facts and the fact is, execution by burning wasn't wrong 4000 years ago.
Mon Jun 23, 05:17:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
I only have a few seconds to reply, but a couple of thoughts:
Jason said: It's off topic but this verse [John 3:16] doesn't talk about God changing his mind about who His chosen people are.
Please tell me where in this verse it says that he's only saving his "chosen" people: the Israelites/the Jews. It says he's saving the whole world, and that whoever believes in him (no specification on race, time period, or geographic location) will live forever.
Jesus (allegedly) came to give salvation to the whole world, not a specific people or race. Do you disagree with this? When people say God bless America, does God turn a deaf ear (unless the person speaking is of Jewish stock)? Does God not care about any civilization that's existed except the Israelites and their descendants?
You also say that God the father and Jesus didn't have different moral codes, but society did, in the same way we have a different moral code then 100 years ago.
So God and Jesus were only preaching to the choir, so to speak? The Israelites think it's okay to burn people, so God told them to burn people (and did so himself). Jesus' contemporaries had (mostly) outgrown that sort of thing, so to play to a different audience Jesus didn't go around burning people or telling others to do so?
hugo said: I think a question jason has to answer for himself is:
Have humans changed so much that burning did not hurt during his god's time and it fucking hurts now?
I think Jason was saying it was perfectly fine to hurt or kill whoever you wanted to back then, as long as no one cared and there was no general consensus against it. Is this correct?
Mon Jun 23, 08:10:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason, obsessively maintains, That's fine but the point still remains: historians don't take a stance on morality because they're there to tell the facts and the fact is, execution by burning wasn't wrong 4000 years ago.
It was wrong for the Jains. The most fundamental value of Jainism is nonviolence, or ahimsa. Ahimsa means harming no living being as well as protecting all living beings from harm.
If only your demented, psycho-fuck, "almighty", sky-papa could have had the empathetic, propensity, for such a radical view on morality, then perhaps, causing people to suffer, in such sick and vile ways, could have been averted, for all these thousands of years.
But true to form, Jason, insanely, bangs that square peg into the round hole, to justify and condone the sadistic, actions of superstitious, barbarians -- disguised as his imaginary, moral-giving, supreme being.
--S.
Mon Jun 23, 10:58:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
I didn't say God is only saving His chosen people. What I'm saying is God hasn't changed His mind about who His chosen people are. "God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew..." Romans 11:2.
I also didn't say it was perfectly fine to hurt or kill whoever you wanted back then. What I'm saying is that the laws regarding execution by burning weren't considered immoral at the time they were given.
Tue Jun 24, 04:05:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Jason said:
Humanity collectively condemned the Nazi's for their actions. If nothing else, this should be a clear indication regarding the immorality of what they did.
Explain that.
(keep in mind that in 1930 antisemitism, protectionism and nationalism was an accepted part of life not only in Germany, the Nazi party had much support in the US and UK, and was allied with Italy and Japan and after the war and even now there are sympathizers, how do you define that "collective" 50%,60%...)
Tue Jun 24, 04:13:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Are you serious? We're talking about a condemnation of the systematic extermination of millions of Jews, Poles, POWs, Communists, homosexuals, gypsies and political dissidents through forced labour, mass shootings, gas chambers and torture.
If you want to argue mankind didn't condemn the Nazis for their actions, do so elsewhere. I'm not interested.
Tue Jun 24, 06:12:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Are you serious? We're talking about a condemnation of the systematic:
- sacrificing of virgins [Aztecs]
- decapitating of people for petty offences [Aztecs,Spanish inquisition]
- burning people [Aztecs,Israelites,God,Spanish inquisition]
- Horrific torture of anyone who didn't agree with /our/ dogma or who looked funny [all of the above]
If you want to argue mankind didn't condemn [the Aztecs,God,the Spanish inquisition,the Israelites...] for their actions, do so elsewhere. I'm not interested.
Tue Jun 24, 06:41:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Hugo,
I've asked you over and over again to prove that execution by burning was condemned by humanity at the time the law was given and you've consistently been unwilling or unable to do so so until you can offer some shred of evidence that supports your claim, we have nothing to talk about.
Tue Jun 24, 09:18:00 AM 2008 
 Darren Delgado said...
Jason said...
I've asked you over and over again to prove that execution by burning was condemned by humanity at the time the law was given and you've consistently been unwilling or unable to do so
It doesn't matter if it was condemned by humanity. It was (supposedly) approved by God. That trumps what humans thought. When God tells you to do something, if you're a primitive middle eastern peasant living 7 millennia ago, you do it. You don't question its morality. So God (or whoever wrote the bible) legitimized these awful abuses.
Either:
(1) they were hoodwinked into accepting immoral behavior by their religious leaders (nonbeliever's stance), or
(2) God really approves of and promotes immoral behavior like burning people alive (believer's stance).
The idea that the God of the Bible takes his cues from what is morally acceptable by humans at the time is absurd from both sides of the argument.
Tue Jun 24, 09:48:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
I've said it before I feel uneasy talking to someone who allows his mind to consider burning people to be the right thing to do in certain circumstances plus I'll take your queue:
"If you want to argue mankind didn't condemn [the Aztecs,God,the Spanish inquisition,the Israelites...] for their actions, do so elsewhere. I'm not interested."
Tue Jun 24, 10:47:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Darren,
It absolutely matters if it was condemned by humanity. How else can you possibly prove execution by burning was immoral at the time? I'm also not sure why you're implying this form of punishment was only endorsed by the Israelite God. The Egyptians did it (sans God), the Assyrians did it (sans God), the Romans did it (sans God), the British did it (sans God), the North American Indians did it (sans God), and the list goes on and on. Execution by burning was a perfectly legitimate form of capital punishment up until only a few centuries ago. We may not like it in the 21st century but according to the standards of the day, it wasn't an immoral form of punishment. You can argue the point all you want, it's not going to change the moral standards of our ancestors.
The idea that the God of the Bible takes his cues from what is morally acceptable by humans at the time is absurd from both sides of the argument.
Great. Then please explain why, in your infinite wisdom, you think it would have been better for God to have enacted laws that were deemed immoral by the people of the time.
Tue Jun 24, 12:34:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said:I didn't say God is only saving His chosen people. What I'm saying is God hasn't changed His mind about who His chosen people are.
This may be your opinion, but it is not universally accepted (with Matthew 21:43 as support). But in any case, if the Jews are supposedly still his chosen people, then he has a strange way of showing it. God saves anyone who believes in Jesus, even though the majority of his chosen people don't believe in Jesus. So most of his chosen people either die eternally or burn in hell, depending on your interpretation of the Scriptures. Maybe if he "softened" the hearts of his so-called chosen people, they would believe and be chosen to live forever in heaven...
Jason said:I also didn't say it was perfectly fine to hurt or kill whoever you wanted back then.
Not in those words, but that is the logical conclusion of your argument. For something to be morally wrong, it must be "collectively condemned" by one's contemporaries. If you killed someone in a way that wasn't collectively condemned, then in your worldview it's perfectly moral to do so, based on your comments here at least. Could this not also be stated as "kill and torture people however you want, as long as society doesn't object"?
Darren said: So God (or whoever wrote the bible) legitimized these awful abuses.
Exactly. That's what Jason doesn't seem to understand. God telling the Israelites it's okay to burn people gives it God's stamp of approval. Jason's God is completely ambivalent apparently and just says and does whatever is already de rigueur regarding morality.
God isn't a moral guide, he's a slave to humanity's morality. Sounds suspiciously like an atheistic stance to me: we humans create God's morality.
Sconnor brought up a very good point that I think you will find hard to refute, Jason. Jainism has been around since at least the 9th century BC. sconnor said burning someone to death "was wrong for the Jains. The most fundamental value of Jainism is nonviolence, or ahimsa. Ahimsa means harming no living being as well as protecting all living beings from harm."
I've heard of Jainism before, but didn't know much about it. Jainism may not be as popular as the big three (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) today, but its influence was "pervasive" in the East, predating Buddhism and greatly influencing Hinduism, according to Wikipedia, among others.
You say the Nazis were wrong because other cultures condemned what they did (it wasn't condemned as collective as it should have been, as others have pointed out, but that's another matter). Other cultures thought killing the Jews was wrong, so it was wrong, regardless of what the Nazis thought.
Let's suppose hypothetically that Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism had more adherents than Judaism did in 9 BC. If these other religions believed burning people at the stake was morally wrong, during the same time period that the Israelites thought it was okay to do, wouldn't this indicate that the Israelites were morally wrong to do so? If not, please explain why.
Tue Jun 24, 03:11:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
You're only going over the same ground again and I'm not interested in discussing hypothetical situations when real evidence has been sadly lacking. The reality of the situation is not one shred of evidence has been provided to support the claim that execution by burning was considered immoral 4000 years ago. If it wasn't a universal, or even cultural wrong, it's logically impossible to objectively judge the actions of our ancestors since the judgment has already been passed in the fact it wasn't considered wrong. Simple as that. Moral standards can only be measured against the moral standards that exist at the time. You can argue and vent and criticize all you want - it won't change a thing. What was moral 10,000 years ago was moral 10,000 years ago. What was moral 4000 years ago was moral 4000 years ago. What is moral today is moral today. No amount of hindsight or 21st century 'wisdom' can change the experiences or moral understanding of our ancestors. Period.
"That is to say if you maintain that there are universal truths and that many people do not live by them then you lose all ability to say what those truths are because any attempt to define them will be based upon your prejudiced conception that you are of course right... You are inevitably compelled to answer either that there are no universal truths or that even if there are they might as well not be since we’ll never know what they are. Or of course you can ignore the logic and steadfastly refuse to give up your perceptions of your own superiority (in this cases “you” refers to a hypothetical moralist)." (reference)
Until someone here can intelligently and logically prove, supported by evidence, that execution by burning is a moral absolute, nothing more needs to be said.
Tue Jun 24, 08:18:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason, was it moral, 4,000+ years ago to practice human and child sacrifice?
4,000+ years ago, the Edomites, Ammonites, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Levants, Moabites, Egyptians, Pagan Arabians, in fact, all of the Middle East, except the Israelites, committed human and child sacrifice. The rest of the world, Neolithic Europe, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Germanic Pagans, Ancient China, India, and Pre-Colombian Civilizations, committed human sacrifice 4,000+ years ago.
Was it moral?
--S.
Tue Jun 24, 11:31:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason, we are having an intelligent discussion, or at least the parts you are willing to discuss.
Jason said:Until someone here can intelligently and logically prove, supported by evidence, that execution by burning is a moral absolute, nothing more needs to be said.
Can you "intelligently and logically prove, supported by evidence," that God exists? No, you can't. Can I prove he doesn't exist? No I can't. We can still discuss the possibilities and try to learn something about our world and our ideas from the discussion.
You ignore my hypothetical, even though you yourself talk in hypotheticals to further your point. (e.g. earlier in the thread, you said So, in 100 years from now, if lethal injection is abolished in favour of another, more humane means to kill, does this mean Steve was "immoral" for supporting the use of lethal injection?) You pose hypotheticals, but say you won't reply to them? This is what politicians on both sides of the aisle have been doing of late, and it only serves to close minds and discussions instead of opening them.
You quoted the GNN blog as stating "if you maintain that there are universal truths and that many people do not live by them then you lose all ability to say what those truths are because any attempt to define them will be based upon your prejudiced conception that you are of course right... "
This is incorrect on several fronts. I don't think anyone claims that all people share universal truths about morality. There have always been, and always will be, people who do not accept the morality of others, or who actively work against this morality for their own benefit. If a mass murderer says he doesn't recognize killing people as morally wrong, do we accept his view on morality and let him free? One person objecting to something being moral does not shatter the concept of morality.
The blog continues: You are inevitably compelled to answer either that there are no universal truths or that even if there are they might as well not be since we’ll never know what they are.
I agree that we may never know for sure what they are. That doesn't mean there aren't moral absolutes just because we'll never be 100% sure. We need to act as best as we can given the knowledge and experiences accumulated over the years. That's why, in my opinion, we are better at understanding morality than we used to be.
Since you pose hypotheticals, I will repost mine in hopes you will answer.
If these other religions believed burning people at the stake was morally wrong, during the same time period that the Israelites thought it was okay to do, wouldn't this indicate that the Israelites were morally wrong to do so? If not, please explain why.
Also, I would like to know what you think of Darren's point: Does God saying Israelites can burn people legitimize (and arguably prolongs) the practice?
If you won't answer my hypothetical, will you answer Sconnor's non-hypothetical about human and child sacrifice? To be more specific (since there's plenty of killing going on in the Bible), there was no ritualistic human sacrifice, by which Israelites systematically killed people as part of a religious ceremony. Was it wrong to ritualistically sacrifice humans in the ancient world, even though it appears that many if not most civilizations did so?
Thank you in advance for your replies.
Wed Jun 25, 03:05:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
We're dealing with inarguable historical fact, not idle hypothesizing or random possibilities.
As I previously stated, no evidence has been provided to support the claim that execution by burning was considered immoral 4000 years ago. If it wasn't a universal, or even cultural wrong, it's logically impossible to objectively judge the actions of our ancestors since the judgment has already been passed in the fact it wasn't considered wrong.
Moral standards can only be measured against the moral standards that exist at the time. What was moral 10,000 years ago was moral 10,000 years ago. What was moral 4000 years ago was moral 4000 years ago. What is moral today is moral today. No amount of hindsight or 21st century 'wisdom' can change the experiences or moral understanding of our ancestors.
For example, a little more than 100 years ago, it was considered immoral for a woman to show her ankles in public. Yet today women skip about in costumes that leave little to the imagination. Does that make them immoral or morally inferior? Certainly not. It simply means that the times have changed and people have become more comfortable with the human body. Yet, if there were some set of 'universal' morals established a century ago, the women of today would justifiably be labeled immoral tramps. The point is, times change. So do attitudes about what is and isn't acceptable.
As for your questions:
If these other religions believed burning people at the stake was morally wrong, during the same time period that the Israelites thought it was okay to do, wouldn't this indicate that the Israelites were morally wrong to do so? It's not an issue of religion, it's a matter of social justice and the answer to your question is most likely, yes.
Also, I would like to know what you think of Darren's point: Does God saying Israelites can burn people legitimize (and arguably prolongs) the practice? As soon as Darren chooses to answer my questions, I shall happily answer his.
Was it wrong to ritualistically sacrifice humans in the ancient world, even though it appears that many if not most civilizations did so? Wrong from who's point of view? Ours? The Ancient Egyptians? The morals of the universe?
Thu Jun 26, 06:39:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason, I could act outraged at your comparing killing someone by burning them to the choice of women's clothes, but I won't because I know you weren't implying that they are the same level of severity.
Your analogy about women's clothing is interesting. I don't think everything is morally wrong or morally right. I don't think clothing length is a moral issue (although I'm sure some would disagree). This is an issue that evolves as time goes by, and I don't think there is a right or wrong: just what people think. I guess it would fall under decency or propriety rather than morality, just like burping after a meal is expected in some Asian cultures but frowned on in the West. It's not right or wrong, it's just custom.
If you purposely wear an offensive shirt for the sole reason of offending or upsetting other people, that's probably wrong. If there's a reason behind it (political protest, etc.) it would depend on the circumstance I suppose. But there's nothing inherently wrong with what type of clothes one wears, whereas there is something inherently wrong with burning someone to death, in my opinion.
Thank you for answering my question about the morality of burning if other religions were against it; it was a very honest answer. I would like to know though why you divorce morality from religion.
Many if not most Christians believe that morality comes from God and/or the Bible. Atheists and agnostics are often criticized and told they "can't" be moral people if they don't believe in God, but you seem to separate the two. I agree with this separation, but it seems like an interesting stance for a believer to take.
About ritualistically sacrificing humans: I mean wrong in the same way that burning people was or wasn't moral (at the time of the Israelites, or regardless of the time period, whichever you prefer to address).
Thu Jun 26, 03:15:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Your analogy about women's clothing is interesting. I don't think everything is morally wrong or morally right. I don't think clothing length is a moral issue (although I'm sure some would disagree). This is an issue that evolves as time goes by, and I don't think there is a right or wrong: just what people think. I guess it would fall under decency or propriety rather than morality, just like burping after a meal is expected in some Asian cultures but frowned on in the West. It's not right or wrong, it's just custom.
You not thinking clothing length is a moral issue today is ignoring the point. My point was that times have changed as have attitudes about what is and isn't acceptable. 4000 years ago, people thought it was right to execute a criminal by burning them. We think it's wrong today. Thus we have a change in thought. Neither one is any more right or wrong, it's just different.
If you purposely wear an offensive shirt for the sole reason of offending or upsetting other people, that's probably wrong. If there's a reason behind it (political protest, etc.) it would depend on the circumstance I suppose. But there's nothing inherently wrong with what type of clothes one wears, whereas there is something inherently wrong with burning someone to death, in my opinion.
You’re again speaking from a 21st century point of view – your opinion on the matter, while interesting, isn’t relevant to a conversation revolving around the morals of a completely different time period. We’re talking about what was considered acceptable back then based on the standards of the day.
Thank you for answering my question about the morality of burning if other religions were against it; it was a very honest answer. I would like to know though why you divorce morality from religion.
Because as stated before, this isn’t about religion. This is about a lawful, socially accepted form of capital punishment that was used for thousands of years by dozens and dozens of varied civilizations.
Many if not most Christians believe that morality comes from God and/or the Bible. Atheists and agnostics are often criticized and told they "can't" be moral people if they don't believe in God, but you seem to separate the two. I agree with this separation, but it seems like an interesting stance for a believer to take.
The topic isn’t about examining the source of morals. The topic is about examining an action that was considered moral by our ancestors and someone explaining how it’s possible and reasonable to judge their actions from a 21st century point of view.
About ritualistically sacrificing humans: I mean wrong in the same way that burning people was or wasn't moral (at the time of the Israelites, or regardless of the time period, whichever you prefer to address).
If you asked an Ancient Egyptian if they thought ritualistically sacrificing someone was wrong, what do you suppose they would say?
Thu Jun 26, 04:11:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Isn't it completely obvious that Jason is a fucking idiot and he can't honestly answer the questions. He knows he is fucked and now he has to answer questions with questions and diverge, like a two-bit suck-wad magician, in a bad tuxedo, to protect his, oh, so, precious religious philosophies -- albeit, delusional, strained and ignorant religious philosophies.
--S.
Thu Jun 26, 05:14:00 PM 2008 
 Hugo said...
If you asked an Ancient Egyptian if they thought ritualistically sacrificing someone was wrong, what do you suppose they would say?
Lets see, if you ask the one about to be sacrificed I think quite a few would say it was wrong (if you have definite statistics on how many found it right and how many found it wrong please provide the evidence)
If you ask the man in the street (alley) quite a few probably know people or had relatives being sacrificed and might say that it was wrong (if you have definite statistics on how many found it right and how many found it wrong please provide the evidence)
If you ask the executioners some might enjoy some might not like it but they are not in a position to question the morality what they're doing because then they end up on the block. (if you have definite statistics on how many found it right and how many found it wrong please provide the evidence)
If you ask the priests and rulers, some might really think it is completely the right thing to do and some might see some wrongness in it but weighted against the consequence of Ra's punishment they order and supervise the sacrifices anyway (if you have definite statistics on how many found it right and how many found it wrong please provide the evidence)
So what was your point again? Why does our society not burn people anymore, if the morals of a society are lawful and socially accepted how can they change?
sconner you're right off-course but it isn't moral to say it :-)
Plus jason's beliefs are so weird, it's mesmerizing to read his replies like watching a youtube video of a monkey eating his own shit, it's wrong but you can't look away ;-)
Thu Jun 26, 11:21:00 PM 2008 
 Darren Delgado said...
hugo wrote:
If you ask the priests and rulers, some might really think it is completely the right thing to do and some might see some wrongness in it but weighted against the consequence of Ra's punishment they order and supervise the sacrifices anyway (if you have definite statistics on how many found it right and how many found it wrong please provide the evidence)
Throughout this whole discussion, I find it amazing that the old-time widespread belief in gruesome punishment is being offered up as some kinda moral validation.
It was not moral, it was COMPLIANCE THROUGH FEAR. People believed in the bible, and they believed that if they didn't comply they would burn themselves, forever, in hell. Or be turned into salt. Or some other nonsense.
Fri Jun 27, 05:42:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Yes, and we (well the enlightened ones amongst us anyway) can see that those beliefs were fantasy.
So the action was done on false beliefs no matter how devout those beliefs may have been that their gods punishments were forthcoming it does not matter for the rightness of an action, the Nazi's very much believed in what they were doing as well.
Fri Jun 27, 05:57:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Hugo,
Why does our society not burn people anymore, if the morals of a society are lawful and socially accepted how can they change?
There's a really interesting phenomena called 'social change'. Perhaps you've heard of it...? Take some time to read this:
"...neither traditional moral norms nor traditional philosophical ethics were up to the task of coping with the problems raised by these dramatic transformations. Traditional morality was adapted to conditions that no longer existed...As social conditions change — for example, the technology and tactics of warfare, and our ability to affect the interests of distant others — rules of conduct that had been accepted in the past must be subject to revision, lest learning cease and people remain mired in dysfunctional habits. A method of moral inquiry is needed that can revise given rules, laws, and habits in light of new problems and circumstances. This method would take current and past customs and laws as data for moral theory, in conjunction with the history and anthropology of custom, the history of systematic theoretical reflection on morality, and the social sciences, which inform us of the probable consequences of attempting to institute this or that new law or custom. Intelligent moral inquiry, while it begins with current customs and convictions about the right, treats them as hypotheses to be tested in experience." (reference)
**Note the complete lack of judgment on past moral standards**
As for my beliefs being "weird", you seem to be missing the point that we both agree - execution by burning is wrong today. The difference between us (and the one everyone seems to be getting upset about) is that I believe it's impossible to judge the actions of our ancestors based on 21st century morals. This isn't a unique thought - it's shared by historians, philosophers and every day people the world around. Unless you can show that the moral standards of the time defined the specific action as immoral, your argument holds no water.
And I know how much everyone likes to talk about themselves here but get with it already. The rightness or wrongness of actions 4000 or 10,000 years ago don't somehow hinge on what individuals consider right or wrong today. This isn't about you. This is about history. Execution by burning was a perfectly legitimate form of capital punishment up until only a few centuries ago. This is historical fact. We may not like it in the 21st century but according to the standards of the day, it wasn't an immoral form of punishment. You can argue the point all you want but it doesn't change the moral standards of our ancestors.
Fri Jun 27, 08:32:00 AM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Wow, Jason Numbnuts, is quoting atheists now.
Naturalists and materialistic monists such as, John Dewey considered the natural world to be the basis of everything, denying the existence of God or immortality.
--S.
Fri Jun 27, 07:55:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said: You not thinking clothing length is a moral issue today is ignoring the point.
No it's not. My favorite color is blue. This is not a moral choice, so I don't judge someone morally if their favorite color is red. Everything is not a moral issue.
Jason said: this isn’t about religion.
I don't believe morality has to do with religion, but I assume you do. You don't think picking Christianity over Islam is like picking blue over red, do you? Please explain to me how, in your opinion, morality has nothing to do with Christianity, or Christianity has nothing to do with morality, and I will accept this assertion from you. Otherwise, it just means you're avoiding the question.
Jason said: The topic is about examining an action that was considered moral by our ancestors and someone explaining how it’s possible and reasonable to judge their actions from a 21st century point of view.
Were you old enough in 1930s and 1940 to condemn what the Nazis were doing then? If not, according to your standards, you can't say what they did is or isn't moral. You can say that the society of the time judged it to be immoral, but you can't claim that it is still immoral today. Am I correct? I say what the Nazis did was immoral, would have been immoral 1000 years ago, and will still be immoral 1000 years from now. In your limited idea of morality, only contemporaries can judge.
If you asked an Ancient Egyptian if they thought ritualistically sacrificing someone was wrong, what do you suppose they would say?
If you asked Adolf Hitler if he thought exterminating 6 million Jews and countless other Gypsies, handicapped, and other "undesirables", what would he say? According to your system, it's what one's contemporary humanity collectively believes, correct? In mine, it is regardless of how misguided an individual or society may be at the given time. So neither of us think asking an Aztec would determine whether human sacrifice was moral.
Hugo and Darren bring up some very good points: acceptance does not equal morality. Coercion, self-interest, ignorance, and many other factors might play into whether or not someone rises up against a law or a punishment. The fact that the punishment of burning people exists in the Bible doesn't indicate by any means that most people at the time thought it was moral. Unless you can prove that this was the case, your argument that it was moral back then cannot be sustained.
That execution by burning existed is a historical fact, I don't think there's any dispute on that point. But you can't prove that most people thought it was moral to do. I say it's inherently immoral, regardless of whether or not we ever find out if a majority of people supported it or not.
About Jason picking a Non-Christian source, I'm sure this was done intentionally. Just as all Christians do not believe the same thing, all non-believers don't believe the same thing. It is interesting to bring up, however. There are Christians and non-Christians who fall on different sides of the issue, apparently.
Fri Jun 27, 09:00:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason said, I believe, and logically so, that morality is based on what's deemed acceptable by the majority of mankind at the time.
Sconnor asked in a previous debate, Throughout history, in many civilizations and cultures, human sacrifices (babies, children, and adults) took place; do you find those morally repugnant or only the child part? Or can't you make a decision without using your fairytale, Bible, that has only an illusion of authority, you delusionally, deem viable ?
Jason answered, I consider them all to be morally repugnant.
Uh, oh, dumb-fuck, how can that be? You don't find burning someone to death morally repugnant 4,000 years ago, because of your convoluted reasoning, yet, somehow, you think, logically (I might add) that the majority of mankind who performed human sacrifices are morally unacceptable. It's quite dizzying, isn't it, Jason? Cuckoo, cuckoo!
I await your thoroughly confusing, convoluted, (trying to wallop the square peg into the round hole), rationalizations and non-answers, or better yet, stick your tail between your fuckin' legs and get the fuck out of dodge, you delusional, psycho-fuck.
--S.
Fri Jun 27, 10:04:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
No it's not. My favorite color is blue. This is not a moral choice, so I don't judge someone morally if their favorite color is red. Everything is not a moral issue.
I didn’t say everything is a moral issue. Please don’t misrepresent my comments. What I’m saying is that some things, such as clothing length, were once considered moral issues. My point, again, was that times have changed as have attitudes about what is and isn't acceptable. 4000 years ago, people thought it was right to execute a criminal by burning them. We think it's wrong today. Thus we have a change in thought. Neither one is any more right or wrong, it's just different.
I don't believe morality has to do with religion, but I assume you do. You don't think picking Christianity over Islam is like picking blue over red, do you? Please explain to me how, in your opinion, morality has nothing to do with Christianity, or Christianity has nothing to do with morality, and I will accept this assertion from you. Otherwise, it just means you're avoiding the question.
I didn’t say morality has nothing to do with Christianity. Again, a more careful reading of my posts would be appreciated. What I did say was that execution by burning is about a lawful, socially accepted form of capital punishment used for thousands of years by dozens and dozens of varied civilizations.
Were you old enough in 1930s and 1940 to condemn what the Nazis were doing then? If not, according to your standards, you can't say what they did is or isn't moral. You can say that the society of the time judged it to be immoral, but you can't claim that it is still immoral today. Am I correct?
I can claim it is still immoral today because if the same actions were carried out today, they would still be considered morally reprehensible.
I say what the Nazis did was immoral, would have been immoral 1000 years ago, and will still be immoral 1000 years from now. In your limited idea of morality, only contemporaries can judge.
Incorrect. What I’ve reiterated time and time again is that the morality of an action or behaviour can only be judged by considering the moral standards of the time. What’s moral today is moral today, what’s moral tomorrow is moral tomorrow, and what was moral yesterday was moral yesterday. This is a basic, unalterable, inarguable fact. If it was wrong to imprison criminals 500 years ago, it was wrong to imprison criminals 500 years ago. If it was acceptable to burning criminals 20,000 years ago, it was acceptable to burn criminals 20,000 years ago. If it’s immoral to own a dog in 2098AD, it’s immoral to own a dog in 2098AD. No amount of hindsight or foresight alters the moral standards of a time not our own. I see no logical reason for you to disagree with these facts.
If you asked Adolf Hitler if he thought exterminating 6 million Jews and countless other Gypsies, handicapped, and other "undesirables", what would he say? According to your system, it's what one's contemporary humanity collectively believes, correct?
Contemporary humanity didn’t condemn execution by burning up until only a few hundred years ago. Contemporary humanity condemned the actions of the Nazis.
In mine, it is regardless of how misguided an individual or society may be at the given time.
What is your system? How do you judge a misguided society if they didn’t have the knowledge to know they were misguided? In your system, who defines what is ‘guided’ or ‘misguided’?
The fact that the punishment of burning people exists in the Bible doesn't indicate by any means that most people at the time thought it was moral. Unless you can prove that this was the case, your argument that it was moral back then cannot be sustained.
I’ve already proven that many, many ‘world’ empires and ‘civilized’ nations incorporated execution by burning into their justice system and I have yet to find any evidence of a legitimate anti-execution by burning movement prior to the 18th century. This is more then enough evidence for me. I’ve seen nothing (and I literally mean nothing) from your camp that would give me cause to rethink my position.
That execution by burning existed is a historical fact, I don't think there's any dispute on that point. But you can't prove that most people thought it was moral to do. I say it's inherently immoral, regardless of whether or not we ever find out if a majority of people supported it or not.
And people who lived 4000 years ago would disagree. Since we’re talking about THEIR standard of morals, I will remind you again that voicing our 21st century opinion on the matter changes nothing.
Sun Jun 29, 07:04:00 PM 2008 
 Hugo said...
I'll just highlight this because it cuts to the heart of things:
Contemporary humanity didn’t condemn execution by burning up until only a few hundred years ago.
As been pointed out, you do not know that!
The fact that it happened and was supported and performed by the rulers and their guards does not mean that humanity was OK with it, and the fact that there is no evidence of anti movements does not mean that there were none (weird that I have to argue this to a believer), it could just mean that the rulers and practitioners of the time were good at quenching opposing voices.
However clearly at one point there were enough anti voices to get rid of the practice, if there had not been our rulers could still be using those practices.
Contemporary humanity condemned the actions of the Nazis.
And this is the major flaw in jason's logic, contemporary (certain members of) humanity condemned (to various degrees) the Nazis AFTER the facts, leading up to and during the war the Nazi party had LOTS of supporters, the Nazi invading force was welcomed into Austria (and several other countries), even after Poland's annexation the opposition was trying to "keep the peace" and they full well knew of the existence of antisemitism laws and Jewish persecution.
Sun Jun 29, 11:28:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Hugo said: As been pointed out, you do not know that!
Based on historical records, I do. Since there's no evidence humanity didn’t condemn execution by burning up until only a few hundred years ago, I can logically and fairly make the claim humanity didn't condemn execution by burning until only a few hundred years ago. If you want to argue the point, I suggest you provide counter-evidence.
The fact that it happened and was supported and performed by the rulers and their guards does not mean that humanity was OK with it, and the fact that there is no evidence of anti movements does not mean that there were none (weird that I have to argue this to a believer), it could just mean that the rulers and practitioners of the time were good at quenching opposing voices.
And following the logic of your argument, it could just as easily not mean that. You have no proof to support your claim - your entire argument is based on conjecture.
However clearly at one point there were enough anti voices to get rid of the practice, if there had not been our rulers could still be using those practices.
I'm not arguing otherwise.
And this is the major flaw in jason's logic, contemporary (certain members of) humanity condemned (to various degrees) the Nazis AFTER the facts, leading up to and during the war the Nazi party had LOTS of supporters, the Nazi invading force was welcomed into Austria (and several other countries), even after Poland's annexation the opposition was trying to "keep the peace" and they full well knew of the existence of antisemitism laws and Jewish persecution.
For the last time, we're not talking about anti-Semitism or Jewish persecution. We're talking about the systematic destruction of Jews, Poles, Communists, homosexuals, etc.. Unless you're prepared to suggest humanity didn't condemn the Holocaust, drop this argument.
Mon Jun 30, 08:24:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
You don't get it, it is your logic that would not allow us to condemn the Nazi's, I condemn them, the same way I condemn the Aztecs, the bible people, the French guillotine, the Chinese ...
If you were consistent you would also say that the Nazi's acted according to their society the same way the Aztecs did.
AGAIN
For the last time, we're not talking about burning a few really evil people.
We're talking about the systematic destruction of first born virgins, other tribes, Spaniards, homosexuals (meh, this was probably a sin with the Aztecs too), etc..
Mon Jun 30, 10:21:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
History shows humanity condemned the Nazi's for the Holocaust. History shows humanity didn't condemn anyone for executing criminals by burning them. I'm not sure what you're struggling with...? How you can justify condemning your ancestors for participating in immoral behaviour when the moral standards of their day didn't condemn them is beyond me.
We're talking about the systematic destruction of first born virgins, other tribes, Spaniards, homosexuals...etc..
No we're not. We're talking about an ancient form of capital punishment, specifically execution by burning for a specific crime.
Mon Jun 30, 11:19:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason: I didn’t say everything is a moral issue. Please don’t misrepresent my comments. What I’m saying is that some things, such as clothing length, were once considered moral issues. My point, again, was that times have changed as have attitudes about what is and isn't acceptable.
I was not intentionally misrepresenting your comments, but I understand your point. It is included along with the old law in the Old Testament, and as I said some would disagree with my categorizing dress as outside the realm of morals. My point was that some things are amoral, rather than everything being moral or immoral.
Jason: 4000 years ago, people thought it was right to execute a criminal by burning them. We think it's wrong today. Thus we have a change in thought. Neither one is any more right or wrong, it's just different.
This doesn't allow for progress, and causes definitional problems as well. Slavery was considered moral in the 1800s in the US and much of the world. Then people (in the minority) started fighting against it. Wars were fought. Eventually, the tide turned and most people thought slavery was wrong.
In your viewpoint, slavery was apparently morally right until a humanity collectively decided it was wrong. Can you pinpoint when this occurred? Was it at the conclusion of the US Civil War? Was it when the French freed their slaves in 1848. At what point was it no longer moral to own slaves?
As Hugo said: You don't get it, it is your logic that would not allow us to condemn the Nazi's
It wasn't until after Hitler invaded Poland that much of the world suddenly got a conscience (publicly at least) and realized that Naziism had to be stopped. Even after then, many still supported the Nazis. Was Hitler's plan for the master race moral until some scattered people started to speak up against it in the early to mid 1930s? Until most of the world woke up in 1939? Until the US entered the war in 1941? Until Naziism was defeated in 1945?
Jason said: I didn’t say morality has nothing to do with Christianity. Again, a more careful reading of my posts would be appreciated.
I've been reading your posts very carefully. You refuse to say what the relationship is between religion and morality. After numerous attempts to find out your view on this, I am taking your lack of response, and your continual recourse to secular arguments about a Biblical issue (we agree that burning people is dictated by God and performed by him in the Bible, don't we?), as an indication that you believe morality and Christianity are unrelated. If you think morality and God are related despite your silence on the subject, please explain how.
Jason said: What is your system? How do you judge a misguided society if they didn’t have the knowledge to know they were misguided? In your system, who defines what is ‘guided’ or ‘misguided’?
Misguided in many cases by their politicians, their religious leaders (and so-called holy books), corporations, and other entities trying to get humans to act in ways contrary to the common good.
Most Americans thought invading Iraq was the right thing to do because they were (mis)guided into believing so. If most Israelites thought burning people to death was fine, how do we know it wasn't because they were (mis)guided into believing so by their religious leaders and the (supposed) word of God?
I believe some things are inherently moral, some things are inherently immoral, and some are neither. I think that since there is no deity to tell us what is right and wrong, humans gradually have come to a better understanding of morality on our own. Gender equality, racial equality, conservation of our planet; these are all moral issues. Humans, as they understand the relationships between each other and their environment, are becoming more moral.
Without a clear moral guide from on high, humanity's had to figure it out on its own. We make mistakes, and people go against morality sometimes, but we're gradually moving towards a more just world.
The reason you can't explain the relationship between morality and religion is because you know that you can't prove that most of our so-called "modern" morality has anything to do with what's in the Bible. Unlike what many if not most Christians believe, morality as we understand it today is hard to find in the Bible among all the amoral and immoral stories like execution by burning.
If what is recounted in the Bible about burning people and so many other issues can no longer be considered moral, but is instead immoral as we understand it today, then why should people pay it any heed whatsoever, unless they like reading stories or they are afraid of dying?
Mon Jun 30, 03:23:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
This doesn't allow for progress, and causes definitional problems as well. Slavery was considered moral in the 1800s in the US and much of the world. Then people (in the minority) started fighting against it. Wars were fought. Eventually, the tide turned and most people thought slavery was wrong.
What doesn’t allow for progress? 4000 years ago, people thought it was right to execute a criminal by burning them. Today we don’t. I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with…?
In your viewpoint, slavery was apparently morally right until a humanity collectively decided it was wrong. Can you pinpoint when this occurred? Was it at the conclusion of the US Civil War? Was it when the French freed their slaves in 1848. At what point was it no longer moral to own slaves?
No idea.
You refuse to say what the relationship is between religion and morality. After numerous attempts to find out your view on this, I am taking your lack of response, and your continual recourse to secular arguments about a Biblical issue (we agree that burning people is dictated by God and performed by him in the Bible, don't we?), as an indication that you believe morality and Christianity are unrelated. If you think morality and God are related despite your silence on the subject, please explain how.
We’re discussing a law given to Israelites 4000 years ago which is approximately 4000 years before the existence of Christianity, hence my confusion why you’re trying to connect Christianity with the 4000 year-old moral issue of execution by burning. We’ve also seen there were many, many other civilizations who carried out the same form of capital punishment so I fail to see why you’re limiting this issue to only the Israelites. Burning criminals wasn’t a religious matter, it was a judicial matter.
Misguided in many cases by their politicians, their religious leaders (and so-called holy books), corporations, and other entities trying to get humans to act in ways contrary to the common good.
That's fine but it doesn’t answer my questions. What is your system? How do you judge a misguided society if they didn’t have the knowledge to know they were misguided? In your system, who defines what is ‘guided’ or ‘misguided’?
Most Americans thought invading Iraq was the right thing to do because they were (mis)guided into believing so. If most Israelites thought burning people to death was fine, how do we know it wasn't because they were (mis)guided into believing so by their religious leaders and the (supposed) word of God?
Once again, this isn’t about the Israelites. This is about every civilization (and there are a lot of them) who thought execution by burning was an acceptable form of capital punishment. It’s like condemning a lost civilization found in the Amazon because they practice cannibalism. It’s not a logical response because the knowledge they require to know that mankind frowns upon cannibalism simply doesn’t exist. This is also why we don’t condemn our ancestors for behaving or acting in a certain way if it was accepted by the moral standards of the day.
The reason you can't explain the relationship between morality and religion is because you know that you can't prove that most of our so-called "modern" morality has anything to do with what's in the Bible. Unlike what many if not most Christians believe, morality as we understand it today is hard to find in the Bible among all the amoral and immoral stories like execution by burning.
Absolutely irrelevant. We’re not talking about the morals of the 21st century. I don’t know why we have to keep coming back to this. The fundamental fact of the matter is for thousands and thousands of years, humanity didn’t condemn execution by burning. It wasn’t immoral to execute by burning 10,000 years ago, 8,000 years ago, or 2000 years ago. The moral standards of the day were what they were. The morals of today are what they are. It was different back then as it’ll be different 1000 years in the future. Our standard of morality applies to ourselves and ourselves alone.
If what is recounted in the Bible about burning people and so many other issues can no longer be considered moral, but is instead immoral as we understand it today, then why should people pay it any heed whatsoever, unless they like reading stories or they are afraid of dying?
Why shouldn’t people pay heed to it? There are wonderful examples of courage and dedication and love and faithfulness. We find the same kinds of thing in any history book, whether it’s about the history of the Jews or the history of the pilgrims. We read history for what it is: history.
Mon Jun 30, 04:39:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Earlier, you said Jason: We think it's wrong today. Thus we have a change in thought. Neither one is any more right or wrong, it's just different. Your earlier position was there was a difference in ideas, not progress.
When I argued that this doesn't allow for progress, you said: What doesn’t allow for progress? 4000 years ago, people thought it was right to execute a criminal by burning them. Today we don’t. I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with…?
So you agree with me, then, that it is progress to no longer accept executing criminals by burning them to death? It's not just "different", but we've actually made progress on this issue since the days of the Israelites. Do you agree with this? This is what I and others have been arguing all along: it's better not to burn people to death.
We’re discussing a law given to Israelites 4000 years ago which is approximately 4000 years before the existence of Christianity, hence my confusion why you’re trying to connect Christianity with the 4000 year-old moral issue of execution by burning.
You're intentionally being difficult here. The Christian Bible contains the Old Testament. We're on a site that discusses religion. Millions if not billions of Christians believe the Old Testament to be the word of God. If a matter is covered in a religion's holy book, then it is a religious matter and appropriate for discussion here, is it not? If you want to call it a Judeo-Christian matter, be my guest, but it is also a Christian matter.
We’ve also seen there were many, many other civilizations who carried out the same form of capital punishment so I fail to see why you’re limiting this issue to only the Israelites.
Just because other societies burned people doesn't mean we can't examine the Israelites. Do you believe the Bible to be holy, or superior to other religious texts?
I'll ask you again to explain how morality relates to the Judeo-Christian texts in the Bible. Feel free to put aside the issue of burning for the moment. Is the Bible, or the Old Testament, a moral guide? Is it a holy book? Is it simply a history book? Is it all of these things? When I read the Bible, tell me what I should be thinking.
As for me: as I've said before, I don't believe there is a "source" for morality. Most Christians believe God is the source, or at least a source, for morality. Do you disagree?
Mon Jun 30, 05:35:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Hang it up Jason, you're not on firm ground. Your arguments are built on quicksand and only the faint, echo of your loquacious, blatherings can be heard, as you took your last gulp of air and went under.
Your argument has been obliterated. If you can say it was morally reprehensible 4,000 years ago to practice human sacrifices, why can't you say it was morally repugnant and wrong to burn people to death 4,000 years ago?
Jason says, the morality of an action or behaviour can only be judged by considering the moral standards of the time.
Really Jason? Then, how did you come to the conclusion that it was morally repugnant to practice human sacrifice, when the moral standards, of the time, deemed it moral to sacrifice humans?
Every time you vomit up your blatherskite, you keep cutting your own throat. You just keep digging your grave deeper and deeper. You are a pathetic dolt.
--S.
Mon Jun 30, 09:55:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Earlier, you said Jason: We think it's wrong today. Thus we have a change in thought. Neither one is any more right or wrong, it's just different. Your earlier position was there was a difference in ideas, not progress.
Correct.
So you agree with me, then, that it is progress to no longer accept executing criminals by burning them to death? It's not just "different", but we've actually made progress on this issue since the days of the Israelites. Do you agree with this? This is what I and others have been arguing all along: it's better not to burn people to death.
What I was enquiring about was why you think my initial comment doesn’t allow for progress. I'm merely trying to understand how you came to this conclusion - I'm not stating one of my own.
You're intentionally being difficult here. The Christian Bible contains the Old Testament. We're on a site that discusses religion. Millions if not billions of Christians believe the Old Testament to be the word of God. If a matter is covered in a religion's holy book, then it is a religious matter and appropriate for discussion here, is it not? If you want to call it a Judeo-Christian matter, be my guest, but it is also a Christian matter.
I'm not being difficult. You’re trying to link the Christian standard of morals to ancient laws given to Jews. I’m merely explaining to you that this link doesn’t exist. The Christian standard of morals is based on the laws given by Christ, not the laws given to the Jews. A distinction between the two is obviously required considering your questions regarding Christianity and morality.
Just because other societies burned people doesn't mean we can't examine the Israelites. Do you believe the Bible to be holy, or superior to other religious texts?
That's fine. But what I’m saying is that execution by burning isn’t something that’s limited to only the Israelites even though some of the language being used here is trying to suggest this. I’ve provided ample evidence that this form of capital punishment was included in the system of law in many other civilizations.
I'll ask you again to explain how morality relates to the Judeo-Christian texts in the Bible. Feel free to put aside the issue of burning for the moment. Is the Bible, or the Old Testament, a moral guide? Is it a holy book? Is it simply a history book? Is it all of these things? When I read the Bible, tell me what I should be thinking.
A Christian derives their standard of morals from the teachings of Christ. We read the OT to understand the history of the Jews, the plan for Christ, God’s expectations of mankind and examining the lives of men and women from which we can draw lessons from.
What does this have to do with the ability or inability to judge the actions of our ancestors using a 21st century standard of morals?
As for me: as I've said before, I don't believe there is a "source" for morality. Most Christians believe God is the source, or at least a source, for morality. Do you disagree?
Since you made reference to it, I’m trying to find out what your ‘system’ is. I'd like you to define it for me. Furthermore, I would appreciate answers to these questions: How do you judge a misguided society if they didn’t have the knowledge to know they were misguided? In the absence of a source of morality, who defines what is ‘guided’ or ‘misguided’? This is important as it will help explain why you’re struggling with the issue of morally judging our ancestors.
Wed Jul 02, 07:57:00 AM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason keeps giving himself more rope to hang himself with.
Jason considers it immoral for people, throughout time, to practice the barbaric action of human sacrifice but can't say it was immoral, at the time, for barbarians to burn people to death.
Why is that Jason?
What's the matter, does reason and logic have your tongue?
--S.
Wed Jul 02, 12:44:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said: A Christian derives their standard of morals from the teachings of Christ. We read the OT to understand the history of the Jews, the plan for Christ, God’s expectations of mankind and examining the lives of men and women from which we can draw lessons from.
If the OT is meant to help you draw lessons, do you think this would be a valid lesson:
1) God burns people in the Old Testament and commands people to be burned
2) Jesus doesn't burn anyone or command anyone to be burned
3) Therefore, God no longer thinks burning people is okay
If this isn't the type of lesson that Christians are supposed to learn from the old law, then what is?
How do you judge a misguided society if they didn’t have the knowledge to know they were misguided?
It depends on what you define by judging. I, and others, have said that I believe burning people to be timelessly immoral. But if people weren't smart or compassionate enough back then to know it, then that's understandable.
I'm not saying the Aztecs should burn in hell eternally because they sacrificed people. But the act of sacrificing people is wrong. If we don't recognize this, and we tell ourselves and our kids "it was okay for the Aztecs to sacrifice people because that's what people did back then", then we are teaching our kids that sacrificing people, or injustice in general, is fine as long as people don't object.
Most Americans thought it was okay to invade, destroy, maim, and kill people in Iraq. Fortunately, some people realized right away this was wrong, and gradually more and more people are understanding this.
If everyone just accepted what is considered right at the time to be the be all and end all of morality, and decided to sit things out because the majority think something's morally right, then how does any moral progress happen? How does humanity get less cruel? How does anyone learn that next time a similar situation comes up, it's wrong to do unless you can say some things are wrong, no matter how many people currently believe they're right?
The Geneva Conventions, which you originally brought up, are an attempt to do just that: to say, no matter what happens, no matter what anyone else says, you can't treat prisoners a certain way. Bush and company decided to take a relativist approach and say that the war on terrorism gave them the right to ignore the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions weren't meant to be valid just for that time period; they were meant to be universal rules and rights.
There are some things that are simply wrong no matter what. It's not an exact "system", and never claimed it was, but I feel it is better than your alternative of anything is fine if the majority doesn't object.
Thu Jul 03, 06:15:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
If this isn't the type of lesson that Christians are supposed to learn from the old law, then what is?
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (Gal 3:24)
It depends on what you define by judging. I, and others, have said that I believe burning people to be timelessly immoral. But if people weren't smart or compassionate enough back then to know it, then that's understandable.
By judging I mean what you're doing with Israelites. Regardless, firstly, your comment sounds an awful lot like chronological snobbery. Secondly, by your own admission, you might never know what the universal morals are so I’m not sure why you think your argument holds water…? You could just as easily be wrong and execution by burning isn’t a universal moral so I don’t see how you can be so dogmatic about your position. I think you've set yourself up for having no say in the matter by admitting you don't know if you're right.
I'm not saying the Aztecs should burn in hell eternally because they sacrificed people. But the act of sacrificing people is wrong. If we don't recognize this, and we tell ourselves and our kids "it was okay for the Aztecs to sacrifice people because that's what people did back then", then we are teaching our kids that sacrificing people, or injustice in general, is fine as long as people don't object.
Instead of passing any kind of judgment, good or bad, we teach history for what it is: history. No one says it was "good" for people to pour burning oil over their enemies when a castle was under siege. Likewise, no one says it was "bad". No one says it was "good" that people fought with swords and spiked clubs, no one says it was "bad". It just was.
If everyone just accepted what is considered right at the time to be the be all and end all of morality, and decided to sit things out because the majority think something's morally right, then how does any moral progress happen?
I don’t see how you’re coming to this conclusion. Societies change. People change. Morals change. Just because a civilization accepted execution by burning as a morally acceptable form of capital punishment doesn’t require them to maintain this moral standard for eternity. As new ways of doing something comes along, old ones become obsolete. This is how the world works. The new and improved ways of killing people now don't make the old ones immoral - they simply make them old.
There are some things that are simply wrong no matter what. It's not an exact "system", and never claimed it was, but I feel it is better than your alternative of anything is fine if the majority doesn't object.
But because you don’t know what those universal wrongs are, why bother having this conversation?
Question for you: Under the system you moral refuse to define, is mankind governed by a system of timeless, unwavering universal morals? I ask because by your own admission, there is no source of morality. Therefore, in the absence of such a source, how can universal morals exist?
"A primary criticism of moral absolutism regards how we come to know what the "absolute" morals are. The authorities that are quoted as sources of absolute morality are all subject to human interpretation, and multiple views abound on them. For morals to be truly absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority. Therefore, so critics say, there is no conceivable source of such morals, and none can be called "absolute". So even if there are absolute morals, there will never be universal agreement on just what those morals are." (wiki)
Fri Jul 04, 07:02:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason, do you agree with the Geneva Conventions? If you believe morality is dependent on the society and the moral beliefs of the time, then the Geneva Conventions are meaningless in today's world. They are simply a historical document that carries no weight over half a century later. Each country should decide whether or not it is moral to torture prisoners based on what the public thinks and the circumstances at the time. Do you agree with this?
About the Galatians verse, it doesn't answer the question of what lesson(s) the Old Testament is supposed to teach. And several verses on Bible Gateway indicate that "to bring us unto Christ" can or should be translated as "until Christ came".
The best I can see is, the Old Testament is what the Israelites used to do. Then, Jesus came. Now you should do what Jesus says instead. If Jesus is silent on a given matter, then (depending on your denomination) you should either go with the Old Testament, or make it up on a case-by-case basis as you go along.
If there is some other relationship between the morality of the Old and New Testaments, please explain.
Fri Jul 04, 08:20:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
I neglected to answer part of your post, Jason.
I think you've set yourself up for having no say in the matter by admitting you don't know if you're right. [...]
Do you realize it would be essentially the end of science and knowledge (and religion, for that matter) if we just refused to speak on matters we weren't 100% sure of? You have to hypothesize, and pursue your hypotheses to confirm or reject them, in order to gain any sort of understanding on something.
You have no more standing than I do on the matter. Appeals to authority are interesting and can be useful in pursuing a response, but they are not proof. You can cite one source that argues for moral relativism. I can cite a different source that argues for moral absolutism. But neither source would have "proof", only argumentation. I don't see how one could ever prove there were or weren't universal morals unless God himself told us so.
by your own admission, there is no source of morality. Therefore, in the absence of such a source, how can universal morals exist?
There are some things we can't or may never be able to prove or disprove.
We know the universe exists. Many scientists argue the Big Bang is the source of the universe. But we don't know where the matter for the Big Bang came from, and I don't see how we'd ever prove it.
Many Christians believe God created the world. But we don't know where God came from, or if he always existed, I don't see how we'd ever prove it.
So we take the arguments for and against unprovable positions, and come to conclusions that will hopefully lead us to a better understanding.
I think this pursuit of knowledge is essential, whether it's dealing with the origins of the universe, morality, religion, or any other question out there.
Fri Jul 04, 08:39:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Jason, do you agree with the Geneva Conventions? If you believe morality is dependent on the society and the moral beliefs of the time, then the Geneva Conventions are meaningless in today's world. They are simply a historical document that carries no weight over half a century later.
Why would the Geneva Conventions be meaningless? Have the standard of morals changed that much in the past 50 years that these regulations are no longer applicable?
Each country should decide whether or not it is moral to torture prisoners based on what the public thinks and the circumstances at the time. Do you agree with this?
We both do. What are the circumstances? Are our families at risk? Is the world on the brink of nuclear devastation and the information to prevent it is known by hardened prisoners who will only give it up under extreme duress? What if torturing a prisoner resulted in avoiding another 9/11? Isn’t it in the interests of the ‘common good’ to torture one person to save millions…? If the public agrees that the time and circumstance called for such drastic actions and since, according to you, there is no universal source of morality, who has the authority to claim it’s immoral? No one does unless they can claim to be the source of morality – which they can’t be since one doesn't exist.
About the Galatians verse, it doesn't answer the question of what lesson(s) the Old Testament is supposed to teach. And several verses on Bible Gateway indicate that "to bring us unto Christ" can or should be translated as "until Christ came".
I’ve already answered this question: We read the OT to understand the history of the Jews, the plan for Christ, God’s expectations of mankind and examining the lives of men and women from which we can draw lessons from.
The best I can see is, the Old Testament is what the Israelites used to do. Then, Jesus came. Now you should do what Jesus says instead. If Jesus is silent on a given matter, then (depending on your denomination) you should either go with the Old Testament, or make it up on a case-by-case basis as you go along.
And in which instances would a believer have to go to the Old Testament for such guidance?
Do you realize it would be essentially the end of science and knowledge (and religion, for that matter) if we just refused to speak on matters we weren't 100% sure of? You have to hypothesize, and pursue your hypotheses to confirm or reject them, in order to gain any sort of understanding on something.
That’s fine but how have you been going about confirming or rejecting your hypothesis?
You have no more standing than I do on the matter. Appeals to authority are interesting and can be useful in pursuing a response, but they are not proof.
They’re proof enough for the purposes of this discussion. There’s no indication whatsoever that anyone, prior to a few hundred years ago, thought executing by burning was immoral. You claim otherwise but have nothing to show for it. You claim there are moral absolutes but the fact that billions of people disagree, whether now or in the past, is apparently of no consequence since you know better then they do.
I don't see how one could ever prove there were or weren't universal morals unless God himself told us so.
By a basic examination of historical behaviour. If something is a universal immoral, it should be apparent as such throughout history by people speaking out against it, by people rejecting it, or by people simply refusing to engage in the action. Doesn't this make logical sense?
There are some things we can't or may never be able to prove or disprove.
Coming from an atheist on a Biblical matter? Ouch! So you don’t actually know if universal morals exist, is this true? Which means you can’t actually definitively say execution by burning is immoral since you’re not even sure if you’re right and even if you are, you can’t prove it. Seems pretty hopeless...
Fri Jul 04, 09:28:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason, you apparently cannot discuss this honestly and this conversation has long passed the point of being productive. Here is my last post.
Why would the Geneva Conventions be meaningless?
Your definition of morality is consensus of contemporaneous society. The conventions were 50 years ago. Most people alive today weren't around back then. Unless you think society's make-up and morals have remained unchanged the past half century, then in your world view the conventions should be outdated.
I said: Each country should decide whether or not it is moral to torture prisoners based on what the public thinks and the circumstances at the time. Do you agree with this?
You replied: We both do.
No, I don't. Based on your argumentation, I'm not surprised you think torture is fine. But I think it's wrong, no matter what. I pity you if you honestly think it's okay to torture people and hope you never get in a position of power where you would be in a position to torture someone.
About OT lessons: I’ve already answered this question
No, you have yet to cite any examples of what kind of lesson one might get from the Old Testament.
I said: Appeals to authority are interesting and can be useful in pursuing a response, but they are not proof.
Jason said: They’re proof enough for the purposes of this discussion.
Appeals to authority, and citing the number of people who believe something, are not sufficient proofs in logical debates. They are well-known logical fallacies. Over a billion people believe in Allah; that doesn't proof Allah does or doesn't exist. Bush's claim of WMDs in Iraq isn't proof that WMDs were or weren't in Iraq.
I said: There are some things we can't or may never be able to prove or disprove.
You said: Coming from an atheist on a Biblical matter? Ouch! So you don’t actually know if universal morals exist, is this true? [...] You’re not even sure if you’re right and even if you are, you can’t prove it. Seems pretty hopeless...
Well, at long last you admit it's a Biblical matter. I speak only for myself, but I don't see any way of proving morals are or aren't universal.
I also can't prove there is no God, alas, any more than you can prove he does exist. The evidence leads me to believe there is no God. I'm happy with the evidence that God doesn't exist, just as I'm sure you're happy with your faith that God does exist. The arguments against God are stronger than the ones for it, but that's an issue for another day.
If there is no way to prove or disprove God's existence definitively, and I have to choose between a worldview where there is an all-powerful God who burns his creations to death and kills little babies, and one with no God capable of doing such things, then the latter is a lot more appealing to me.
Fri Jul 04, 01:04:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
My apologies if I’ve come across as being dishonest - it wasn’t my intention to do so.
Your definition of morality is consensus of contemporaneous society. The conventions were 50 years ago. Most people alive today weren't around back then. Unless you think society's make-up and morals have remained unchanged the past half century, then in your world view the conventions should be outdated.
My question to you was: Have the standard of morals changed that much in the past 50 years that these regulations are no longer applicable?
No, I don't. Based on your argumentation, I'm not surprised you think torture is fine. But I think it's wrong, no matter what. I pity you if you honestly think it's okay to torture people and hope you never get in a position of power where you would be in a position to torture someone.
I don't think torture is "fine". But would I have a moral problem if my government tortured one person to save millions? Of course not.
Hence, my questions to you: What are the circumstances? Are our families at risk? Is the world on the brink of nuclear devastation and the information to prevent it is known by hardened prisoners who will only give it up under extreme duress? What if torturing a prisoner resulted in avoiding another 9/11? Isn’t it in the interests of the ‘common good’ to torture one person to save millions…? If the public agrees that the time and circumstance called for such drastic actions and since, according to you, there is no universal source of morality, who has the authority to claim it’s immoral?
No, you have yet to cite any examples of what kind of lesson one might get from the Old Testament.
My apologies, I didn’t know you were looking for a specific example. If so, personally, I like the lessons of forgiveness we can learn from Joseph, the lessons regarding the dangers of jealously from Michal, the lessons of respecting the divine from David, and the lessons of patience and humbleness from Job.
Appeals to authority, and citing the number of people who believe something, are not sufficient proofs in logical debates. They are well-known logical fallacies. Over a billion people believe in Allah; that doesn't proof Allah does or doesn't exist. Bush's claim of WMDs in Iraq isn't proof that WMDs were or weren't in Iraq.
"...there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism:" (wiki) Please note that I've argued that the assertion made by the authority is true, not the Egyptian criminal code was infallible. Nonetheless, we're not talking about a wishy-washy religious matter, we’re talking about a capital punishment issue that history records as existing in civilizations who didn’t worship God or Allah. No one here has offered anything, and I literally mean anything, by way of proof, evidence, etc. that supports the concept that execution by burning is universally wrong. If you were in my shoes, how would you respond?
Well, at long last you admit it's a Biblical matter. I speak only for myself, but I don't see any way of proving morals are or aren't universal.
Fair enough. Thank you for admitting as such.
There were a few other questions you didn’t answer: 1) In which instances would a believer have to go to the Old Testament for guidance? 2) How have you been going about confirming or rejecting your hypothesis? 3) If something is a universal immoral, it should be apparent as such throughout history by people speaking out against it, by people rejecting it, or by people simply refusing to engage in the action. Doesn't this make logical sense?
Sat Jul 05, 04:05:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason is a babbling lunatic, with zero credibility. Everything is based in his own perverted, delusional, Christadelphian interpretation of scripture or plucked from the hopeless cranium-abyss, he calls his mind. Jason is an uneducated, fool and has nothing to really add to any debate on christianity, except only the most mindless drivel.
Jason was finally banned from the excellent Debunking Christianity Blog, which is linked from the equally impressive Dwindling in Unbelief Blog. Among other things Jason was banned, because he obsessively quotes scripture, as if that's all he needs to do, to support his wholly inadequate arguments, not ever comprehending that the scriptural words he uses have no validity or authority. He also keeps making the same futile arguments over and over again, without adding anything new. Sounds familiar? But what got him hung over at DC was everyone came to the conclusion that Jason is a necient imbecile, who's too much of chicken-shit pussy, to take the DC challenge. Click Here
John W. Loftus said to Jason, Stay ignorant. Be afraid. But your time is limited here if you don't grow a brain, and I'm serious.
Later he said, Jason, you are not interested in learning from us. You do not believe we have anything to say that you can learn from. We exist only for you to show us wrong.
You are hereby banned.
No more posts from you will be published, until or unless you take Mike up on his offer.
BTW Mikes offer was to buy a book for Jason to read -- which of course Jason refused, in an effort to protect his feeble, superstitious beliefs.
--S.
Sat Jul 05, 10:04:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Ah, so that's what happened. Thanks for clearing that up. Can't have a Christian quoting Scripture now can we! :)
Mon Jul 07, 06:39:00 AM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason being the brain-dead fool that he is, said, Ah, so that's what happened. Thanks for clearing that up. Can't have a Christian quoting Scripture now can we! :)
Quote away asshole, but to our ears it is non-authoritative, babble with zero credibility, which reeks of ignorance and that of an uneducated, bat-shit crazy, delusional, preacher in a cheap suit, proselytizing on a street corner. You are nothing but fodder, something to point our fingers at, and laugh.
And you still don't get it. You were banned because you are an ignorant, little bitch, of a christian, cowering under you bunker of bibles, not willing to educate or arm yourself with new information. You are too much of a pussy to explore or examine the information -- so like a large flightless bird, you plant your tiny, mind-numbingly stupid, head, firmly in the sand.
--S.
Mon Jul 07, 02:25:00 PM 2008 
 gorunnova said...
Just reading through this a little after the point, and I just wanted to point out that whether burning people 4000 years ago was moral or not then is irrelevant to a discussion involving modern morality.
The thing is, the God who condoned and demanded these burnings way back then is the very same God that is worshipped today by Christians (if it was a different God, that would 1) be a heresy, and 2) mean that the God of Christ neither made the universe nor did anything in the Old Testament). Since it IS the same God, and since this God now exists in an era of modern morality, therefore it is proper to gauge His previous actions according to modern morality.
Since it is highly immoral to burn people for pretty much any crime in modern society, therefore God is immoral by having committed / ordered committed such acts in the past, regardless of his 'new stance' on things. You don't forgive a mass murderer and torturer solely on the merit of him saying, "Oops... sorry. I won't do it again"... especially when He hasn't said that, and instead continues to do it. (Hell, anyone? Whether it's eternal torment or instant death, it's a fairly harsh punishment for mere nonbelief given the sheer lack of evidence pointing to his unambiguous existance. "You didn't see me through this brick wall in the other room, so I'll smite you FOREVER! Nyaaah!")
From a logical standpoint, this is VERY important. What good is a 'source of good morals' if it's, well... IMMORAL? What good is a moral code if the creator / instigator of the moral code itself pisses all over it through His own actions? God's morality is 'might makes right'... "I'm stronger than you, so everything I do is right. Disagree, and I'll hit you hard."
These burnings are another shining example of why God is a horrible source for moral teachings. At worst, He's a monster that HAS no real morals himself, and at best He's a hypocrite who tells, not does. If God indeed exists, and He's the God of the Bible, then I wouldn't worship him even if it did mean going to Hell.
(Note: I don't believe God exists, so it's really a moot point for me... but I wouldn't worship a monster like Him if He did exist.)
Wed Sep 17, 07:52:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
gorunnova, you're right of course but the theists who engage in the debate here have all kinds of cop-outs to say that their god could not communicate these "new" morals to the people back then (apparently he's not a good communicator) or that in fact it was not bad at the time so at the time god was not bad (thereby saying that god's morals are human morals and if we change (s)he/it changes...)
Now my brain hurts again for trying to think like them! thanks a lot for that gorunnova!
:-)
Wed Sep 17, 08:44:00 AM 2008 
 anticarrot said...
"it is wrong always and everywhere to burn to death anyone for any reason whatsoever."
Sorry, but that is not true. There have been multiple occasions in recent history when it HAS been judged acceptable to burn someone to death. Fire is a weapon, and fire storms, napalm, flame-throwers, and nukes, (all of which can set people alight) have all been used during the past 100 years.
It is something to be avoided if at all possible, but against opponents who are fanatical enough to prefer death to surrender, then there is a moral argument that you should not endanger your fellow soldiers trying to talk the idiot down.
It is a common viewpoint in modern warfare, that beyond a certain moral point forgiveness and mercy are neither possible, practical, nor desirable. Beyond that point you kill the bastards, using any and means at your disposal, including fire.
This of course very similar to the Bible's PoV. Heresy is unforgivable and can endanger the souls of others, and thus must be stamped out. Though personally I think resetting the moral bar at the genocide of thousands does make it slightly different.
Sat Dec 27, 12:32:00 PM 2008 
 Brendan said...
Answer from a Jew:
The punishments given at those times are not eternal. They were given in order to maintain order and minimize disorder, since the Hebrews at the time were at major risk of turning to paganism. Since, in today's modern society, it is clear that Jews won't all become pagans, this punishment is no longer relevant.
Sun Mar 29, 11:18:00 AM 2009 
 Connie said...
Jason,
Sugar, killing other human beings is wrong, it has always been wrong and will always be wrong and anyone who ever did it for any reason other than direct self defense is pure evil.
My parents had no religion so they never told me that killing was wrong, there was need to say it because it was so obvious that even a child knows that harming others is always wrong.
You had free will, you chose to throw it away and now you think that killing human beings is a good thing and totally justifiable and you argue on the side of murder over and over in these blogs.

Since you have no moral compass because of your religion induced hysteria, I can only hope that the future generations will not have their minds poisoned by the likes of you.
Fri Apr 09, 06:10:00 AM 2010 
 Srinivasan said...
This is not meant to be ad hominem but this Jason character seems full of crap. He is trying to defend his non-existent god by evading the real questions. So god wrote that law to appease the Hebrew barbarians of that time? If god's judgement is timeless, why would he modify his judgement to suit the mores of contemporary society? Men's moral values may change with time, but those of god should not!
It seems obvious to me that the laws and thus the bible, were written by men rather than their god.
To answer the original question, yes, it is absolutely, unequivocally, wrong in this era and in any era for a god to burn people to death, no matter what the crime.
Thu Apr 15, 03:24:00 AM 2010 
 Srinivasan said...
Question to Brendan the Jew:
Why exactly is paganism a major risk? What is so wrong about paganism that your god had to annihilate an entire people that practised it? Why is worshipping your god exclusively of such importance that transgressors are dealt with such unmitigated cruelty? Isn't your god mature enough to know that all forms of worship reach the one absolute deity? Why is your god such a jealous god? If he is the only god in the entire universe, how can he feel jealous towards something that doesn't exist?
Thu Apr 15, 03:33:00 AM 2010 
 rahul said...
So god is this angolan diamond hating maniac or some barbarian with a vengeance towards what ,israelites.
looks like there is no "skyman" watching over us,more like stories concocted by a bunch of neandearthal jockers ( what could that be,hmmm ?).
One thing is clear,God is mighty appreciative of existing societal norms as amply demonstrated by jason.Way to go,god.Next time he will approve of the current attraction of priests towards young boys.
Looks like the biblical god hasnt evolved.Had he evolved ,a new bible would have been revealed by now.one that incorporates the angolan conundrum as well as the chinese human rights situation and a New and Improved moral code that takes into account the current social circumstances and delivered via ipad ( God had only clay tablets in those days,speak of less advanced gods,now we have silicon and nano gods),may be he will reveal before steve jobs to give us a discount like 50% off.Talk is cheap ,you know.
Sat Jul 24, 01:55:00 PM 2010 
 Mitchell said...
I think the bottom line is that we need to start following the bible better.
Clearly we need to work on our law enforcement.
For instance, I haven't seen a single police township with a proper human burning area designated!
If you ask me, we need to re-write all our laws and every township will need a stake/burn zone where we can set flame to all of those involved just like leviticus commands us.
- Let's face it, leviticus say's it's wrong to be gay and they all admit that law must be followed, so just as well we must burn those law breakers. (or stone, based on what leviticus commands.)
Mon Dec 20, 01:09:00 AM 2010 
 Mitchell said...
<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>
QUOTE FROM BRENDAN: Answer from a Jew:
The punishments given at those times are not eternal. They were given in order to maintain order and minimize disorder, since the Hebrews at the time were at major risk of turning to paganism. Since, in today's modern society, it is clear that Jews won't all become pagans, this punishment is no longer relevant.
Sun Mar 29, 11:18:00 AM 2009
<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>
So burning is no longer relevant?
We can pick and choose what leviticus laws NEED to be followed at will?
Can you tell me where GOD comes out and tells us that we no longer need to follow these old laws? Or where in the bible it is said that we don't have to follow a law because WE don't want to and that is acceptable with God? HMMM?
Mon Dec 20, 01:20:00 AM 2010 
 rv guy said...
The bible, supposedly the word of an all knowing god, should be timeless. What is right is right,period. Now, then and always. Not subject to culture or opinion. Is it too much to ask from guide that his guide to living is clear and easy to understand. I mighta believed if somewhere it mentioned the world was round.
Sun Feb 19, 11:13:00 PM 2012 
 Lucas said...
"A god who commands people to burn other people to death is not a good god. This verse alone should be enough show that the Bible was not inspired by a kind and loving god."
Why? You started with the assumption that burning people is wrong and ended with that assumption. Only if we followed you on that assumption, could we derive the conclusion, "the Bible was not inspired by a kind and loving god." I need a larger circle in circular arguments than this.

Mon Sep 02, 09:00:00 AM 2013 
 Hugo said...
So Lucas you think burn people (to death) is not wrong?
Mon Sep 02, 09:18:00 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
    
 02 June 2008Top Ten Abominations to God
When the subject of abominations comes up, most people think of homosexuality, because that is one of the few things that God hasn't changed his mind about since he became a born again Christian a couple thousand years ago. God still likes Leviticus 18:22, although he's softened up a bit on Leviticus 20:13.
Here are ten other things that are (or were) abominations to the non-denominational, pre-Christian Bible-God. (In God's favorite order -- biblical!)
Lobsters, shrimp, clams, octopus, and squids
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 11:12
Four-legged fowls
All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 11:20
Four-footed flying, creeping things
But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 11:23
Whatever crawls on its belly, goes on all four, or has lots of legs
Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth ... are an abomination. Leviticus 11:42
Sacrificing a blemished sheep or goat
Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 17:1
Women who wear men's clothing
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5
The hire of a whore or the price of a dog
Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 23:18
Taking back an ex-wife after she's been defiled
(If you get married and then find that you hate your wife because she's unclean or something, go ahead and divorce her and kick her out of your house. After she's gone, if some other guy marries her and also hates her and divorces her, don't take her back as your wife. It really pisses God off. It's an abomination to him.)
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD. Deuteronomy 24:1-4
The work of a craftsman
Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman.... Deuteronomy 27:15
Whatever people value the most
(Like kindness, wisdom, truth, courage, honesty, love, compassion, beauty?)
That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. Luke 16:15
Posted by Steve Wells at 6/02/2008 08:30:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
76 comments:
 v_quixotic said...
I hate to play Devil's advocate, [no he doesn't Ed.] but you're taking Luke a little out of context.
Luke 16:13
"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
Luke 16:14
"And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him."
Luke 16:15
"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God."
When you consider the 2 preceding verses and the unquoted section of 16:15, it appears, to me at least, that Jesus is saying that either wealth (mammon) or the esteem of one's colleagues is the abomination in the sight of god... not that which might be esteemed generally by enlightened beings like us.
Tue Jun 03, 01:07:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Yes, the old law was certainly strict.
Tue Jun 03, 07:43:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Context doesn't help here, v_quixotic. Jesus may have meant to say that wealth and respect are abominations to God (and that would have been silly enough). But he didn't say that. He said, "That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." If he didn't mean to say that, he shouldn't have said it. (Which he probably didn't, but that's another story.)
Tue Jun 03, 07:47:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Biblical law is not just strict, Jason. It's immoral, absurd, and batshit crazy.
Tue Jun 03, 07:50:00 AM 2008 
 Kirk said...
I've often wondered what kind of schizophrenic god the Hebrews were creating. Didn't they think that far ahead? Imagine BibleGod's internal conversation:
"Shellfish are an abomination to me. Alright, time to create shrimp." What a doofus.
Tue Jun 03, 08:05:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve,
Perhaps to you, but not so to the Israelites.
Tue Jun 03, 09:43:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
No perhaps about it Jason.
Biblical law is immoral, absurd, and batshit crazy -- to me, anyway. How about you?
Tue Jun 03, 12:25:00 PM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
Steve said:
Jesus may have meant to say that wealth and respect are abominations to God (and that would have been silly enough). But he didn't say that. He said, "That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." If he didn't mean to say that, he shouldn't have said it.
True, an infallible word of godesque document shouldn't need such careful examination...
Tue Jun 03, 01:12:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
I think the laws were what they were, Steve. I'm happily ambivalent on the matter and until someone can intelligently explain what makes our morals and opinions of normalcy superior to theirs, I'll happily remain as such.
Tue Jun 03, 01:25:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Steve said: "Biblical law is not just strict, Jason. It's immoral, absurd, and batshit crazy."
Jason replied: "Perhaps to you, but not so to the Israelites."
Are there specific verses, Jason, that say the Israelites didn't think the law was immoral, absurd, and crazy? Not words spoken by the prophets or leaders of the Israelites, but by the people themselves? Maybe there are some, but I don't remember offhand.
But in any case, if I was an Israelite and thought the law was completely crazy and unjust, I would keep my mouth shut, given God's penchant for punishing or killing people who complain or don't follow his law. I certainly wouldn't tell my leaders I thought God was nuts, since especially in the early days they were in close touch with God. I'd either shut up or start praising God out of fear for what would happen to me if I didn't.
It reminds me a little of Big Brother from the book 1984: you didn't openly say anything against Big Brother no matter what. You don't question or complain about Big Brother: you just did what you were told, no questions asked. I don't think it's a stretch to think that's why the Israelites followed the law, they knew their leaders or their God would treat them harshly if they did anything other than obey.
What's that you say? Don't eat four-footed flying creepy things? Excellent idea, o Lord! Don't sacrifice any goats with evilfavouredness? I'm with you all the way on that one, Yahweh.
Tue Jun 03, 03:17:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
I'm not sure what you're getting at. There's no record the Israelites thought God's law was immoral, absurd or crazy. My point then is that Steve can think one thing, but the people the law was actually given to aren't recorded as sharing the same opinion.
Tue Jun 03, 03:28:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said: "I'm happily ambivalent on the matter and until someone can intelligently explain what makes our morals and opinions of normalcy superior to theirs, I'll happily remain as such."
Jason, are you saying that the Israelites made up these laws/rules about what to eat, wear, etc.? If so, then your argument makes sense. There are countries with laws prohibiting eating dogs; the Israelites had laws against eating lobsters. Just different cultural values. To each his own.
But I suspect that you believe God handed down these and similar laws to the Israelites. Am I correct? If so, then Steve has a very valid point/question: why did God tell them it was abominable to eat lobsters, but it's okay for us to do so? Doesn't make sense.
You brought up old vs new law again. Is part of the reason Jesus died on the cross so that we could eat lobster?!? It simply doesn't make sense why God would consider it an abomination then but it's okay now.
If this was God's law, then until you give a valid reason why it would be abominable in God's eyes to eat lobsters then but it's okay now, I will believe these and other laws and rules are at least crazy and unjustified, in some cases, immoral.
Tue Jun 03, 03:42:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said: "I'm not sure what you're getting at. There's no record the Israelites thought God's law was immoral, absurd or crazy. My point then is that Steve can think one thing, but the people the law was actually given to aren't recorded as sharing the same opinion."
I never claimed that the Bible says the Israelites thought the law was immoral, absurd, or crazy. My point is that even if people did think the laws were crazy and/or immoral, we probably wouldn't know about it. If God, Moses, etc. are going to either kill me or make me suffer for not following the law, I am a lot less likely to come out and say I think these laws are crazy or wrong. I'd either follow the law and shut up about it, or else pretend I like the law.
Those who spoke up against God are not usually dealt with kindly in the Bible, particularly in the olden days.
Another analogy I guess would be that it's kind of like when dictatorships hold false elections and get 95% of the vote. It doesn't mean 95% of people really want the dictator in office, they're just smart enough (or afraid enough) not to say or do anything about it. If any Israelites thought a prohibition against eating lobster was goofy, they probably weren't willing to raise a big stink and lose their life over it. That was my point: we don't know and probably never will how many if any Israelites thought the law was crazy, immoral, or absurd.
Tue Jun 03, 03:51:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Mr. Doomahss said, I think the laws were what they were, Steve. I'm happily ambivalent on the matter and until someone can intelligently explain what makes our morals and opinions of normalcy superior to theirs, I'll happily remain as such.
That's because you are a mindless, deer-in-the-headlight, fuck-tard, that has never had an original thought and can't think on his own -- wallowing in delusional bliss.
--S.
Tue Jun 03, 09:18:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
Whether or not God's laws make sense to us isn't the issue. God wanted the Israelites obedience, regardless of the circumstance or request. If He said don't gather sticks on the Sabbath, you didn't do it. If He said you don't eat shellfish, you didn't do it. It is not what people eat per se which is at stake here, but whether or not they obey. The former really makes no difference to an omnipotent God. But the latter does. The issue is whether or not the creation which He made to serve His purpose, actually obeys or not. Take the example of a child stealing from the proverbial cookie jar - is the parent upset because the child is eating cookies, or because their express instruction has been disregarded?
Secondly, the reason why Christ died on the cross is well documented in the NT.
And finally, once again, there's no record of the Israelites sharing the same opinion of Steve regarding the laws given to them. There are numerous records however of the people choosing not to obey God and of worshipping idols. I'm not aware of the excuse in either instance being because they thought God's law was immoral or crazy. My point therefore is that stating as such is simply conjecture.
Wed Jun 04, 05:30:00 AM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Asshole said, Take the example of a child stealing from the proverbial cookie jar - is the parent upset because the child is eating cookies, or because their express instruction has been disregarded?
Yes, yes, and because the child didn't obey, the parent can inject the child with a hideous disease, causing the child to suffer, for months, only to die. Not only that but the parent's wrath did not stop at the child with cookie crumbs on her hands; the parent also punished the other children by causing them to have great pain the rest of their lives -- it's the only moral thing to do.
Face it Jason you are a delusional, dick-head, with a knob full of goo.
--S.
Wed Jun 04, 07:58:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said: "Whether or not God's laws make sense to us isn't the issue."
I think this is the issue, or at least part of the issue. Strictness is understandable and possibly even justifiable, when there's a reason behind it. If you tell your teen he isn't allowed to do drugs or else he won't be allowed to use the car for a year, then he gets caught using drugs, then there is a reason for the prohibition (drugs can cause all sorts of problems, including death) and a reason for the punishment (as enticement not to do the dangerous and potentially fatal thing). This rule and punishment make sense.
A number of rules and punishments in the Bible simply don't make sense, and as sconnor points out, the cookie in the jar analogy is probably ill-chosen here, although I see what you were getting at. In Deuteronomy and elsewhere, sometimes the prohibition doesn't seem to serve a purpose (e.g. no multi-clothed fabrics), or the punishment associated is not proportionate or is simply cruel (e.g. stoning a woman to death because she didn't scream loudly enough while being raped).
Jason said: "The issue is whether or not the creation which He made to serve His purpose, actually obeys or not."
Obedience, but for what purpose? People generally send dogs to obedience school so they behave themselves and don't hurt humans or other animals. What purpose does not eating lobster serve? You would think God would be concerned about his creations' well-being (why else did he save his son to save humanity?).
I'm sure there are plenty of bad or dangerous things that aren't expressly prohibited in the Bible, while God takes time out to talk about the importance of wearing fringes. Couldn't God have told his people not to use cooking implements containing lead (because of lead poisoning), instead of wasting his and everyone else's time on not mixing fabrics or telling them to punish rape victims with death?
About the reason for Jesus' death resurrection, I know what the main reason given is, but his fulfillment of the law also meant that people could eat lobsters, correct? Certainly God knew this was one of the laws that no longer would have to be followed. If it wasn't part of the reason, I guess it could be considered a fringe benefit of sorts. Maybe you think it foolish of me to see it that why, but I think it's foolish to tell people what fabrics they can or can't wear.
Wed Jun 04, 06:13:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
People can critique and criticize the old laws until they're blue in the face, but the fact remains: The Israelites were expected to follow the laws, irrelevant of what these laws were. The purpose of obedience is explained in great detail throughout the OT. It's also explained in detail throughout the NT under the new law of Christ, the same law that freed believers from the law of bondage.
That aside, my original point was that the old law is strict. Whether or not it's "absurd" or "crazy" is simply conjecture and claiming these laws are "immoral" can only be done after proving the morals of the 21st century are somehow superior to the morals of 4000 years ago.
Wed Jun 04, 08:13:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Whether or not it's "absurd" or "crazy" is simply conjecture and claiming these laws are "immoral" can only be done after proving the morals of the 21st century are somehow superior to the morals of 4000 years ago.
OK, Jason, let's conjecture.
Leviticus 20:14 says, "And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you."
Are you really unsure about whether it is crazy and immoral to burn people to death?
Wed Jun 04, 09:31:00 PM 2008 
 John L. said...
Angry Xtians, your ideas are not quite there...
mammon is mammon...
get it? where does it say rich?
things mean what they say..
Wed Jun 04, 09:35:00 PM 2008 
 John L. said...
Steve Wells, then please go do this :) enjoy killing.
Wed Jun 04, 09:36:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
I don't understand your meaning, John L. Could you explain it to me?
Wed Jun 04, 09:54:00 PM 2008 
 EATINGVIRGINSISGOOD said...
Steve if you are not an Xtian, I really am sorry....
But to tell you honestly, all of you according to your word are guilty and deserving Hell Fire.
Nobody according to the word is saved.
Continue in injustice and continue in your hatred. Don't be surprised if you see injustice in the church.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/
Wed Jun 04, 10:01:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Screwy, McDingbat said, That aside, my original point was that the old law is strict. Whether or not it's "absurd" or "crazy" is simply conjecture and claiming these laws are "immoral" can only be done after proving the morals of the 21st century are somehow superior to the morals of 4000 years ago.
Jackass Jason, JJ for short; you are without question, a gigantic asshole, of cosmic proportions, only surpassed by your imaginary, voyeuristic, ubiquitous, dictator-genie . What doesn't take any conjecture, on our part, is your repulsive megalomaniacal sky-daddy, the one who allegedly handed down morals, through the old law, has none himself. That is what is so absurd and bat-shit, crazy. Bible-god is a colossal, sadistic, hypocrite, that not only kills millions and commands people to kill hundreds of thousands -- in light of his commandments -- he also doles out unimaginable, cruel and unusual punishments, causing millions of his children to suffer, egregiously. And as he wields his wrath, like a psychotic, abusive, father, in a blind rage; the innocent, who happen to get in the way, are subject to the same insane and deranged punishments. And your only, mindless, lame-ass defense is: he's god; he can do whatever he wants, with his creation. There is no conjecture; it is all in the Bible. Your god is not strict; he is a demented fuck and wholly immoral and because you are so steeped, in your delusion, you are blind to the obvious or you have to do mental gymnastics in order to salvage god's repulsive reputation.
--S.
...a God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slaves to worship him!
-- Mark Twain
Wed Jun 04, 10:36:00 PM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
Quoth Jason: "my original point was that the old law is strict. Whether or not it's "absurd" or "crazy" is simply conjecture and claiming these laws are "immoral" can only be done after proving the morals of the 21st century are somehow superior to the morals of 4000 years ago."
So slavery as endorsed and sanctioned by the OT (eg. Leviticus 25:44-46) is OK with you, Jason?
Thu Jun 05, 12:21:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve,
Burning people to death might be immoral today but my point, again, is that unless you can prove your 21st century opinion of proper morals is any more right then the same opinions of proper morals 4000 years ago, passing these kinds of judgments is purely conjecture and doesn't advance your argument any further. For example, just because the punishment for marrying your own mother today is different then it was back then doesn't settle the issue. The ancient Egyptians cut off limbs as punishment for crimes and in other cases, drowned or burned people at the stake. The Romans crucified criminals. The Babylonians flogged, mutilated and banished their criminals. Assyrians impaled criminals on stakes and flayed others while husbands were free to mutilate an adulterous wife. While we might think these to be grotesque, the fact is, the people of the time didn't think this to be immoral - they simply accepted it as punishment for a transgression of the law. It was accepted by their culture and indeed, wouldn't have been all that different from the laws of the land in other nations of the time.
Ironically, if these ancient civilizations knew we had vastly different punishments for the same crimes, they would consider our laws to be "absurd", "crazy" and "immoral" as well. Does this make them right for simply thinking this way?
The same goes for slavery as well. It's not acceptable today because society deems this kind of behaviour improper and inappropriate. However, thousands of years ago, slavery wasn't frowned on by anyone. It was accepted and woven into the social and economic fabric of the time. So again, unless someone can explain what makes their opinion any more right than those living two thousand years ago, I don't see how your argument stands.
Thu Jun 05, 06:45:00 AM 2008 
 Dave said...
You know, Jason, we have all endured a lot of your inane repetitive ramblings on this site, but your last one may be your most self-revealing post ever. I have stated before that your religion has robbed you of your basic human morality, and here it is in black and white. Of course, as a Christian, you are blind to it, as I used to be, and will no doubt continue on with your twisted cognitive dissonance. Perhaps someday you will endure a life-changing event such as what has happened to sconner or myself to open your eyes and soul and reveal Christianity for what it really is: a cruel immoral charade.
If you lived in the past, you would be one of those gleefully stoning someone to death for their transgressions, beating your slave, turning on the chamber gas valve, or raising a knife to plunge it into your own son’s chest under god’s command. As an ex-Christian, I am proud to say that I am no longer bound by the book that makes otherwise good people like you morally bankrupt.
Thu Jun 05, 08:18:00 AM 2008 
 Kirk said...
Quoting Jason: "While we might think these to be grotesque, the fact is, the people of the time didn't think this to be immoral"
Exactly the point, Jason. The people thought slavery was okie-dokie, so their idea of a god laid out price lists. They thought stoning and burning were acceptable, so their god told them when and where.
Either you have a god that changes morality... or BibleGod is a creation of ancient peoples, not vice versa.
Thu Jun 05, 08:50:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Dave,
Listen to yourself. You're implying that, somehow, without any idea of what morals and ethics would be like in the 21st century, you would be the ethical champion and guide for a civilization you lived in by possessing some kind of moral clarity that allowed you to transcend the only moral system you know - the one you existed in. For example, if you lived in ancient Assyria, you're stating you would inherently "know better" then to flog a criminal to death. This is ridiculous. Under Babylonian law, adultery was punishable by the drowning of both parties. If you were Babylonian, you would agree this punishment was "right" and acceptable. Do you disagree?
The point is, if any of us lived in the past, we'd all be stoning someone to death for their transgressions. These were the laws of the land and they were accepted - I don't possibly see how you could argue you would behave any differently or argue against the morals of the society you lived in.
Thu Jun 05, 10:39:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Kirk,
You're right, that is the point. Thank you. Everyone thought slavery was okie-dokie back then and we would have to if we were around at that time. Stoning and burning were also acceptable since these were common punishments used by dozens of ancient civilizations. Just because we don't use them today doesn't mean they're immoral - it simply means the society we live in has decided on other forms of behaviour and punishment, or, in many instances, removing the latter altogether. If we lived 2000 years ago and we understood what things were going to be like in the 21st century, there's no doubt we would have labelled this civilization "immoral", "crazy" and "absurd" as well. If we had, would we have been correct? What's our basis for judgment? What makes our morals and opinions of normalcy superior to theirs?
Thu Jun 05, 11:08:00 AM 2008 
 Dave said...
Jason said ”Listen to yourself.”.
I did, and that is why I am no longer a Christian. I hated what I was saying. Perhaps some day, you will hate what you are saying as well.
Jason said ”…If you were Babylonian, you would agree this punishment was "right" and acceptable. Do you disagree?”
Yes, I disagree. I do not agree with the death penalty. I think hunting for sport is disgusting. I have never used corporal punishment on my children. I cannot worship a baby-murdering god. All acceptable cultural norms.
Dave said .”Jason…you will no doubt continue on with your twisted cognitive dissonance.”. Yep.
Thu Jun 05, 12:55:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Dave,
The 'listen to yourself' comment was directed at your claim that had you lived back in an age where stoning and slavery were morally accepted, you would have somehow known better. How do you know you would have known better when the 'better' hadn't even been established? I fail to see how or why you would assume your belief structure would be exactly the same back then as it is today when the morals and ethics of the two societies and time periods are vastly different.
And whether or not you disagree with the death penalty isn't the point. There are many people who do agree with the death penalty, atheists included, and I'll suggest there were far more supporters thousands of years ago. Disagreeing doesn't make anything immoral unless you can prove why your personal morals are superior to those who believe the opposite. So I'll ask again: what makes your morals superior to theirs?
Thu Jun 05, 01:35:00 PM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
Jason said:
"However, thousands of years ago, slavery wasn't frowned on by anyone. It was accepted and woven into the social and economic fabric of the time."
Spartacus frown upon slavery. As have abolitionists since then. If laws and punishments change and the result is a net increase in the quotient of human happiness then that is a clear proof for you.
The people who would be slaves today are happier than they would be if the moral code that allowed slavery endured. The morals evolved, they are self evidently superior.
Thu Jun 05, 02:27:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
JJ asshole,
Too bad, when your "moral", law-giving, demented fuck-job, sky-fairy, was bestowing said laws, he didn't have the foreknowledge to know that slavery was a grossly inhumane, vile and a wholly immoral institution, that ranks right up there, if not, entirely surpasses, "thou shalt not kill" as one of the most evil and hideous of all depredations of human rights.
But your imaginary, morally-challenged deity-dunce, needed to hand down laws on eating shrimp and pork and how one should beat his child with a rod, neglecting to mention the horrors and repugnant, violations of slavery, that has ripped apart families and whole generations, leaving people in ruin, broken, forever crippled, scarred and drenched in blood.
Oh, wait, your fuck-knob, god did consider (frowned upon) the bondage of slavery wrong, when he killed the babies and children of Egypt, so he could lead his children to the promised land, but yet your monumentally, hypocritical, cloud-daddy, forgot to hand down the law, as to why slavery is so repulsive and immoral.
Jason you and your god are complete psycho-fuck, shit-holes, only worthy of disrespect and mockery.
--S.
Thu Jun 05, 04:00:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Burning people to death might be immoral today but...
Burning people to death might be immoral? You're not sure?
Do you think it is immoral, Jason? I'm not asking you what most people today think, or what people in Old Testament times might have thought. I'm asking you what you think.
So what do you think, Jason? Is it wrong to burn people to death?
Thu Jun 05, 06:32:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Quixtoix,
I'm not saying people haven't frowned upon slavery. What I'm saying is that during the time of the Israelites (and Egyptians and Assyrians and Persians and Geeks and Babylonians), slavery wasn't immoral. It also wasn't immoral to kill someone by stoning them to death. It was just the way things were done back then.
As for us being morally superior to people living back then, come on. We have a family unit in shambles, rampant drug use, corrupt governments who deny their citizens aid, child pornography, animal testing, Guantanamo Bay, pharmaceutical companies withholding medical cures, countries refusing to sign pollutant agreements, and the list goes on and on and on. Tell me, what's so "better and superior" then the moral age of the Egyptians, the Assyrians or the Israelites? Prove to me the quotient of human happiness has increased.
Thu Jun 05, 07:06:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve,
Let me ask you a question: What's so different from burning someone to death then death by lethal injection?
Is it wrong to burn to death a random person? Of course it is. It's just as wrong to walk up to someone and shoot them in the head. This is murder. We're talking about punishment for a crime, Steve. If a society considers it acceptable to hang an offender, what right does another society have to say it's immoral simply because they happen to prefer electrocution?
Thu Jun 05, 07:17:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason,
So you think it is moral to burn to death a man, his wife, and his mother-in-law if they are guilty of whatever the hell Leviticus 20:14 is talking about (The man having sex with his mother-in-law? The man marrying his mother-in-law? Or whatever...)?
You think it would be moral to kill them, and you see no big difference between lethal injection and burning them to death. Wow! Only someone whose heart has been hardened by the Bible could think something like that.
Do you have any idea why the wife should be burned to death, Jason? I guess it doesn't matter to you. Just burn all three and let God sort it out.
I was just about to ask sconner to tone his comments down just a little. But I've decided not to. Because he's right. "You and your god are ... only worthy of disrespect and mockery."
Thu Jun 05, 09:42:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason,
You seem to be arguing for cultural relativism. You are saying we have to decide whether stoning rape victims, for example, is right or wrong as a punishment based on whether or not it was acceptable to the culture in question at the time in question.
Arguments can obviously be made for cultural relativism, but I have to say that this is an interesting position for a Christian to take in this context.
You seem to be saying that the law and its enforcement is good or evil based on what the given society of the time thinks. Is this correct? In your opinion, can something be inherently evil or inherently good? If it was considered okay to stone a rape victim in olden times but it's not considered okay to do so now, does that mean it's a sin now but it wasn't a sin back then?
You bring up your own examples of why you think our modern morality is not superior, and have asked several people to prove why we as a society morally superior, but you don't support your own argument. We have modern morality right now; the Bible proposes that a different morality existed for the Israelites back then. Since that morality is not the one accepted today, I think you would be the one who would have to prove your point. What proof do you have that Israelite's morality was just as good as ours?
I don't think "Because God told them the law" is a valid argument here, because God later sent Jesus to fulfill the old law, and it no longer applies. If anything, I would think this might prove that the old morality was inferior, otherwise why would God want to do away with it?
Others above have made other arguments about why the old morality is inferior or why ours is superior, but I think this argument (about the new law superceding the old law) may be framed in a way that can help us reflect on it from a Biblical perspective. Why would what is bad and how to deal with it both change, when it was supposedly God handing down the rules in the first place?
The only logical conclusion I see is that God takes into account what is right and wrong in a given society. You would think though that God would be the one determining right and wrong, and not basing it off of humans (who are said to be sinful by nature).
I really hope that you don't truly believe the punishments outlined in the Old Testament are all moral. You probably think you should believe this, and you are trying to convince yourself to believe it. I, and I'm sure other former Christians like Dave, can understand why you're doing this. But I hope that you can take a step back for a second and carefully consider not only today's morality, as you did above, but as evaluate the Bible's morality--not based on what you think you should believe is right, but what you *actually* believe is right.
Thu Jun 05, 10:54:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve,
Please answer my question: What's so different from burning someone to death then death by lethal injection?
If a society considers it acceptable to burn an offender of the law to death, what right does another society have to say it's immoral simply because they either happen to prefer some other form or don't punish for the same at all? In other words, disagreeing with a form of punishment doesn't automatically make it an immoral act unless you can prove you're morally superior.
In the ancient ages, capital punishment ranged from drowning to impaling to stoning to burning. Which of these were considered immoral by the people of the time?
Fri Jun 06, 05:54:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
I would agree with your first question. Also, whether something being inherently evil or inherently good, yes, it I believe it is possible.
Regarding stoning a rape victim, I'm not sure where you're coming from...?
The proof that the Israelite's morality is just as "good" as ours is that under the law given to them by God, there was nothing in it that would have been considered immoral at the time. The laws reflected the views of the age. Likewise, our laws today reflect the views of this age.
As for the old law and the new law, it changed because this was the whole point of Christ. It wasn't about morals or ethics, it was about an old law that offered a constant reminder of sins (Heb 10:3).
Finally, from my 21st century perspective, no, I don't think the punishments outlined in the OT are all moral. I've also never argued as such. What I've been arguing is that just because we have this opinion doesn't automatically make them immoral. We're products of the day and age we live in. If society finds it acceptable to put a murderer in prison instead of stoning them to death, stoning is an unacceptable act. If another society finds it perfectly acceptable to stone a murderer to death, letting them live and potentially walk free after a few years is an unacceptable act. Both would view the other as being "immoral" but only because there's a conflict of opinion. Neither society can lay claim to moral superiority which is exactly the crux of the problem and the futility of the arguments thus far. The only solution I can see is by simply admitting our perspective is too biased and limited to objectively judge the morals in ages and civilizations much, much different from ours.
Fri Jun 06, 06:56:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Please answer my question: What's so different from burning someone to death then death by lethal injection?
OK, I'll answer yours, even though you refuse to answer mine.
Burning someone to death is cruel; lethal injection is not.
Is anything cruel to you, Jason?
Fri Jun 06, 08:12:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve,
You're saying then it's not the taking of a life for a crime that's immoral, it's how painfully the life is taken away that somehow defines it's level of morality. Interestingly enough, many states in the U.S. disagree with your opinion on the cruelty of lethal injection. What's ironic is that this form of punishment was originally thought to be humane - 30 years later, people are starting to rethink things.
And this is precisely my point: Firstly, disagreeing with a form of punishment doesn't automatically make it an immoral act unless you can prove you're morally superior. Can you prove you're morally superior to the State of Florida or Texas?
Secondly, in 50 years from now, what guarantee is there the moral stance towards lethal injection won't have changed? Based on the way things are going, what if in 100 years from now lethal injection is considered immoral? Will that give people the right to call you "absurd" and "immoral" or would you ask them to first consider the day and age you lived in...?
Fri Jun 06, 10:43:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said: "Finally, from my 21st century perspective, no, I don't think the punishments outlined in the OT are all moral."
I appreciate your candor in your response. You never said either way what you thought personally about the morality of the laws/punishments of the old testament, so I am glad to hear that you don't consider all of them moral.
You can understand, then, why some people object to them. Your conclusion faced with this is that those were the times and we shouldn't be so quick to judge; my conclusion is that there are some things that are wrong and shouldn't be condoned in a holy book, no matter what the society of the time thought. (You've said elsewhere this is history, but it is also still presented to this day as the inspired word of God.)
The reason I use the stoning a rape victim as an example is because I think it is a case of something that should be clearly immoral, no matter what age you live in. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 indicate that if a man sleeps with a betrothed virgin in the city and people don't hear her crying for help, then both her and her attacker should be stoned to death. There are any number of reasons people wouldn't have heard the woman cry for help besides her "wanting it", but instead the Old Testament condemns her to death.
Yes, I am seeing this through 21st century eyes, but I believe there have to be some things where you just say they're wrong no matter what, no matter what century. You seem to think this is not the case.
I see humanity overall as improving through the ages. I like to hope that, for all of our errors as a race, we are getting better. Barack Obama is a candidate for president in a country where a half century ago, he would have had to use a separate drinking fountain in some of the states he won in. 21st century morality isn't perfect, but hopefully we are at least getting closer to being more moral. Your view doesn't seem to allow for progress morally, just difference. I think this is a pessimistic outlook on morality.
You also say the old law was a reminder of sins. But Christianity, at least the majority of denominations as far as I can tell, reminds people incessantly that they "are by nature sinful and unclean" (as Lutherans word it). Isn't the cross, present in nearly all Christian denominations, a constant reminder of humanity's sin? When God sent Jesus to Earth, God was counting on us being sinful and violent enough to kill his only Son. That's what I used to see when I looked at the cross: a constant reminder of humanity's sinfulness. If the point of the cross is to show God's love and forgiveness, why pick the instrument of his death (a torture device) as the symbol of the religion?
About Steve's argument, I agree that there are ways of killing someone that are more humane than others. Jason, wouldn't you agree that if someone is to be killed, it is better to kill them humanely? As an opponent of the death penalty, I would argue, and I'm sure others will disagree, that this is at least a step in the right direction. Burning someone to death is torture. Hanging them on a cross is torture. Lethal injection, when done "correctly", involves a lot less pain. I still think it's wrong personally, but I think it, like many other moral issues that have changed throughout the centuries, is at least a gradual improvement.
Fri Jun 06, 11:40:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
I understand why people object to some of the OT laws. But like I’ve been saying, because we might disagree about the morality of certain laws and punishments doesn’t make them immoral. I come back to my comparison of acceptable punishments in the two different societies – both would consider the other immoral but this doesn’t make it so.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 is talking about consensual sex. “If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her…” (NIV)
I do believe there are some things that are wrong no matter what as indicated in my previous post to you. However, as already explained, I don’t believe any of those things are found in the laws given to the Israelites.
Moral progress? Humanity improving? I'm sorry but I couldn’t disagree more. We have problems that no generation has ever seen before and, personally, I don’t see how this will change in the near future. We’ve made great strides in gender and racial equality but these changes aren’t even global. The gap between rich and poor continues to increase, America continues to wage war overseas, governments are still corrupt, children are still being exploited, the family unit is in shambles, pharmaceutical companies are still ignoring Africa, we’re polluting our world on an never-before-seen scale, the food crisis is deepening, personal debt continues to climb, and the list goes on and on. It’s not about allowing for moral progress, it’s simply calling a spade a spade. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
The old law was a reminder of sin because of the continual need for animal sacrifices. Hebrews 3 explains this in detail. As for the cross, it's not a reminder of sin, at least not Scripturally, since people continue to sin regardless. Consider that it’s Christ’s shed blood and broken body we’re asked to remember, not the cross, through the bread and the wine (Luke 22:19).
Fri Jun 06, 02:43:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason,
Yes, there are concerns about the pain that might be caused by lethal injections. I wonder how those that have those concerns would feel about burning people to death.
Do you think lethal injection is more cruel than burning people to death? Oh wait, that's right, you don't think anything is cruel. So why bother asking?
Fri Jun 06, 04:42:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Dickhead Jason, DJ for short,
It is universally accepted, throughout the ages, that torturing the innocent, by inflicting a punishment, to induce suffering, is morally repugnant. This is why your sick, psycho-fuck, dictator god is so repulsive; only equaled by your fucked-in-the-head, delusional, complacency, to condone his actions and to, even, worship him.
--S.
Fri Jun 06, 04:46:00 PM 2008 
 McGuire said...
Jason, what you're essentially arguing is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the punishments dished out in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan... who are, after all, following what been done for centuries & / or is stated in the Koran.
& that any of us who believes we can judge other cultures (current / historical) is wrong.
Sat Jun 07, 05:11:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve,
My point is that while you consider lethal injection to be moral because it's not cruel, there are many others who disagree. My question therefore remains: Are you morally superior to the people who don't share your opinion?
Yes I think burning to death is more painful then lethal injection but I don't believe this is grounds to label this punishment as "immoral". Lethal injection has only been around for the past 30 or 40 years. Does this mean that every justice system before this, or currently, that condones some other, more painful punishment is somehow inherently immoral?
Sat Jun 07, 08:28:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Mcguire,
Who dictates moral absolutism?
Sat Jun 07, 08:33:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said: "Deuteronomy 22:23-24 is talking about consensual sex."
And how does one determine whether or not the woman "cried out"/"cried for help"/etc.? I (and Steve as well in the SAB from what I can gather from his comments there) assume this to mean that if there are no witnesses that say she cried out, then she would be stoned. If the next-door neighbors were sound sleepers, for example, then she'd be stoned to death whether she cried out or not.
Whereas a man (married or not, betrothed or not) who rapes an unspoken-for girl is not stoned to death; instead he just has to pay 50 shekels of silver and, what's worse, the girl has to marry her attacker! You can claim cultural relativism if you like, but I say this is just plain wrong. Are you saying God was okay with this?
Jason said: Moral progress? Humanity improving? I'm sorry but I couldn’t disagree more.[...]We’ve made great strides in gender and racial equality but these changes aren’t even global.
It didn't exist before, now it is starting to spread. This is progress, in my opinion.
[But] The gap between rich and poor continues to increase,
This is true. Do most people think this change is moral, though? I would wage that most people think this is immoral, but don't know what to do about it. Morality is not the issue in this case.
America continues to wage war overseas,
And now, most Americans are against the Iraq war. This is at least temporary progress...but I will admit that tis is an ongoing moral problem. The next administration will likely convince Americans that we direly need to kill people in some other country.
But the Israelites seemed to be at least as bellicose as we are, weren't they?
governments are still corrupt
Still is a good word here, I don't think they're any more corrupt than they were before
children are still being exploited,
I think in many countries, a lot of progress has been made in both laws against this and punishment for the offenders. I think more people think it is wrong to have sex with minors, for example, so I think moral progress has been made even if the problem is not anywhere near eradicated
the family unit is in shambles,
I think our views on the morality of this would differ. I think morality on family issues has increased (women and kids have more rights in the household than they used to, which I think is more moral than the man handing down edicts that must be obeyed under threat of physical harm), while the family unit itself is in danger due to frequent divorces and break-ups. So again the morality is good here, even though the execution leaves a lot to be desired and, I would argue, is getting worse from a cohesion standpoint.
pharmaceutical companies are still ignoring Africa,
But many people think this is wrong. Not enough is being done to stop it, but people know it's morally wrong that Africans are dying because of corporate greed.
we’re polluting our world on an never-before-seen scale,
Up until a few years ago, I would have agreed with you. But the country and the world are finally waking up to this, and people are working on concrete steps. It may be too late unfortunately, but both Christians and non-Christians alike are realizing increasingly that we should be the stewards of this planet and not destroy it with out waste. The idea of conservation didn't even exist centuries ago, so it's taken a while to realize what we're doing to the planet, but now I think a majority of people in the world know it's wrong to needless pollute and are looking to our leaders to find solutions to this.
the food crisis is deepening
Again, we're arguing morality. How many people can you find who think it is moral for people to be starving because of corporate greed? I think most people think it is wrong, but don't know what to do about it or are uncomfortable with what they think should be done about it because it would be seen to be against our economic system to give to each according to their needs.
personal debt continues to climb
Yes, I would agree this is partly due to a lack of morality in those who borrow massively. But I would blame banks and credit card companies for excessive usury at least as much as I blame individuals' immoral choices. In many cases, borrowing money on your credit card to pay for food or a loan to help Johnny go to college might be considered moral even if debt in general is immoral.
Jason said: [the cross is] not a reminder of sin, at least not Scripturally, since people continue to sin regardless.
I don't doubt that it's not taught to be a constant reminder of sin, but I doubt I was the only Christian who thought of this when looking on the cross. You mentioned a need for animal sacrifices. I would argue it's immoral to sacrifice animals, but I'm sure you would disagree with this because God ordered it. I think with this, we can agree to disagree.
Jason said, in response to McGuire: Who dictates moral absolutism?
I think morality, as an abstract concept, is something that can't be dictated. It is something that our understanding of is gradually developing and, in my opinion, improving.
I agree to a large extent with what Dan Barker, a former preacher who is now with the Freedom from Religion Foundation, argues: that morality is related to a large extent with harm. The more harm you do to a person, animal, planet, etc., the less moral it is. There may be exceptions where a momentary harm leads to less harm overall (like a doctor injecting a patient with medicine that will save his life: the shot will hurt, but in the long run it will save the patient's life and cause good). But in general, the more harm you do to someone, the less moral it is. So, hanging someone is less moral than guillotining them. The most moral thing in my opinion would be to do either, but in a choice between two things that accomplish the same thing, I believe the less harmful is better.
Sat Jun 07, 10:23:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Sorry for the typos in my post, I didn't proofread it as closely as I usually do. The most important one was at the end:
So, hanging someone is less moral than guillotining them. The most moral thing in my opinion would be to do either,
I meant to so: the most moral would be to do NEITHER. Guillotining is less painful and therefore (slightly) more moral.
Sat Jun 07, 10:29:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
The law in Deut 22:23-24 is talking about consensual sex, not rape, because the woman didn’t cry out irrespective of who would have heard her. You’re trying to read into something to make your point. Compare this with the situation in verse 27. Here, the man is said to “force her” (not “meet her" as in verse 22”) and even though she cried out there was no one to save her. Here, the law presumes the woman is innocent.
Regarding the situation in verse 28 and 29, we’ve already established that a man who rapes a woman is to be put to death. However, in this instance, he isn’t put to death and is instead instructed to marry the woman. Consider also the term “force” isn’t used here as it is previously while the term “take hold” is never used in the KJV to describe rape. Logic therefore dictates that rape isn’t what’s being described in these verses.
I would wage that most people think this is immoral, but don't know what to do about it. Morality is not the issue in this case.
If people think the widening gap between rich and poor is immoral, then it is the issue. The fact it's increasing, to me anyhow, means no progress has been made.
And now, most Americans are against the Iraq war. This is at least temporary progress...but I will admit that tis is an ongoing moral problem. The next administration will likely convince Americans that we direly need to kill people in some other country.
☺
But the Israelites seemed to be at least as bellicose as we are, weren't they?
Absolutely, but what nation wasn’t at the time? And unlike the U.S., the OT Israelites weren't interested in expanding their borders beyond what had been decreed nor did they ever venture into enemy lands with intent to control resources or promote their version of government ☺
…governments are still corrupt - Still is a good word here, I don't think they're any more corrupt than they were before
Which implies a lack of moral progress.
I think in many countries, a lot of progress has been made in both laws against this and punishment for the offenders. I think more people think it is wrong to have sex with minors, for example, so I think moral progress has been made even if the problem is not anywhere near eradicated
It’s not simply sex with minors or child soldiers, now it’s also child pornography. This implies, to me at least, moral degradation.
So again the morality is good here, even though the execution leaves a lot to be desired and, I would argue, is getting worse from a cohesion standpoint.
I don’t see the correlation. If the morality is so good, or better then before, one should expect to see a stronger, more cohesive family unit. Yet adultery has risen, divorce rates continue to climb and children, arguably, are suffering from a lack of parental attention.
But many people think this is wrong. Not enough is being done to stop it, but people know it's morally wrong that Africans are dying because of corporate greed.
I agree. As with this and my remaining examples, all I’m pointing out is that moral progress is purely subjective. We’ve advanced in some areas, done nothing in other areas, and fallen behind in yet other areas. The same can be said for any civilization in history, including the Israelites (except in their case, I don’t see any instance in their law where they fell behind in terms of moral progress when considering the morals and ethics of surrounding nations)
The rest of your comments have been read and respected ☺
Sat Jun 07, 11:30:00 AM 2008 
 McGuire said...
Who dictates moral absolutism?
I do.
But as asked, aren't you suggesting it's never right to question /judge the actions carried out by others? Do you see any reason why the Holocaust was wrong for example?
Sun Jun 08, 04:35:00 AM 2008 
 McGuire said...
It’s not simply sex with minors or child soldiers, now it’s also child pornography. This implies, to me at least, moral degradation.
No, it doesn't. People take utilize technology regardless of how distasteful the uses may be to others. Ancient Rome, Egypt, hell, even Stone Age Germany is rife with pornography;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/04/arts.germany
Archaeologists have discovered what they believe to be the 7,200-year-old remnants of a man having intercourse with a woman... Until now, the oldest representations of sexual scenes were frescos from about 2,000 years ago.
Besides, if you follow your logic through then what you're saying is people must love family members a lot more nowadays as they have pictures of them.
Sun Jun 08, 04:49:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
McGuire said: "But as asked, aren't you suggesting it's never right to question /judge the actions carried out by others? Do you see any reason why the Holocaust was wrong for example?"
No, I'm not suggesting that at all and I've already explained as such.
Sun Jun 08, 02:33:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mon Jun 09, 06:46:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
anon said...
Jason,
Thank you for your reply. I think we are maybe getting mixed up with two different definitions of morality.
I am discussing morality as a belief system, whereas you seem to be discuss morality as the conduct one has. For me, if murder is wrong and 99% of people in a society believe murder is wrong, then they are correct morally. Now, whether or not they follow their morals and refrain from murdering others is a different issue, in my eyes. The US has a high murder rate, but it's not because people think murder is okay/moral.
Even though we have not made sufficient progress in preventing the gap between rich and poor from growing, most people now know it's wrong. That was my point. I think this clears up most if not all of our disagreement about modern morality concerning rich/poor, government corruption, etc.
About the Deuteronomy raping and killing issues, there seem to be differences in the wording which vary slightly depending on the translation you read. Specifically for 28-29 says in the NIV (a version which you sometimes quote),
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
It is true the KJV doesn't come out and say rape, here, so either the NIV has it wrong, the original text indicates rape, or it is open to interpretation.
In any case, the only good thing I find in these verses is that when a woman gets raped / is taken hold of in the country, she isn't killed. Everything else from verse 13 and on in this chapter, by our modern standards, seems cruel or unfair to women. Women should not be killed for having sex, and should not be bought for 50 shackles either. If God doesn't think women should be killed or bought now because of who they did or didn't sleep with, I don't see why he was okay with the Israelites doing this back then.
Mon Jun 09, 06:49:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
mcguire said to jason...
aren't you suggesting it's never right to question /judge the actions carried out by others? Do you see any reason why the Holocaust was wrong for example?
I refrained from bringing up this example, but I thought of the same thing. The majority of people in Germany elected and supported a man who openly preached racial purity, and thought conquering and exterminating millions of people was the proper means to that end.
Jason, if the Nazis thought what they were doing was moral, then why was it not moral? I know you don't think the Holocaust was moral, but I don't see where you've explained why it wouldn't be moral.
You said:
Slavery [...] is not acceptable today because society deems this kind of behaviour improper and inappropriate. However, thousands of years ago, slavery wasn't frowned on by anyone. It was accepted and woven into the social and economic fabric of the time.
You claim that if the Israelites, ancient Egyptians, Romans, etc. did something that was moral to their society at the time (slavery, cutting off limbs, etc.) , then it was moral regardless of what we in our society think of it. This argument doesn't seem to involve God, since the ancient Egyptians did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
Is it just because thousands of years have passed that we can say that what the Egyptians did was moral but what the Nazis did 50 years ago was immoral? I'm really not trying to be difficult, I'm just having trouble understanding the distinction you're making. It seems to me that some things are just wrong, whether or not a majority of people think they are or not. A majority of people thought we should go to war in Iraq; they were wrong then, and they're still wrong now, in my opinion.
Mon Jun 09, 07:04:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
The OT law says a rapist is to be put to death. The man in verse 28-29 isn’t put to death. Logic therefore dictates that rape isn’t what’s being described in these verses.
Regarding the Holocaust, whatever the ultimate reason(s) for the condemnation, the fact is humanity collectively rejected and condemned the Nazi treatment and destruction of Jews (and others). Interestingly “The idea to annihilate whole groups of people matured in the twentieth century.” (reference)
You claim that if the Israelites, ancient Egyptians, Romans, etc. did something that was moral to their society at the time (slavery, cutting off limbs, etc.) , then it was moral regardless of what we in our society think of it. This argument doesn't seem to involve God, since the ancient Egyptians did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
Correct. Likewise, when we carry out moral actions today, whether they’re considered immoral in two thousand years from now doesn’t make what we’re doing now wrong since the wrong doesn't yet exist. If you think we're still responsible regardless, then we have no way of knowing, ever, what is truly right or wrong which I find far more alarming.
Is it just because thousands of years have passed that we can say that what the Egyptians did was moral but what the Nazis did 50 years ago was immoral?
What did the Egyptians do that’s comparable to what the Nazis did?
Tue Jun 10, 02:59:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said: The OT law says a rapist is to be put to death. The man in verse 28-29 isn’t put to death. Logic therefore dictates that rape isn’t what’s being described in these verses.
That is one logical explanation. Another is that there is a contradiction or a loophole for men who rape in the countryside. Another is that the NIV (and some other translations) have it wrong, but the KJV has it right. There is no one logical explanation, just several possibilities, as I already mentioned. If you choose to believe your reading of it, that's fine.
What did the Egyptians do that’s comparable to what the Nazis did?
I was referring to your reference to the Egyptians, where you said "The ancient Egyptians cut off limbs as punishment for crimes and in other cases, drowned or burned people at the stake." They both inhumanely killed people.
But since you bring it up, the Egyptians enslaved the Israelites. Slavery wasn't yet considered immoral at the time, and thus it should have been perfectly moral for the Egyptians to do so.
However, in Exodus, God found it fit to kill all their firstborn sons and send the Egyptians all sorts of other plagues. So the message seems to be that slavery's okay, as long as it's God's people who are doing the enslaving. Why is it moral for the Israelites to enslave people, but not for the Egyptians?
And if what the Nazis did was immoral (and directed against Jews, no less), why didn't God send plagues upon the Germans?
Tue Jun 10, 04:45:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
Cutting the limbs off criminals is hardly comparable to the killing of six million Jews...
God didn't send plagues on the Assyrians or Babylonians, why would He send plagues on the Germans?
God didn't send the plagues on the Egyptians as a message against enslaving the Jews. He did it to show the Israelites He was the Lord (Exodus 10:2, etc.).
Tue Jun 10, 07:05:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Cuckoo for christ, Jason, said, God didn't send the plagues on the Egyptians as a message against enslaving the Jews. He did it to show the Israelites He was the Lord (Exodus 10:2, etc.).
You are such a fucking idiot, Jason. Yeah, he told them he was the lord and he was going to punish the Egyptians because they held his chosen people in bondage.
You still got nothing.
Ex 6:6 "Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, 'I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments.
--S.
Tue Jun 10, 11:28:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said: Cutting the limbs off criminals is hardly comparable to the killing of six million Jews...
I didn't say the crimes were the Egyptians did were as bad as the crimes the Nazis did. You know I didn't say this. I was talking about morality. It is immoral to steal candy from a child and also immoral to kill millions of people. This doesn't mean the crimes were equal.
You were the one who tried to put words into my mouth by using the word "comparable". Even apples and oranges are comparable; if I talk about apples and oranges, it doesn't mean I think they're the exact same thing. I can point out similarities and differences. Apples and oranges are both fruits. Cutting off limbs and exterminating races are both immoral.
All I meant was that the Egyptians did something that their society was okay with, and the Nazis did something that their society was okay with. Both would appear to be moral, under the point of view you've expressed here: socially acceptable for that given society (not all of humanity, but just that society). I think they're both reprehensible; the Holocaust was the worst modern evil if not the worst evil of all time. But it doesn't appear to fall under your definition of immoral, even though you claim it does. I'm not saying you think it was moral, I'm just arguing with your definition.
God punished the Egyptians. You say that it was to show them who the real God was. So apparently not knowing who God was is a pretty serious crime, considering God clearly punished the Egyptians but did not clearly punish the Nazis. If God really didn't like what the Nazis did, why didn't he kill Hitler, or all firstborn Germans?
Thu Jun 12, 06:01:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
I asked you what the Egyptians did that the Nazis did. You said "They both inhumanely killed people". I object to this "both" comparison. People have inhumanely killed people for thousands of years - this doesn't give anyone the liberty to associate them to the Nazis any more then an opponent of the death penalty has a right to associate the American justice system to Nazi Germany.
Nonetheless, as I stated before: Regarding the Holocaust, whatever the ultimate reason(s) for the condemnation, the fact is humanity collectively rejected and condemned the Nazi treatment and destruction of Jews (and others). Interestingly “The idea to annihilate whole groups of people matured in the twentieth century.”
History doesn't record humanity rejecting the actions of the Egyptians, or the Israelites.
You misread my comment reading the plagues. I said: [God] did it to show the Israelites He was the Lord (Exodus 10:2, etc.)
Thu Jun 12, 11:37:00 AM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason Numbnuts said, You misread my comment reading the plagues. I said: [God] did it to show the Israelites He was the Lord (Exodus 10:2, etc.)

No, you fuckin' douche-bag, evidently, you can't read:
Ex 6:6 "Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, 'I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments."
He did it to punish the Egyptians to get them out of bondage. Your dick-head, sky-boss killed innocent, people and caused them to suffer, just so he could lead a few of his other children out of bondage. And you -- being the dumb-ass, deer-in-the-headlight, motherfucker, that you are -- condone these vile actions and actually, worship the imaginary, deranged, deity-despot that inflicted such carnage and tragedy. You are a complete delusional, shit-hole.
Tootles to you too, you ragin' purple knob.
--S.
Thu Jun 12, 09:06:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mon Jun 23, 02:35:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason,
I apologize for misreading your statement about God wanting to show the Israelites that he was God.
Apparently, from re-reading the relevant portions of Exodus, God tells Aaron and Moses that he wants to show the Israelites that he's God by tormenting and killing the Egyptians until the Israelites are set free. He sends Moses and Aaron to tell the pharaoh that this will happen. So I apologize for the error.
You said: I asked you what the Egyptians did that the Nazis did. You said "They both inhumanely killed people". I object to this "both" comparison. People have inhumanely killed people for thousands of years - this doesn't give anyone the liberty to associate them to the Nazis any more then an opponent of the death penalty has a right to associate the American justice system to Nazi Germany.
If you explain to me what is inaccurate about my statement, or the spirit in which it was stated, then I will gladly apologize and retract it.
I never said Egyptians were more inhumane or less inhumane, or that they killed more or fewer people than the Nazis. I never even implied it. We were discussing immorality. They both inhumanely killed people. You said so yourself: People have inhumanely killed people for thousands of years. In that sentence, you are lumping all the people who have inhumanely killed together: including Nazis, ancient Egyptians, the current US legal system, and anyone else in history who has done so.
You're not implying all people who inhumanely kill are exactly the same, are you? Of course not. If we're not allowed to compare and contrast things, then how are we supposed to have an intelligent discussion? As far as I know, the Nazis were cruel to far more people and killed far more people than the Egyptians did, and I've never said or implied otherwise.
Interestingly “The idea to annihilate whole groups of people matured in the twentieth century.”
This is simply untrue. One needs to only read the Bible to realize that the idea of annihilating entire peoples existed long ago among the Israelites According to the Bible, it was God's idea. (1 Samuel 15:2).
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/15.html#2
Mon Jun 23, 02:36:00 PM 2008 
 Marjani said...
It's pretty obvious that you have confused "abominations" with things that we are not supposed to eat in order to achieve maximum health. You can eat that stuff all you want, you can even pray over it -- it's still going to give you HBP, high cholesterol, a lifetime of animal-ingested illnesses, cancer, heart attacks and strokes because you really don't have any business eating it. That said: http://bible.cc/proverbs/6-16.htm. It's not an either/or proposition, it's a this AND THAT, too. If homosexuality, as well as bad food, and all of these other things are an abomination to God then that explains why the world is in the condition it is in. He apparently doesn't like christians who tell lies any more than he likes homosexuality.
Mon Jun 06, 10:43:00 AM 2011 
 why kiss the feet of the people that kick you, when you can be anything you want to said...
If all the Bible bashers would actually do some research about these laws, they would have their lips a little tighter. Shrimp, crab and shellfish are bad for you, If you eat them God is not going to send you to hell. Everything that God has told us is for our own good..
And 9 out of 10 of those abominations are taken so far out of context. Such as the one about craftsmen, Jesus was a carpenter!! Go and please read a few verses before and after the verses in question, and maybe even the whole chapter, you might learn something.
Mon Jan 30, 04:14:00 PM 2012 
 rv guy said...
The bible should be a timeless guide to how to live in anytime and any culture and be written clearly. Is that to much to ask of an all knowing god?
Sun Feb 19, 10:46:00 PM 2012 
 why kiss the feet of the people that kick you, when you can be anything you want to said...
It is not at all to much to ask of God, it is to much to ask of us humans to understand what God means, if God had had the Bible written simple enough for all generations of history to understand it then it would be no more complex then a childrens book. how could you explain doctrine and prophecy to people living right after the flood so that it would be understood and be logical to both them and now.. honestly.. use your heads..
Mon Feb 20, 08:52:00 AM 2012 
 6bdc2836-9df1-11e1-9175-000bcdca4d7a said...
I watched a documentary that explained that during the time the bible was written, the word "abomination" meant "non-customary," which completely changes the meaning of these passages.
Mon May 14, 11:20:00 AM 2012 
 Hope For All said...
Thank you! Why should God have to attend to our laziness? He gave us all brains.. Investigate! Instead of just taking verses out of context without really knowing their meaning and shaping them to mean what you want them to say, why not search for the truth. Why should an all-powerful God do any of the things that he does for us? It is not his obligation, but his choice! He is an all-knowing God and his rules are for our benefit. Actually read the Bible. You'll actually discover the character of God.. He is the definition of LOVE.
Mon Feb 18, 09:25:00 PM 2013 
 Inigo_Montoya_youkilledmyfather_preparetodie said...
Jason and everyone else...
"If you were Babylonian, you would agree this punishment was 'right' and acceptable. Do you disagree?"
I kind of disagree with this to be honest because nobody really knew what people were thinking...just that this was a time when yes it was accepted according to the law, but there may have been people that started to really think that the law and punishments may have been wrong...every civilisation had its skeptics...however they did not speak their mind BECAUSE of the punishments involved for doing so...these were societies that were NOT founded on freedom...but rather by unquestioning obedience, and there were no democracies or dissent...you simply did and said and "thought" and "felt" what you were told to and failure to do so was punished in a horrible manner...possibly in order to instill fear of the pain involved. All absolutist governments and theocracies embrace this as a means to control the people they so "love." The problem with this today is that we now have an understanding of history and a sense of reason and so we NOW know it is cruel to subjugate society the way it has been for eons.
As for my opinion...I believe it was WRONG then and it is WRONG now...and as far as someone from that time period finding it acceptable...absolutely most if not all did...however...the seed of reason did eventually get planted somewhere...so who knows if any one person in Babylon or any other ancient society actually dared to be different and believe in their hearts that the law codes and punishments were NOT acceptable. Like I said...the seed for the Age of Reason had to have come from somewhere...
Mon Jul 08, 12:04:00 PM 2013 
 Inigo_Montoya_youkilledmyfather_preparetodie said...
As for the difference between burning people to death and giving a lethal injection...the difference is that while it is still an execution and the taking of life...the difference is that one is more humane than the other...torturing people to death by making them experience the most horrible pain imaginable is not, nor was it ever a humane method of execution...it was cruel no matter when these were employed...anyone who has ever suffered a severe burn at ANY point in history and lived to tell the tale WOULD attest to the fact. If you really need to execute someone, always behead them...it's quick and it's painless and still carries out the death penalty. But no...we had to have sadistic people ruling over their societies with an iron scepter and fear was the only way to keep people in line so not only was the punishment for ANY offence death, which is a grim enough fate for the victim, it had to be done in a way that instills absolute fear in the rest of the populace by witnessing a person's flesh bubbling and melting and blackening and falling off the bones and hearing the pain and agony in the voice as he or she screams to be untied or even just screaming and wailing in agony until the merciful moment of death when the pain finally stops.
Mon Jul 08, 12:14:00 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
    
 27 July 2008Things that are easy for Allah
Some things are especially easy for Allah. Here's Allah's easy list from the Quran.
Making disbelievers' efforts fruitless.
Such have not believed. Therefore Allah maketh their deeds fruitless. And that is easy for Allah. 33:19
Leading disbelievers down the road to hell.
Lo! those who disbelieve and deal in wrong, Allah will never forgive them, neither will He guide them unto a road, Except the road of hell, wherein they will abide for ever. And that is ever easy for Allah. 4:168-9
Casting people into the Fire.
We shall cast him into Fire, and that is ever easy for Allah. 4:30
Doubly punishing Muhammad's wives for lewdness.
O ye wives of the Prophet! Whosoever of you committeth manifest lewdness, the punishment for her will be doubled, and that is easy for Allah. 33:30
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/27/2008 09:48:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
5 comments:
 Ian Hewitt said...
Do you get the feeling that perhaps Allah is just showing off?
Cheers
Ian
Sun Jul 27, 11:03:00 AM 2008 
 chrisgolfs2007 said...
do you know the origins of the Quran??? rehashed stories of Babylonia and Sumerian religions
Sun Jul 27, 07:58:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Let's not forget about the christian god.
"Ah Lord God! ... there is nothing too hard for thee." -- Jeremiah 32:17
Oh man, I can see it now -- God and Allah enter the Octagon, in the most explosive fight ever. Who will be the undisputed champion of the world? Will it be God -- nothing too hard for thee -- creator of the universe or Allah -- that's too easy -- creator of all things?!?! Fans won't be disappointed, when these two Deities of power, clash, in the upcoming Ultimate Fighting Championship!
And let's not forget who will be watching this -- waiting in the wings -- the one who will challenge the victor -- THE MIGHTY THOR!
--S.
Tue Jul 29, 12:41:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Yeah, you're right, sconner.
I bet confounding unbelievers, leading them astray, sending them to hell, and burning them forever is easy peesy lemon squeezy for the Bible god, too.
But what would he do with Muhammad's lewd wives?
Wed Jul 30, 06:21:00 PM 2008 
 A Voice of Sanity said...
Such have not believed. Therefore Allah maketh their deeds fruitless. And that is easy for Allah. 33:19
Yet the West doesn't believe - and their deeds are the reverse of fruitless. It is the Muslims that have done nothing, produced nothing of value for hundreds of years. Their present wealth is due to oil - a lucky accident they didn't even know about and couldn't exploit.
Tue Sep 16, 05:23:00 PM 2008 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 11 July 2008Holding the Holy Host Hostage
For those who haven't heard the whole story, you can read all about it at PZ's blog. But the short story is this: Webster Cook, a student at the University of Central Florida, went to mass to receive the Eucharist, but rather than consummating the communion by swallowing, he took the host out of his mouth and walked off with it. A clear case of Communion Interruptus. Holy Fucking Host, Batman!
Of course something like that doesn't happen without Bill Donohue and the Catholic League finding out about it. (They have video cameras in every Catholic church that League volunteers monitor continuously.) And when they did, all hell broke loose.
Which gives me an idea. Why don't we all go and do likewise? Go to mass, receive communion, and take the Holy Host home as a hostage. (It's easy to do nowadays. You can receive communion in your hand now standing up, rather than on the tongue while kneeling.) Every time we do that we'll be saving Jesus from being eaten alive by his followers (and a kitten from being killed by God).
Of course, I don't know what we can do with all the spare Jesuses. But I guess we could send them to PZ and let him deal with them.
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/11/2008 05:53:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
14 comments:
 sconnor said...
Bill Donahue and the "catholic league"? Is that the one with Batman, Wonder Woman and the Wonder Twins? Oh yeah, watch out Webster Cook, the league is going to get medieval on your ass.
Donahue's headline says, "Florida Teen Abuses Eucharists".
...and to masticate it into a "fleshy" pulp, swallowing into the stomach acid, and then evacuating it from your bowels, in the form of a smelly, bacteria-ridden, shit ball, Isn't abuse? Hilarious!
Donahue is a over-zealous, asshole, with high blood pressure -- I live for the day he gets so angry, that his head explodes, in a gory, flowering plume, like the guy from Scanners.
--S.
Sat Jul 12, 03:54:00 PM 2008 
 An Qiang said...
As we boldly stroll into the 14th century......at least we have the illuminating Bill Donahue to guide us.
- AQ
Sun Jul 13, 12:19:00 AM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
It's an American thing isn't it? I can't imagine the Catholics here in Australia getting their knickers in such a twist over an unconsumed biscuit...[sigh]
Sun Jul 13, 03:28:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
I laughed when I first read about this happening. But then I thought about it more, and I really have reservations about this.
I think going into churches and taking wafers to hold them hostage would do more harm than good. I can think of few acts that would turn people (including little kids watching at the service) against atheism and shore up public support against atheists more quickly than messing with communion during a church service.
Some people really believe that that silly wafer turns into Jesus. I know it isn't really Jesus, but if you have a group of people in the middle of practicing their religion, and you steal what they believe to be the flesh of their god, you're liable to horrify them and make them hate you and anyone like you.
Some of the more enlightened Christians won't think it's that big of a deal. But some people will think it's a huge deal. And neither group is going to suddenly realize "Hey, it is just a wafer after all! There is no God! What was I thinking?!". No, they're going to react emotionally to it.
Supposedly, the student took the wafer in a sort of protest against public funding of the church through student fees, which is a very valid thing to protest. If the church service were on public property, then I'd say it was a legitimate way to protest (why not take the wine too to celebrate a successful protest?!).
But it was on church property during a church service. That's interfering with people's right to practice religion. Sometimes I think it's okay to break the law to protest, but I don't see what it accomplishes in this case.
It's not going to change laws or public funding of religion (can you see a politician supporting a cause personified by someone stealing communion wafers?). It's not going to change people's minds about religion (it might even make them feel "persecuted" and close their minds even more to reason). There are better ways to protest against the spread of religion.
Bush is in office, and McCain and Obama are falling over each other to get the religious vote. I don't think going into a church and taking communion wafers will do any good, and just risks a backlash against atheists and our rights.
Sun Jul 13, 12:24:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Yeah, I have mixed feelings about this as well, Anon. So I'm mostly joking about the holy hostage caper.
But it is an interesting case, and I don't see how the Catholic church can prevent people from getting their hands on consecrated hosts and then doing whatever the hell they want with them. How can Bill Donohue tell who is a faithful Catholic and who is not?
Sun Jul 13, 01:09:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Thanks for clarifying, Steve. Sorry I misunderstood the tone of your post: it's hard to tell sometimes on the Internets when someone's joking.
I've been looking into it more, and I have even more mixed feelings than before. Based on Rambo123UK's reply on the SAB discussion board, I looked into things more. This "mass" is held on campus in the student union. It's a public university. So it's state-funded worship on state property.
I still think stealing the eucharist wasn't the best of ideas, but I can understand him being upset at $40,000 of student fees going to fund people worshipping in his student union. I'd want to make some sort of statement, too. If they want to eat Christ's body and drink his blood, they should do so on their own turf.
But the presence of university-paid armed guards to protect the wafers the week after the hostage taking shows how seriously some people are taking this whole thing.
It's crazy, literally. All this commotion over a cracker.
Sun Jul 13, 02:09:00 PM 2008 
 Rod of Irony said...
How many calories in a god bikkie anyway?
Sun Jul 13, 08:23:00 PM 2008 
 An Qiang said...
"No God and no religion can survive ridicule. No political church, no nobility, no royalty or other fraud, can face ridicule in a fair field, and live." - Mark Twain
It may be true that stealing wafers would offend some people, but why are we really so concerned about this?
Myers's idea of doing whatever the hell he wants to a cracker seems a bit childish, but the alternative is capitulation in the guise of "respect."
I'm sure we all remember the lunacy of Muslims condemning cartoonists to death. Well I for one applaud the newspapers and journalists who printed those cartoons.
We need to ask ourselves where is the difference.
"I'm offended!" should no longer be tolerated as a reasonable defense.
WE should be the ones offended. And pissed off. Let's not trip over ourselves trying to apologize to lunatics.
No one, especially me, is advocating violence or even the threat of harm to anyone. Which is very often more than can be said of our counterparts.
Don't become so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance.
- AQ
Mon Jul 14, 12:19:00 AM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Don't become so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance.
You hit the nail, right on the head.
--S.
Mon Jul 14, 02:17:00 PM 2008 
 RR said...
Actually, another thought...
If some sort of public funds are going to these churches, maybe we can make real use of this nonsense.
Tell the local homeless/hungry folks to start showing up! I don't know how much nutritional value "Jesus" has, but it's gotta be better than nothing. If homeless people start showing up for a daily dose of Jesus biscuits it put those things to good use!
And even the religious folks shouldn't complain... isn't caring after the poor one of their edicts?
Mon Jul 14, 04:16:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
an qiang said "I'm sure we all remember the lunacy of Muslims condemning cartoonists to death. Well I for one applaud the newspapers and journalists who printed those cartoons.
I also applaud and support the cartoonists. No one, especially not religious people, and especially not religious fanatics who think/claim their God tells them to kill people, should be above public scrutiny, criticism, and satire/parody.
We need to ask ourselves where is the difference."
The difference, in my mind, is those cartoons were printed in a newspaper, not distributed in a mosque. The media should have the right to publish (pretty much) whatever they want to. It's a matter of free speech.
This student though went into a church and took a holy symbol during a private service. I don't think you should do that, any more than a couple of Mormons should come unannounced into a private atheist meeting and steal "The God Delusion", or come into my backyard while I'm barbecuing to tell me about their holy underwear.
The tricky part is in this case with kidnapped cracker, it was public property that the church service was being held, which is illegal. So I think the guy clearly did have a right to do his protest, but I still don't think it really accomplished anything.
Atheists, freethinkers, etc. will appreciate the meaning of the gesture. But it probably will just make the Christians close their minds even further. "Those crazy heathens are barging into our churches now and stealing the body of our Lord and Savior!"
Don't become so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance.
It's a fine line, I agree. I just don't think outraging Christians by stealing their communion wafers is going to get them to see reason. I support this guy's right to disrupt a publicly-funded religious ceremony on public property, but in this case I don't see what good it does.
Mon Jul 14, 05:12:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
rr said: Tell the local homeless/hungry folks to start showing up! I don't know how much nutritional value "Jesus" has, but it's gotta be better than nothing.
That sounds good. I can see it now.
Are you hungry? thirsty?
FREE wine and crackers for all
Sundays at 9:30 am
Student Union Room XXX
Brought to you by University of Florida, program publicly-funded
You'll get the homeless, undergrads, wine connoisseurs, etc. all showing up. Presumably, people will know what's up before the service starts. Then you can make a statement: "This service is being funded by public money, so anyone in the public should be able to drink this wine and eat these crackers." The Christians then either have to accept everyone to their table (or at least the homeless: as you said, caring for the poor is one of their supposed mottos) or else get the idea and stop accepting public money and get a real church.
I think it's a great idea, don't know if it'd work though.
Mon Jul 14, 05:30:00 PM 2008 
 An Qiang said...
anon, thanks for the response but I'm afraid you just misunderstood the corollary.
When I made the comparison with the Muslim cartoon debacle I was comparing it to PZ's blog......not the escapades of the "biscuit bandit".
PZ has undoubtedly been condemned to death by nutjobs for his SUGGESTION of stealing a cracker in retaliation. That is all I meant - sorry for the confusion.
But you do bring up another interesting point. Is all this commotion really hurting our cause in the end.
Actually no.
So what good does it do?
First we should all take a look at the Catholic Church. I mean look at what they have been reduced to - issuing death threats over saltines! Oh how far they have come.
Secondly I think that secretly many of them feel ashamed of their church. Now no doubt there will be plenty who circle the wagons, but don't overlook the ones who are hanging their heads at the joke they have become (As I write this, I have to admit this is just my sincere hope, otherwise we are screwed).
Another point - we aren't going to "respect" someone out of their beliefs. Especially fucking idiots who think a Ritz turns into the son of God if you say certain latin words over it. There are advantages of treating the faithful with mock respect to be sure. I'm just not sure I could do it.
Oh and rr's suggestion is a stroke of genius. Have you ever seen a commercial for one of those hot rod monster truck shows? We could have one in the same style:
"Aaaaaaaaaatention all homeless people! This Sunday!, at 12:00 mass, free crackers and liquor for everyone! Here is your chance to eat your Lord and savior! Don't miss it.....it's AWESOME...awesome....awesome....awesome......
Mon Jul 14, 09:09:00 PM 2008 
 RR said...
I like it! Lets start feeding the homeless! Start the campaign!
As for the comment above: This student though went into a church and took a holy symbol during a private service.
I don't see that is was 1- a private service (since when are people turned away from a church service?) 2- he didn't 'take' anything: he was given a cracker to eat. Sure the folks doing the giving associated some religious significance to it, but that doesn't mean he has to... Does EVERYONE who takes this biscuit truly believe it turns into Jesus' body after some hocus-pocus? I seriously doubt it...
This is a non-issue as bad as the cartoonist craziness.
What if I went into the church, asked the priest for a "free bible", then proceeded to go outside and burn it, page-by-page. Would that be anything other than free speech?
Tue Jul 15, 04:29:00 PM 2008 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 02 July 2008Is there anything the God of the Bible could do that a believer wouldn't call good?
I recently asked the question, "Is it wrong to burn people to death?", and although there was a lot of discussion about it in the comments, there was no clear answer from any believer. The best (and pretty much only) answer seemed to be that yes, it is wrong to burn people to death today, but it wasn't wrong back in the day when God told people to do it and did it himself on occasion. You see, back then there were no laws against it and it was an accepted form of punishment. God was just doing and telling others to do what everyone else was doing. What could be wrong with that?
It reminded me of the "answer" given by John Yoo when asked by John Conyers if there was anything the president could not order to be done to a suspect if it was necessary for national defense. When Mr. Yoo refused to answer, Conyers asked, "Could the president order a suspect to be buried alive?" Of course that question wasn't answered either.
So it got me thinking. Is there anything that the God of the Bible could do that a believer wouldn't call good? Could he, for example:
Bury people alive?
Korah, 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 ... then the LORD hath not sent me. But if the LORD make ... 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. And it came to pass ... that ... 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 16:27-34
Burn people to death?
And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense. Numbers 16:35 (See here for more examples.)
Burn people forever after they die (but keep them alive to torture them)?
The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God ...he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone ... And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever. Revelation 14:10-11
Force parents to eat their children and friends to eat each other?
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
Force people to kill their brothers and eat themselves?
Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts ... no man shall spare his brother. And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm. Isaiah 9:19-20
Force people to cut off their noses and women to pluck off their breasts?
And I will set my jealousy against thee, and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears. ... Thou shalt even drink it and suck it out, and thou shalt ... pluck off thine own breasts: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD. Ezekiel 23:25-37
Kill a newborn baby to punish its parents?
Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. 2 Samuel 12:14
Dash little children to pieces and rip up pregnant women?
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. Hosea 13:16
Cause birth defects and spread dung on peoples' faces?
Behold, I will corrupt your seed and spread dung upon your faces. Malachi 2:3
Order a woman's hand to be cut off "without pity" for touching a man's genitals?
When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her. Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Of course, this is just a sample of what God has done. See here for a more extensive list of biblical cruelties.
Are all of these things good just because God did them? Just like whatever Bush does is legal because he is president?
If there a sane, moral Christian out there, I'd love to hear your response.
Posted by Steve Wells at 7/02/2008 06:40:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
101 comments:
 Jae said...
Hi, been reading your blog for a little while now and just wanted to say: keep up the good work.
Until I was 16 I was a Christian (thankfully this was just a rebellion against my atheist family!). Then I read the Bible and it was the stories like this that made me see how insane and deceitful religion can be.
Wed Jul 02, 09:34:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
God asks Christians to do the same...? Would you happen to have Scriptural references showing where God asks Christians to burn people forever after they die, cause birth defects, force people to eat themselves, or cause localized earthquakes that kill specific individuals...?
Perhaps you have some relevant Christian-specific commandments from the NT that you would consider equally as cruel.
Wed Jul 02, 10:06:00 AM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason, Steve asked for sane, moral christians.
--S.
Wed Jul 02, 02:06:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Jason,
I've removed the reference to God's immoral commands, not because I think they no longer apply to Christians (I think they do), but because I want to focus this post (and the comments) on the actions of God alone.
Is there anything the God of the Bible could do that a believer wouldn't call good? How about the ten things that I've listed in this post? Are they the actions of a good God?
Wed Jul 02, 04:11:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve,
They're the actions of a God who made it clear what the punishments would be for not obeying His commandments.
Wed Jul 02, 09:42:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
So they are good then, is that what you're saying Jason?
It was good for God to kill David's newborn baby in order to punish David? (2 Samuel 12:14-18)
Wed Jul 02, 09:59:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Steve asked Jason, It was good for God to kill David's newborn baby in order to punish David?
Jason's sadistic, psycho-fuck of a god, just didn't cause David's infant son to just simply die, no, god caused and allowed David's son to suffer, in sickness, for seven days, only to die.
To cause an infant to be sick and let the him suffer, for seven days, only to die, as a punishment for an others actions is an abominable act, perpetrated by only the most vile, loathsome, and revolting, creature -- imaginable.
Jason said, They're the actions of a God who made it clear what the punishments would be for not obeying His commandments.
When did god make it clear to David, if he didn't follow his commandments, god would cause David's son to become sick -- suffering for seven days -- only to die?
--S.
Wed Jul 02, 11:04:00 PM 2008 
 Hugo said...
When I read PZ's post I also thought back to the burning post, John Yoo seems to place the president at the same level as believers put their god.
Thu Jul 03, 12:21:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Steve,
I'm not saying it's good or bad - I'm saying it is what it is.
Thu Jul 03, 06:24:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Nice answer, Jason.
John Woo couldn't have said it better!
Thu Jul 03, 06:40:00 AM 2008 
 RR said...
So "it is what it is" -- essentially means you can't bring yourself to say god's actions in this case were "good" (and just)... ??
I thought if you were a christian, anything your god has done - blessed people, punished them or their offspring, etc. etc. - must be considered good.
Thu Jul 03, 11:45:00 AM 2008 
 RR said...
... the point being, its demonstrated yet again that there is nothing: no action, believe or edict that can dissuade a believer.
If you start with "the god of the bible is real", as your axiom, ANYTHING is justified. Any behavior can be considered "acceptable" if you can convince yourself "god wants you to do it" (e.g. - like burning people alive, killing women and children, or even salting the earth...)
Sounds like pure moral relativism to me...
Thu Jul 03, 11:48:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
I think it's a very fair comparison between the explanations/excuses given for Bush and God.
I can't decide whether I should be shocked that Yoo won't say that the president can't order people to be buried alive, or scared that Yoo's non-response means he could envision the president doing such a thing (or believe it could be justified).
Certainly even Bush and company couldn't consider ordering a person buried alive, could they?
In any case, it's the same sort of logic for Bush and God: if the president did it, it's legal (or I won't say it's illegal, just in case). If God did it, it's good (or I won't say it's not good, just in case).
Doesn't there come a point where you decide that you can no longer support the president, or defend God, because of the horrible things they've done? Does fear prevent one from crossing that threshold, or is the reward too great (power / eternal life)?
Most Christians really don't know most of the violent things that are in the Bible. They may have vaguely heard of maybe one or two things on Steve's list, at the very most, and shrugged it off as an aberration. But once you've read the Bible and see what God is really like (based on the sorts of things he says and does over and over again in the Old Testament), I don't see how you can still want to believe the Bible is true, or that the God described in the Bible exists.
Thu Jul 03, 05:48:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Perhaps Christians read the Bible and see that the God described in it is wrathful when His commandments are broken, but also loving and merciful towards them that believe and is willing to offer eternal life as a reward. Just a thought.
Fri Jul 04, 05:21:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Ah, the old BELIEVE OR ELSE trick, very moral, very benevolent
Wife-beaters all over the world know that it's a very successful strategy, they always go back for more.
Fri Jul 04, 05:46:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason said: Perhaps Christians read the Bible and see that the God described in it is wrathful when His commandments are broken, but also loving and merciful towards them that believe and is willing to offer eternal life as a reward.
This would make sense, except for:
1) Some of the punishments described in Steve's original post, and elsewhere in the Bible, kill innocent bystanders who did not break the commandments.
2) Even "just" people are sometimes punished by God (Job being the most famous case)
If you argue to counter the first point that even babies are born sinful by nature and deserving of God's wrath, then is it just for God to only kill some babies and not others? What makes one baby more deserving to die than another?
If you argue to counter the second point that God isn't "wrathful" towards his believers and is simply testing his followers sometimes, then this shows that God isn't always loving and merciful towards his believers. How is a believer to know makes God decide whether or not to be merciful towards them?
Since we don't expect a just God to mete out punishment in a clearly unequal fashion, it would make sense logically that (and or more of the following):
* God is just, but some of the stories about God in the Bible are untrue
* God is just, but judges by some other means that he has not told us
* God is simply not just
* God simply does not exist
Are there any other logical explanations for why God unjustly punishes some people?
Fri Jul 04, 08:00:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Hugo,
Actually, God isn't threatening anything. If you don't want to believe, you live and you die and that's it. It's far less dramatic then what you're suggesting. Pity, isn't it :)
Fri Jul 04, 08:05:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Hugo,
Actually, God isn't threatening anything. If you don't want to believe, you live and you die and that's it. It's far less dramatic then what you're suggesting. Pity, isn't it :)
But by not believing we're supposedly braking his commandments and then he should be wrathful to bring us into the fold so that he can love us ...
At least according to scripture as interpreted by jason here:
Perhaps Christians read the Bible and see that the God described in it is wrathful when His commandments are broken
But yeah, I know, words in an ancient book or very sincere wishful thinking by believers don't change reality :-)
Fri Jul 04, 08:17:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
1) Who were the 'innocent bystanders'?
1b) What makes one baby more deserving to die than another? It's a humbling pill to swallow but our lives are God's. "For every living soul belongs to me..." (Eze 18:4) and "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." (Romans 9:15)
2) The Bible doesn't say Job wasn't punished and in the end, he was given more then he had at the start.
2b) How is a believer to know makes God decide whether or not to be merciful towards them? By a basic reading and understanding of Scripture.
Are there any other logical explanations for why God unjustly punishes some people?
God isn't injust - He just doesn't happen to conform to your sense of justice.
Fri Jul 04, 08:36:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Hugo,
The 'commandment' in the NT is to have faith, be baptised, and follow Christ. If you'd rather not, that's fine. In return, you will live, you will die, and that will be the end of your existence. That's the punishment.
Fri Jul 04, 08:46:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
As John Conyers said to John Woo, "I think we can see the games that are being played here."
John woo wouldn't answer the question, and neither will Jason. I suggest we call another witness.
Is there any believer out there that will answer the question. (Is there anything the God of the Bible could do that a believer wouldn't call good?)
Fri Jul 04, 09:02:00 AM 2008 
 GAD said...
"Is there anything the God of the Bible could do that a believer wouldn't call good?"
You've set up a contradiction, the god of the bible is the definition of good i.e. he defines what is good, if one believes in god then by definition everything he does is good.
Fri Jul 04, 10:47:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason: 1) Who were the 'innocent bystanders'?
Among others, babies eaten or punished for the deeds of their parents. They were innocent bystanders (or at least no more guilty than any other baby) who were victims of God's wrath.
Jason: [Job] he was given more then he had at the start.
Getting more kids doesn't give you back the ones God killed. Why didn't God resurrect the kids He murdered and give them back to Job?
Jason: God isn't injust - He just doesn't happen to conform to your sense of justice.
What sense of justice does he conform to? Is there any way you or any other believer would admit God did something that was not good?
Gad said: the god of the bible is the definition of good i.e. he defines what is good, if one believes in god then by definition everything he does is good.
Other gods in other religions do both good and bad things, why can't God do something bad? In fact, the Bible in Isaiah 45:7 quotes God as saying "I make peace, and create evil."
So we know that God creates evil. Gad, Jason, or other Christians or Jews who may be reading this: Is creating evil a good thing?
I would think that creating evil is, by definition, bad.
Fri Jul 04, 12:14:00 PM 2008 
 GAD said...
"Other gods in other religions do both good and bad things, why can't God do something bad? In fact, the Bible in Isaiah 45:7 quotes God as saying "I make peace, and create evil.""
Because god is real and the other ones are false, of course.
"So we know that God creates evil. Gad, Jason, or other Christians or Jews who may be reading this: Is creating evil a good thing?"
Yes, because by definition everything the one true god does is perfect and good.
"I would think that creating evil is, by definition, bad"
Nope! God, not you, defines what is good and bad.
Religion doesn’t have to make sense, if it did it would be called science.
Fri Jul 04, 12:52:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason said, 2) The Bible doesn't say Job wasn't punished and in the end, he was given more then he had at the start.
Once again, Jason, your mindless attempts at salvaging your god's ridiculous and vulgar reputation are both idiotic and ludicrous. The story -- yes the STORY of Job is a revolting and disturbing little ditty, that paints your god as a deranged, asshole. God is the cosmic equivalent to a sick, 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 by pulling the legs off one by one, then decides to slowly burn it with a magnifying glass. And why does god torture Job? It's to prove a petty, little point to Satan. God is nothing more than an insecure, contemptible, piece of shit, who tortures people to get his rocks off and make inane points at the expense of his earthly children -- absolutely deplorable.
What makes this asinine story and Jason's defense of it so revolting is the absurd notion that god gave him more than he had at the start. After god tortures Job and kills his children, he decides to make everything better, restore the faithful Job to his healthier self and with the compassion of a demented, dictator, he replaces Job's seven sons and three daughters with an entirely different set of children. I mean what kind of fucked-up, god is this? How can the excruciating pain of losing a child be removed by replacing it with the birth of another? What is god saying? -- that a child is expendable and then replaceable like a lost CD or new ants for the ant farm?
My ten year old son died from a heart attack related to leukemia. I know what suffering is and I know the overwhelming devastation and the crippling grief it has caused me, to lose my son. A Deity could give me all the wealth in the world and a thousand other sons, but nothing and no one could replace Connor. The very idea of it is insane and makes me nauseous and only points to the story of Job as being an absurd, heartless, myth compiled by primitive, superstitious men. And the very idea that Jason continues to defend this repulsive, psycho-fuck god is astonishingly, abhorrent and makes me just as sick.
It is so obvious that Jason is an uneducated, ignorant, asshole, that is hopelessly steeped in his religion. The bullshit that constantly flows from his mouth is a vomiting waterfall of strained conclusions and contradictory evidences, that he can't smell. Jason futilely protects his myopic beliefs, where he cowers in the comfy-cozy, illusion of hope and arrogantly proclaims that his unique, christian club is posthumously, saved -- providing him, with a false sense of security and a bogus sense of superiority.
Jason you are a small-minded, delusional fuck-tard, shit-hole, who reeks from the bullshit you spew. You and your god are complete psycho-fucks -- a couple of cosmic ball sacks, only worthy of the shit you wallow in. You are just as vile and repugnant as the god, you get on your knees for and worship, as you suck his cosmic cock and defend him.
--S.
Fri Jul 04, 05:19:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon,
Scripture doesn't say God commanded that babies were to be eaten and in the instance of idolatrous Samaria, there were no 'innocent' bystanders. The entire people were wicked and since God knows beginning from end, I believe God knew the children would have grown up to be equally as wicked as their parents.
Ultimately, there is no answer which is going to make you happy when it comes to this kind of a discussion. I believe that God has ordained a life in which we have to experience suffering at all levels, and has done so in order that we might have the maximum of free will and the greatest test of faith. And I don't have a problem with that.
Getting more kids doesn't give you back the ones God killed. Why didn't God resurrect the kids He murdered and give them back to Job?
God gave Job twice as much of everything at the end except children. I believe Job would have thus known his first ten children were going to be resurrected and 'given back to him', not in his lifetime, but in the lifetime to come.
What sense of justice does he conform to? Is there any way you or any other believer would admit God did something that was not good?
God conforms to His own sense of justice and no since I sincerely don't believe God has ever done something inherently evil.
So we know that God creates evil. Gad, Jason, or other Christians or Jews who may be reading this: Is creating evil a good thing?
Absolutely. Without evil, what would good be?
Sat Jul 05, 06:06:00 AM 2008 
 GAD said...
Jason said:
"Absolutely. Without evil, what would good be?"
Spoken like a good Christian. To bad being a good Christian is worthless, it cost you $4 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks same as anyone else.
Without evil, what would good be? How about the world and universe before the fall, you know the way god made it and intended it to be. Where good was good without any evil, you know the world your implying can't exist because it doesn't have evil to make good, good, and the one all good Christians say will come again in the end.
Sat Jul 05, 10:24:00 AM 2008 
 Calimero said...
Jason said:
"Absolutely. Without evil, what would good be?"
Well said Jason only a true christian could ever be an apologist for hitler, stalin, pol pot, the inquisition and all the other willfully murderous bastards in history.
This is not a philosophical or religious discussion this is not even a productive discussion, people who believe in god are mentally unstable, they are broken and they are irrational. No rational argument is likely to fix them. They are however entitled to their delusions, just as we are entitled to lock them up if their thoughts or actions are considered by the majority to be a danger to society; That time is fast approaching. And hey all we would be doing denying them their freedom, (which is a bit rotten but for everyones good). In comparison, if there was any truth to their reality they would have us all burning in hell for eternity. So you see we are the nice guys.
Sat Jul 05, 01:45:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Calimero,
You're taking my comments out of context. I'm merely stating that without evil, good doesn't exist. If you disagree, please pose your argument instead of misrepresenting my statements.
Sat Jul 05, 04:07:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
The deluded bat-shit crazy Jason said, Scripture doesn't say God commanded that babies were to be eaten and in the instance of idolatrous Samaria, there were no 'innocent' bystanders. The entire people were wicked and since God knows beginning from end, I believe God knew the children would have grown up to be equally as wicked as their parents.
Asshole, you don't know if the babies and children or other bystanders in Samaria were going to grow up and be wicked; you simply made that part up, to rationalize and justify the actions of your piece of shit god. For a person who relies on scripture to do your thinking for you, it would seem you overstepped your limited bounds and went into the land of imagination and conjecture, to try, once again, to salvage the reputation of your psycho-fuck of a god. Nowhere in the context of the Samaritan story does it say that the children or the innocent were going to grow up to be wicked.
Would it have been immoral and absolutely deplorable for your god to kill the innocent, if indeed, they weren't going to grow up wicked? Why do I even ask? You can't answer it, honestly.
Dumb-fuck Jason, said, I believe God knew the children would have grown up to be equally as wicked as their parents.
Hmmmm, kind of makes you wonder why he created them, in the first place, knowing what they were going to become and all?
Jason numb-nuts, can use this strained rationalization for other atrocities committed by his shitty god, as well. Jason condones god's actions when he drowned the estimated 30,000,000 of his earthly children, because, you know, they all were going to grow up to be wicked. Or when David committed that awful, horrid, sin of counting the people, god had to punish him, well not him so much, as in fact, he caused his people to suffer and die, in a plague, but by Jason's logic they deserved it, because they would have grown up to be wicked, as well. Fuck you Jason, you are diseased in the head -- you got nothing, but a psychotic, delusional perception.
Jason also contends, that, God has ordained a life in which we have to experience suffering at all levels, and has done so in order that we might have the maximum of free will and the greatest test of faith.
Which is also complete bullshit; another rationalization you pulled out of your shit hole. You relegate your sky-boss to a deranged psychopath who uses suffering as a tool. You would think if your god was truly all-powerful he could have acquired exactly what he wanted out of us, while still maintaining the maximum of free will without all the unimaginable, vile, suffering in the world.
I have to wonder, how did god give the maximum of free will and test the faith of innocent babies -- during the Holocaust -- who were thrown onto a heap of dead bodies to be burned alive?
You would also think that your supposedly all-powerful god could create a world where good exists at various levels, without the existence of evil -- evidently your god couldn't handle that. Doesn't your precious heaven abolish suffering, while presumably, free will and goodness exists, at the exclusion of evil, or does your god continue to fuck with us -- keeping us as slaves, doing whatever he wants with us?
Face it Jason you are a deluded, asshole.
Jason said, God gave Job twice as much of everything at the end except children. I believe Job would have thus known his first ten children were going to be resurrected and 'given back to him', not in his lifetime, but in the lifetime to come.
You mother-fucking, piece of shit; this one really pisses me off. First the context of the scripture never says that -- you just pull this out of your ass again to salvage the disturbing, reputation of your foul god. Second, knowing that your children will be resurrected sometime in the future, still doesn't absolve your prick-god for killing his children, so as he might prove a petty point to Satan. It only proves your god is an INSECURE megalomaniac, who knows nothing about the monumental grief a parent suffers when their children have died. There is no consolation knowing that one day you may see them again, because you have lost everything, in the here and now. The suffering and the grief still remains because of the enormous hole in your life. Jason, you brain-dead fuckin' little donkey; you know not what you are speaking. You are a vile, festering wound on humanity, a deluded, drone of ignorance and insanity and a no good piece of shit, who is a waste of skin and a thief of oxygen. I would tell you to firmly plant your head up your ass but that would be redundant. You've been in that foul stench for years. It is my sincerest pleasure to continue to ridicule you and berate you, because you are a disgusting and pathetic creature only deserving of disrespect. I laugh at you but I would spit in your face, just the same.
--S.
Sat Jul 05, 04:15:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
I believe God knew the children would have grown up to be equally as wicked as their parents.
Couldn't God have given these children to another family, who would raise them better? Or were these children biologically wicked from birth?
Job would have thus known his first ten children were going to be resurrected and 'given back to him', not in his lifetime, but in the lifetime to come.
You do realize that no one went to heaven before Christ was resurrected, at least according to most Christian denominations? In this case, Job's children spent hundreds or thousands of years either dead in the ground or burning in hell.
Do you think those who aren't in heaven find each other later in death, or in hell?
If so, then Job had to wait many years before seeing his children again, until he died. If not, then he may never have seen them again. Some people believe that all non-Christians, including the ones who died before Christ's resurrection, are still dead or in hell since they did not know Christ.
Do you believe this? What do you base your belief on for this matter?
Without evil, what would good be?
God created evil, yet punishes humans who commit evil. Do you not see the problem here? If God was unable or unwilling to create an existence without evil, that's not our fault, is it? If anything, God should apologize to us for creating evil instead of finding ways to punish us for its fruits.
Calimero said: people who believe in god are mentally unstable, they are broken and they are irrational. No rational argument is likely to fix them.
I used to believe in God, and it was by finally thinking things out little by little that I eventually stopped believing. Christians can become atheists; atheists can become Christians. I think if people engage in honest debate, it can be useful for both sides.
I'm very, very sorry about your loss, sconnor. I understand your anger a little better now. A loving god wouldn't make people suffer and take them from us with no explanation. I don't even want to know what "excuse" could be used by Christians to explain this, other than the standard "he's in a better place now." If there's really a better place up there, why not take everyone there then? It's completely senseless.
Sat Jul 05, 04:39:00 PM 2008 
 Calimero said...
Jason says
You're taking my comments out of context. I'm merely stating that without evil, good doesn't exist.
Hiding behind sophistry is a waste of time. You are using the statement "without evil, good doesn't exist" to justify your argument for what any sane person would call "God's evil deeds". Otherwise why end your justification for your imaginary friends actions by including the statement at all! You cannot justify any evil action, gods or Hitler's, by claiming it is necessary for evil to be demonstrated so that its antithesis can be understood. God as described in the OT is "evil" by the standards of any civilized society.
Anyone who defends either Gods actions or disagrees with that statement is clearly not sane - by any "normal meaning of the word.
It is as yet not a crime to be irrational for which all of christ's followers should be. grateful. HAND
Sun Jul 06, 11:02:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon said: Couldn't God have given these children to another family, who would raise them better? Or were these children biologically wicked from birth?
Sure He could have, but He didn’t. As for your second question: “...For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me...” (Exo 20:5)
You do realize that no one went to heaven before Christ was resurrected, at least according to most Christian denominations? In this case, Job's children spent hundreds or thousands of years either dead in the ground or burning in hell.
I do realize that. Like I said, Job would have known his first ten children were going to be resurrected and 'given back to him', not in his lifetime, but in the lifetime to come.
Do you think those who aren't in heaven find each other later in death, or in hell?
I’m not sure where you’re coming from...?
If so, then Job had to wait many years before seeing his children again, until he died. If not, then he may never have seen them again. Some people believe that all non-Christians, including the ones who died before Christ's resurrection, are still dead or in hell since they did not know Christ.
Like I said, “in the lifetime to come.”
Do you believe this? What do you base your belief on for this matter?
What exactly do you think I believe based on my brief comment regarding Job’s sons and daughters being resurrected?
God created evil, yet punishes humans who commit evil. Do you not see the problem here? If God was unable or unwilling to create an existence without evil, that's not our fault, is it? If anything, God should apologize to us for creating evil instead of finding ways to punish us for its fruits.
Please answer the question: without evil, what would good be?
Mon Jul 07, 06:18:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Calimero,
This question was posed: So we know that God creates evil. Gad, Jason, or other Christians or Jews who may be reading this: Is creating evil a good thing?
To which I responded: Absolutely. Without evil, what would good be?
There's nothing here about justifying anyone's actions and I object to the accusation I'm being deceptive. If you're not interested in answering the question, just say so.
Mon Jul 07, 06:25:00 AM 2008 
 Dave said...
Sconner, reading your post about your son brought me to tears, even knowing about it from prior posts and your blog. My heart aches for you. I have 2 teenage daughters that are the light of my life, and even the thought of losing them is more than I can handle.
If I were to suffer a major loss, it would be far easier for me to handle knowing that it was due to some random cosmic event than it would thinking there was some all-knowing all-powerful god at the helm. A god that uses his own creation’s suffering as some kind of sick mental masturbation.
As do others except Jason, I find the story of Job and his children literally sickening. The clincher for me about the story was that god not only replaced Job’s children to make everything okay, his new daughters were even better looking than they were before. As if their physical beauty would make Job love them, and god, even more. It doesn’t get any sicker than that. And Christians don’t even see the sickness. As Jason has repeatedly demonstrated to everyone except himself, their humanity has literally been removed.
Sconner, I used to find your use of foul language offensive. I do not any longer, and you write what I am thinking. And amongst the anger you make some outstanding points. Thank you.
Speaking of which, there is one set of comments earlier in this thread that I think deserves Jason’s attention.
In response to Steve’s question ”Are they the actions of a good God?”, Jason said, ”They're the actions of a God who made it clear what the punishments would be for not obeying His commandments. Sconner then asked ”When did god make it clear to David, if he didn't follow his commandments, god would cause David's son to become sick -- suffering for seven days -- only to die?”
Jason has never answered this very direct and precise question. Jason, please do so.
Mon Jul 07, 06:56:00 AM 2008 
 GAD said...
"Without evil, what would good be?"
Was the world not good without evil in the beginning, and will it not be good without evil in the end?
Mon Jul 07, 08:03:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Dave,
I have no drive or desire to respond to Sconnor's points or questions.
Thanks for your input.
Mon Jul 07, 08:16:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Gad,
It was and it will but neither instance removes the existence of evil, it simply removes the acts of evil.
Perhaps you can answer: without evil, what would good be?
Mon Jul 07, 08:26:00 AM 2008 
 GAD said...
"It was and it will but neither instance removes the existence of evil, it simply removes the acts of evil."
So then good doesn't exist in and of itself, it is a vacuum state in the absence of evil acts?
Mon Jul 07, 08:58:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Without evil, what would good be?
Mon Jul 07, 09:22:00 AM 2008 
 Dave said...
Jason, I have a question for you. In response to Steve’s question ”Are they the actions of a good God?”, you said, ”They're the actions of a God who made it clear what the punishments would be for not obeying His commandments.
So my question is this: When did god make it clear to David, if he didn't follow his commandments, god would cause David's son to become sick -- suffering for seven days -- only to die?
Mon Jul 07, 09:23:00 AM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason, the mindless drone, who never had an original thought of his own, said, "Without evil, what would good be?"
It would be great!
Such arguments, for the necessity of evil to make goodness more meaningful or apparent, are trite and shallow and crumble before the idea of an omnipotent God; for certainly, a God -- THE CREATOR OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE -- could produce a creation in which there were an infinite number of wonderfully, enjoyable, possibilities at every level, all of them good and all of them extremely and exponentially, pleasurable and satisfying, without the existence of evil.
As an example, I do not need a big vat of poison at a fine cafeteria for me to appreciate the cornucopia of excellent choices and delicious food.
--S.
Mon Jul 07, 02:00:00 PM 2008 
 Calimero said...
Jason said...
If you're not interested in answering the question, just say so.........
i am interested in answering the question, but maybe I'm missing something.
the question ? ............ "So we know that God creates evil. Is creating evil a good thing?"
and you claim ! "Absolutely. Without evil, what would good be?"
Then would it be correct to assume that you think
1) That God creates evil
2) That this is a good thing
3) At least one reason you feel its a good thing is because "Without evil, what would good be?

1) That God creates evil, is an erroneous assumption,
2) and "we" (plural ?) know nothing of the sort.
Most rational people don't think God creates evil - because "god" is imaginary and imaginary things exist only in the imagination. But lets skip that.
3) Without evil, what would good be?
Well first we have to define our terms. What is evil? I think "evil" is a concept used to describe the actions of sentient creatures, real or imaginary, that causes willful and needless pain and suffering. Someone who carries out or precipitates evil acts can be described as an evil person. Its that simple.
You on the other hand for whatever lack of reason, have created, a great big universe sized imaginary friend and convinced yourself that you "know" your imaginary friend's imaginary wishes, motives and creative scope, and no doubt you think, with sincerity, if not with much common sense that "god" creates "evil" - perhaps in the same way a chef creates a souffle or a chocolate cake ?
If context in irrelevant and you simply want an answer to the question.........
3) "Without "evil", what would good be?
how about " without "tall" what would short be?
Hardly profound and not very informative. Most adjectives have opposites, their existence is neither mutually dependent nor exclusive. They are qualitative concepts not hard edged entities. Without "evil" good would be what it has always been. Without black white would still be white.
On the other hand if you are saying that it is necessary for "evil acts to be demonstrated" so that we recognize "good acts"
please say so and I will explain why that is a load of rubbish as well.
HAND
Mon Jul 07, 04:48:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
I think there's an answer buried in there somewhere. It would appear as though you believe good can exist even if evil didn't. Is this true?
Tue Jul 08, 05:32:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason, your argument is, essentially, that it's okay for God to create evil, do evil things, and let humans to do evil things because if he didn't, then good would not exist, because without evil, there cannot be good. Is this correct?
Let's accept your hypothesis for a minute. How much evil is required for good to exist? When you say that God "could have" given the babies he killed to another family instead of killing them, but he chose not to, was this because there is some sort of "evilness quota" that he must fill or else good would not exist? If there isn't a quota of how much evil must be done for good to exist, then why in this specific circumstance does God commit the evil act of killing babies?
You quote Exodus as justification for God killing or forcing to suffer the descendants of sinners to several generations. You do realize that this is God's rule that he made up, right? God, unless there's an "evilness quota" he must fulfill, also could have let future generations off the hook with his divine forgiveness, saying in Exodus:
[hypothetical good God speaking]"I, the LORD your God, am not a vengeful God. I will not visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hated Me. I will spare these children from my wrath and show unto them my eternal love, for I realize that generations to come should not be held to pay for the sins of their forefathers."[/end of quote by hypothetical good God]
God chose not to do this either out of some perceived obligation to commit evil, or just because he gets pleasure out of being mean to innocent humans sometimes. If there is another explanation, please let us know.
Concerning Job, and the issue of whether or not pre-Christian Jews are in heaven, and whether or not the unsaved see each other again in/after death, why should I tell you what you believe? You say you made a "brief" comment on the matter. This is why I asked you to explain further. You ask me and others to further explain brief references we make. You can choose not to express your beliefs on the matter of course, but your asking me to explain what I think you believe doesn't make sense when you can choose to do so yourself.
Dave said "The clincher for me about the story was that god not only replaced Job’s children to make everything okay, his new daughters were even better looking than they were before. As if their physical beauty would make Job love them, and god, even more. It doesn’t get any sicker than that.
I agree. If God wanted to make Job wait to see his original children again until sometime in the life to come, as Jason claims, why did he send more children to Job in the meantime? Did God realize after the fact that it was kind of mean to kill Job's children and leave him childless, and hoped a more beautiful set would at least be some consolation?
It's like killing your son's pet goldfish in front of his eyes just to see if he'll swear at you for killing them, but once he doesn't then you buy him some pretty tropical fish to make up for it. Except of course instead of fish, we're talking about killing children here, and instead of your dad tormenting you by killing your pet goldfish, we're talking about an almighty God torturing you by killing your children. A perfect God could have found a way around committing the evil act of killing the children in the first place.
As sconnor and others have pointed out, God as creator of the universe should have been able to find a way to create a good universe. Instead, he created both good and evil. He either thought it'd be more fun that way, or he wasn't able to.
I think I've figured it out. The flaw in your argument, Jason, is that if the concept of good exists, then the concept of evil must exist by definition. This doesn't mean evil must exist in reality.
Let me give an example. I can write a sentence that has absolutely no typos in it. It is a 100% error-free. I can write another sentence, and another, and another, carefully typing and proofreading to make sure there are no typos in it. I have created good sentences with no bad sentences.
I can have the idea that a typo exists. I can know that if I type something wrong, there will be an imperfection, a bad sentence. The simple act of writing a sentence introduces the possibility of having typos. But I am not obligated to make a typo in order for 100% correct sentences to exist. The concept of a mistake would exist, but not the obligation to make a mistake.
I am a human. There is no way I could type perfect sentences from now until eternity. But a perfect God is alleged to have created the universe. Why couldn't God create only good things? Why must he create evil? As soon as you create something, there is the possibility that something bad will be created. But an all-knowing, all-powerful God should be able to avoid creating bad things, just as a perfect typist should be able to avoid making typos. The possibility exists to create evil, but the obligation does not exist.
So Jason, do you think that God is incapable of creating only good things? Does he have to create bad things too just because it's possible to? If God was at a keyboard, would he have to make typos just because it's possible to? Would he just choose to make typos for the fun of it, or to prove that typos can exist?
Tue Jul 08, 08:06:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
No, that’s not correct. My argument is that it’s not a bad thing that God created evil because without evil, we would have no concept of good. As others have done already, I don’t understand how or why you’re drawing assumptions from this straightforward statement. Nonetheless, since no one’s bothered answering my question as to whether or not good can exist without evil, I’m really not interested in discussing this topic any further.
Tue Jul 08, 02:45:00 PM 2008 
 Calimero said...
Jason In response to you last missive.
Yes you are essentially correct. I think you can have good without evil but it depends on what you mean by "good and evil"
As Anon said quite succinctly "if the concept of good exists, then the concept of evil must exist by definition. This doesn't mean evil must exist in reality."
If you define good and evil as the evaluation of behaviors across a dualistic moral spectrum - you require a "label" for both ends "good" and "evil". The invention of the concept of "good" instantly creates its antithesis.
But in the "real" world good and evil are the "actions" of people towards other living creatures. If all actions are motivated by altruism and kindness evil would not exist "in reality".
You can consider "good and evil" to be culturally embedded qualitative terms - used to describe the character and actions of people. Spinoza echoed this contextual context and added that the difference between good and evil depends on personal inclinations and advantages. By these definitions Good and Evil do not exist, per se.
In the christian story evil is the result of forsaking God but God is ultimately responsible for creating evil.
I'm happy to leave it there but perhaps you could shed a little holy light on what you mean when you use these terms - or don't you know?
HAND
Tue Jul 08, 02:54:00 PM 2008 
 Jason said...
Seeing as the terms were originally used by Steve and Anon, you'll have to ask them to define it.
Tue Jul 08, 03:58:00 PM 2008 
 Dave said...
You know, Jason, if you don’t want to discuss this good vs. evil thing anymore, that is more than fine with me. As usual, your repetitive drivel has driven this subject into the ground so far that you’ve lost nearly all your audience. But how about the question asked a while back that is directly related to Steve’s original post that you refuse to answer?
I’ll pitch it again for the fourth time:
Regarding David’s son being murdered by god, Steve asked you a question way up near the top of this thread ”Are they the actions of a good God?”. You replied, ”They're the actions of a God who made it clear what the punishments would be for not obeying His commandments.
So the question again is this: When did god make it clear to David, if he didn't follow his commandments, god would cause David's son to become sick -- suffering for seven days -- only to die?
This question is simple and relevant. Quit ignoring it and answer it.
Tue Jul 08, 04:06:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Jason, I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with it. You said: My argument is that it’s not a bad thing that God created evil because without evil, we would have no concept of good.
Which reality would you consider better: a) we don't have a concept of good, but no evil exists, or b) we have a concept of good, but evil exists. Wouldn't choice "a" be the better choice?
Jason said: no one’s bothered answering my question as to whether or not good can exist without evil
I thought I did, but I'll try it from two perspectives. I think from my own perspective though that logically, the concept of good necessitates the concept of evil, but neither necessitates the existence of evil. I explained my views more in detail in my last post.
Taking it from a biblical perspective though, I'd say we can never know. God creates both good and evil. If God exists, only he would know for sure if a universe without evil would have been possible. If I believed in God, I would have to assume evil must exist in reality, otherwise I wouldn't understand why God created it in the first place. Since you're a believer, you can maybe explain your views better than I can.
The whole purpose of Steve's post I think was to get Christians to define good or evil as it related to God's actions. As several people have pointed out, he asked the question: "Is there anything that the God of the Bible could do that a believer wouldn't call good? "
As a Christian believer, would you call the acts listed in Steve's original post (burying people alive, forcing people to eat their children, etc.) good?
Calimero explained two possible distinctions between good and evil well. Since in Steve's original post, it lists specific acts by God, I think we're focusing on actions here. So, I think Steve's question could be reworded as:
"Is there any action that the God of the Bible could take that a believer wouldn't call good? "
You seem to at least partially answer the question indirectly. As Dave pointed out, you said the actions God took against David and his son are "the actions of a God who made it clear what the punishments would be for not obeying His commandments.
So for you as a believer, would you define good as obeying God's commandments, or not disobeying them? If so, then what commandments did God punish David and his son (and Job and his children) for? What evil acts did they commit to merit God's wrath?
We are looking at actions taken by the Judeo-Christian God, so it would be interesting to know how a believer defines good in the context of God's actions.
Tue Jul 08, 04:55:00 PM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason said: no one’s bothered answering my question as to whether or not good can exist without evil
In the Christian doctrine, presumably, in heaven, good can exist, without out evil.
I'm not sure what the delusional, Christadelphian doctrine says, but would it be god's domain -- heaven on earth -- where only good exists, without evil?
--S.
Tue Jul 08, 11:32:00 PM 2008 
 Calimero said...
Thats a bit evasive
Everybody on this post has made a sincere attempt to illustrate what they consider the terms "good and evil" to mean in the context of this exchange.
The question is simple Jason as I do not want to further misrepresent your views can you tell me what the terms "good and evil" mean to you.

If your answer is "read the posts again" or "I already have" could you please clarify your position .
HAND
Wed Jul 09, 04:10:00 AM 2008 
 Jason said...
Anon said: Which reality would you consider better: a) we don't have a concept of good, but no evil exists, or b) we have a concept of good, but evil exists. Wouldn't choice "a" be the better choice?
No, I don’t believe it is. A world in which neither good nor evil exists is stagnant and mechanical and doesn’t appeal to me in any way, shape or form.
As a Christian believer, would you call the acts listed in Steve's original post (burying people alive, forcing people to eat their children, etc.) good?
And like I previously stated, I'm not saying they're good or bad - I'm saying they are what they are. (Gen 24:50)
So for you as a believer, would you define good as obeying God's commandments, or not disobeying them? If so, then what commandments did God punish David and his son (and Job and his children) for? What evil acts did they commit to merit God's wrath?
David: 2 Samuel 12:9-14
As previously stated, the Bible doesn't say Job wasn't punished.

For those here who are frustrated I'm not saying the things they want to hear me say, I will quite happily bow out and turn this over to any other Christian who's reading this to offer their opinions on the matter.
Wed Jul 09, 08:27:00 AM 2008 
 GAD said...
If good is a thing in and of itself, then you can have good without evil (or evil without good). To say you can't would be a logical contradiction with respect to god as god could certainly make one thing and not another. I see lots of problems with good being a thing though , such as god would have to create it and therefore could not be it before he made it.
If good is not a thing in and of itself, but is the absence of thing, evil acts, in the same respect that dark is not a thing in and of itself but is the absence of a thing, light, then a "good" world is one with no acts of evil i.e. nothing violates gods will. This works well with the concept of god, especially with the idea that god created evil which would be the freewill to violate gods will.
Putting aside the above, the real question here is not if good is a thing or not or even if evil is needed (qualifies) for good, but how can god doing (not creating evil) evil acts (not us) be justified. There is only one answer, evil has to be defined as the violation of gods will and god can not violate his own will. In which case god can never do evil (only us) therefore if you believe in god then you cannot also believe that he does evil. The only way out would be to believe that god does or is both good and evil, but that contradicts the concept of god............
Wed Jul 09, 09:21:00 AM 2008 
 Calimero said...
So can I ask what use is a book purporting to be a moral code. If none of the actions of one of the main characters are exemplary. None of gods actions can described as good or evil "they are what they are"
And the only sin in the bible is "not doing gods will". Which we can never know, because who can know gods will if we are not even capable of comprehending his actions. The only evil act possible accordingly is not obeying the will of god . Which is dependent on whatever mood the petulant psychopath is in. No lesson, no morality. No moral code is discernible if you look to god as an example. God's advice "do what my prophets tell you not as I do.
In fact as long as you believe in god and he sanctions it, you can murder, smite, burn, rape and mutilate your fellow man all day long, these jolly activities are permitted by the bible as long as your doing gods will. However you can never tell if you are doing gods will unless you ask a prophet or speak to a preacher because, as we know, gods will is unknowable (except through interpretation perhaps how handy is that?). How do we know this? because the obvious common sense tools we use to make informed decisions about right and wrong about morality and ethics cannot be applied to gods actions as described in the bible. He is, like his followers, beyond comprehension.
A lifetime of good deeds and kindness will still see you set on fire burning in hell for eternity if you don't believe in this particular god. A lifetime of cruelty torture and psychopathic action and you still get eternal life if your actions are done in the name of god.
The more I hear christians trying to explain either their beliefs or their holy book, the more I feel sorry for them. Some of them are no doubt very nice people - in a deluded way - but the problem is , its too late , they have all been brainwashed, indoctrinated into their cults their gangs, their unthinking congregations.
here are some quotes I think sum up the problem all organized religion has.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
"Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to the garage makes you a car." -Laurence J. Peter
"Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to investigate." -F.M. Knowles
"If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." -Anatole France
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." -Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758
"God and other religious beliefs are human inventions, created to fulfill various psychological and emotional wants or needs."
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -Delo McKown
"Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion." -Jon Stewart

HAND
Wed Jul 09, 03:50:00 PM 2008 
 GAD said...
Calimero,
Great post! We can feel sorry for Christians if we must while kicking them to the curb, but kick them to the curb we must.
Where you say,
"because the obvious common sense tools we use to make informed decisions about right and wrong about morality and ethics cannot be applied to gods actions as described in the bible. He is, like his followers, beyond comprehension."
For a view of whats written in the bible that does make sense I highly recommend
Who Wrote The Bible
By Richard Ellott Friedman
Thu Jul 10, 08:25:00 AM 2008 
 sconnor said...
Jason said, And like I previously stated, I'm not saying they're good or bad - I'm saying they are what they are. (Gen 24:50) Then Laban and Bethuel replied , "The matter comes from the LORD; we cannot * speak to you bad or good.
Leave it to the Christadelphian, whack-job, to pluck an obscure -- nothing to do with the larger scope of good and evil, in the world, at large -- Hebrew verse and then heap upon it, layers of interpretation, to rationalize his feeble argument.
The good and bad in this case is, they could not decide that Rebekah should marry Abraham’s son. And they could not decide that she should not marry him.
This has nothing to do with God issuing a proclamation, on the more loftier issue, of, you, supposedly, can not use your brain and decide what is good and evil, IN THE WORLD. Oh, Jason would have you believe that, as he so blatantly straddles the fence, by saying, "They are what the are".
Pussy fence straddler.
--S.
Fri Jul 11, 04:06:00 PM 2008 
 henrywindgates said...
And I love how Fred Phelps actually called Buddhism and other religions evil, as if his own religion (Christianity, of course) is pure which in fact it's not. Of course, it also makes us question the validity of these Christian fanatics who has been brainwashed into believing that god will help them fight the so-called "holy battle" or something like that.
Totally sick.
-Henry
Sat Jul 12, 03:35:00 AM 2008 
 RR said...
I actually can't believe that I read thru a lot of this stuff.
Bible-folk: come on -- there is simply no sane justification for the iron-age barbarism you find in the bible. It is demonstrably a bunch of ancient pseudo-myths by a tribal people. There is no evidence any of it is inspired by some all-powerful-being.
Of course, if you START with the belief that such a thing as god exists ... then you can contort and twist reason to make all of these barbaric stories support your thesis.
People wake up: we have a short span of years on this earth in which to live our lives. Don't waste it groveling before an imaginary being... cuz all two quickly you'll return to dust and "you" (that consciousness that defines who you are) will be lost forever.
Tue Jul 15, 04:40:00 PM 2008 
 sijia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wed Jul 16, 02:08:00 PM 2008 
 sijia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wed Jul 16, 02:44:00 PM 2008 
 none said...
The reason that this argument will never solve anything is because the majority of people here are putting God's knowledge, wisdom, and understanding on a finite level. We as humans will never be able to understand and give reason to everything he does because we simply do not have the capacity or ability to do so, and for good reason.
I love when people ask me to prove there is a god. There is no physical evidence (other than creation and our existence of course) that can prove there is a god. God wants us to have faith that he exists. You cant have faith if there is proof.
Mon Jul 21, 05:55:00 AM 2008 
 Dave said...
The reason that this argument will never solve anything is because the majority of people here are putting Flying Spaghetti Monster’s knowledge, wisdom, and understanding on a finite level. We as humans will never be able to understand and give reason to everything he does because we simply do not have the capacity or ability to do so, and for good reason.
I love when people ask me to prove there is a FSM. There is no physical evidence (other than creation and our existence of course) that can prove there is a FSM. FSM wants us to have faith that he exists. You cant have faith if there is proof.
Tue Jul 22, 02:51:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
None, it's good to read your post and hear another point of view. I do have a few questions based on what you wrote.
You said: "The reason that this argument will never solve anything is because the majority of people here are putting God's knowledge, wisdom, and understanding on a finite level."
Actually, the problem comes when we're assigning God infinite knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. If God only knew what the Israelites considered moral (finite knowledge/wisdom/etc.), then it would make sense for him to do all these punishments that people were allegedly okay with back then. He would be limited to what was known at that time period.
But if God has infinite knowledge/etc., he surely would have known that future generations would consider cutting off people's body parts and burning people to death to be heinous crimes. Why would he commit such barbaric acts when they would later be considered outrageously cruel? He certainly was wise enough to think of other punishments that would be less shocking, at least to modern readers. Or are we to consider burning people to death "good" act simply because God did it?
You can say that we just can't judge God, but we must judge him at least to some extent. Otherwise, there would be no way to choose the Christian God over many other ones (more on this later). We have to decide what God, if any, to follow. What makes the Christian God "more good" than other deities and worthy of our faith and worship?
None said: We as humans will never be able to understand and give reason to everything he does because we simply do not have the capacity or ability to do so, and for good reason.
What do you think the "good reason" is that we don't have the capacity or ability to understand? I've heard a couple of explanations, but I'm curious about your take on this issue.
I love when people ask me to prove there is a god. There is no physical evidence (other than creation and our existence of course) that can prove there is a god. God wants us to have faith that he exists. You cant have faith if there is proof.
I think Dave's post is a good rebuttal to this. Pretty much all religions say you have to have faith to believe. Why should we believe the Christian God exists over Zeus, Vishnu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If we're told the Christian God says something is good, why should we believe that over what Allah said?
Wed Jul 23, 09:37:00 PM 2008 
 pistorius47 said...
(Sorry if this is a duplication. This is my first comment post, and I'm not sure my first attempt took.)

If Christians really believe that whatever their God does is by definition good and that human standards of right and wrong cannot apply to a holy God, then what they are really saying is that they are worshiping a God who could possibly be deceiving them about everything, while still being worthy of their worship. After all, who could hold God to account for perpetrating what the average human would call a malignant deception. For the truly committed Christian, every promise of the bible could be an outright lie and God would still be holy and good.
Thu Jul 24, 10:31:00 AM 2008 
 GAD said...
"For the truly committed Christian, every promise of the bible could be an outright lie and God would still be holy and good."
Since there is no god it (the bible) is all an outright lie. But that hasn't stopped anyone from believing, and if you can believe that it's a short trip to believing that god is good no matter what he does.
Sat Jul 26, 08:40:00 AM 2008 
 J Mark said...
Is there anything the God of the Bible could do that a believer wouldn't call good?
No there isn't...
One essential problem that plagues the host of this blog is that he believes his own mind to be the final arbiter of truth. By the way, the same symptom is apparent in all posters who maintain a similar atheism.
For all of you...this is the greatest act of arrogance. Each one in their own minute way shows both their ignorance of the complete text of the Bible and of Christians in general. Your opinions have been formed by countless repetitive hearsay. Rather you should read Scripture with an open mind and befriend a number of Christians.
You will find it profitable to consider the spiritual laws expressed in the Bible to be as absolute as the physical laws described by scientific observation. You will need to keep an open mind…the same kind of open mind needed to consider scientific evidence. You will have to start the expectant possibility that what you are reading may be true. That is the only way you can be objective.
On the other hand, if you look for errors you will find them. Just as any person could look at you and find errors. Maybe your hair has unmanageable cowlicks, or you have a slight droop in one eye, or your face is a little asymmetrical. Should a person focus on these things or take the time to get to know you personally?
Similarly, if you get to actually know a number of Christians you will learn a couple of things. Some are no different than you. We fail. We are angry with God for our poor circumstances. We are hypocrites. Others are very successful. They always seem blessed. They are generous. They are loving. They are intelligent and exceedingly well read.
We also know something about ourselves:
We know that we are imperfect.
We know that we are inherently evil.
We know that no matter what we do or say may be corrupted by a hidden motive.
We know that we are helpless to change ourselves in any long-term and meaningful way.
We know that the demands of obedience made in the Bible are impossible for any human to fulfill.
We know that sin (error) is the root of evil…not God.
We know that arrogant pride, believing that you, not God, are the final arbiter of truth is the original sin.
We know that sin introduced the consequence of death on earth because sin separates us from the
But each one of us one thing that you do not…
We have a personal saving relationship with God that restores life eternally. Why?
Because we know that the forgoing problems were a consequence of having rejected God in the first place.
We each turned away from that state of unbelief, renounced our own weak self and asked God to intervene and save us.
And he did.
God himself came to earth in human form, as his own Son, Jesus Christ. He was not just a “good teacher”. He himself came to innocently experience and suffer the consequences of our sin by a self-sacrificing, and tortuous death on the cross. He thus negated the causal effect of the original root sin and all the subsequent evil, pain and death that grew out of it.
As a result, all persons who turn away from unbelief and accept Jesus Christ’ sacrificial gift will be given eternal life, now. The Holy Spirit will into your spirit and dwell there. He will advise you
All you have to do is recognize you are wrong. Ask God to forgive you for your arrogance, and accept Jesus’ gift of salvation.
The hardest part is the first. For 45 years I was just like you...an arrogant, atheistic, scientific humanist. I finally wised up.
Well…I’m still somewhat arrogant. But God is helping me with that.
Sat Jul 26, 05:04:00 PM 2008 
 GAD said...
One essential problem that plagues J Mark is that he believes his own mind to be the final arbiter of truth. By the way, the same symptom is apparent in all posters who maintain a similar theism.
For all of you...this is the greatest act of arrogance. Each one in their own way shows both their ignorance of Science and of reality in general. Your opinions have been formed by countless repetitive S&M fantasies of a sky god who will beat your evil ass into being worthy of serving his every desire. Rather you should understand Science and befriend Reality.
You will find it profitable to consider that there is no sky god to be as absolute as the physical laws described by scientific observation.
===================
"On the other hand, if you look for errors you will find them. Just as any person could look at you and find errors. Maybe your hair has unmanageable cowlicks, or you have a slight droop in one eye, or your face is a little asymmetrical. Should a person focus on these things or take the time to get to know you personally?"
Hum, cowlicks Vs a flat earth with monsters swimming underneath it.........
"Similarly, if you get to actually know a number of Christians you will learn a couple of things."
You assume to much. I know of no atheist (including my self) that doesn't know many Christians.

"We also know something about ourselves:
We know that we are imperfect.
We know that we are inherently evil.
We know that no matter what we do or say may be corrupted by a hidden motive.
We know that we are helpless to change ourselves in any long-term and meaningful way.
We know that the demands of obedience made in the Bible are impossible for any human to fulfill.
We know that sin (error) is the root of evil…not God.
We know that arrogant pride, believing that you, not God, are the final arbiter of truth is the original sin.
We know that sin introduced the consequence of death on earth because sin separates us from the "
Pure S&M fantasy! Whip me, beat me, teach me to serve your every desire master.
"Because we know that the forgoing problems were a consequence of having rejected God in the first place.
We each turned away from that state of unbelief, renounced our own weak self and asked God to intervene and save us.
And he did."
You assume to much again. And who did god supposedly save you from, not yourself, but from him.
"God himself came to earth in human form, as his own Son, Jesus Christ. He was not just a “good teacher”. He himself came to innocently experience and suffer the consequences of our sin by a self-sacrificing, and tortuous death on the cross. He thus negated the causal effect of the original root sin and all the subsequent evil, pain and death that grew out of it."
Millions of babies die a more tortuous death then Jesus every year! Get over the whole he suffered so much BS, it's an insult to all humanity!!!!!
"As a result, all persons who turn away from unbelief and accept Jesus Christ’ sacrificial gift will be given eternal life, now."
Not eternal life, eternal enslavement. Without the freewill to ever chose different then god. Making you the pointless robot that Christians claim freewill was needed to prevent in the first place.
"The hardest part is the first. For 45 years I was just like you...an arrogant, atheistic, scientific humanist. I finally wised up."
No, what happened is that the fear of death finally got to you and looked to the placebo of religion to numb your mind of reality.
Sun Jul 27, 09:36:00 AM 2008 
 Dave said...
J Mark, J Mark, where to start. It’s nice to get a Christian poster here other than Jason, but wow, your post is so full of arrogant Christian parroting crap that it is difficult to even begin a response. Fortunately, Gad did a nice job, but I would like to add one thing, based on my own personal experience.
You said, “Each one in their own minute way shows both their ignorance of the complete text of the Bible and of Christians in general. Your opinions have been formed by countless repetitive hearsay. Rather you should read Scripture with an open mind and befriend a number of Christians.” You could not be more wrong, at least for the growing number of people like me. You see, I am not an atheist, I am an EX-christian.
I became an ex-Christian in my forties, after living my entire life as a Christian. My parents, siblings, and most of my nieces and nephews are Jesus loving parrots that spew the same crap as you do. As I once did. I wager that us ex-Christians are more familiar with the Bible than 99% of Christians. When I talk to Christians about god murdering Job’s children, god having bears rip children apart, God murdering half a million first born Egyptian children, or hundreds more sick stories, their eyes widen with unbelief and they say something like “I didn’t know that, I’ll look into it”. Next time I see them, their eyes have re-glazed over, that smug Christian grin is back, and now I am accused of being under the influence of Satan for questioning the righteousness of the baby killing god they worship. It is literally becoming sickening to me.
I am becoming convinced that Christianity is a cult, and it takes a dramatic life altering event to allow a Christian to see life with an open mind enough to see Christianity for what it really is. Sconner is a good example of this, as am I. Now that we have figured out we were born right the first time, posts such as that of J Mark here are nothing but repetitive non-original garbage, and literally appear to be from someone that has lost their grasp of reality.
And finally, J Mark says “For 45 years I was just like you...an arrogant, atheistic, scientific humanist. I finally wised up.”. And now you are so humble aren’t you? And wised up? Why do you suppose studies have shown a correlation between I.Q. and non-belief?
Mon Jul 28, 02:54:00 PM 2008 
 Thomas said...
Is this Gad guy being serious?
Thu Jul 31, 07:35:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Thomas, what is it that Gad said that you do not agree with?
Mind you he quotes other people but it is sometimes not quite clear where the quote ends and his comment begins.
Thu Jul 31, 08:32:00 AM 2008 
 GAD said...
"Thomas, what is it that Gad said that you do not agree with?"
Yes, what?
"Mind you he quotes other people but it is sometimes not quite clear where the quote ends and his comment begins."
Note that I do use "quotes" when quoting.
Thu Jul 31, 08:58:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Note that I do use "quotes" when quoting.
Yes I see the quotes imho it is a little more clear to use something like <i>italics</i> like I did here to differentiate quoted text from own text.
Then again thomas may just be a raving bible thumper ;)
His blog does have some German comics that would prompt me to ask if he is crazy or what? (nothing religious though)
Fri Aug 01, 07:55:00 AM 2008 
 GAD said...
Yes I see the quotes imho it is a little more clear to use something like italics like I did here to differentiate quoted text from own text.
Fair enough. Or maybe even
Yes I see the quotes imho it is a little more clear to use something like italics like I did here to differentiate quoted text from own text.
In any case it looks like Thomas' comment was just a hit and run.
Fri Aug 01, 08:33:00 AM 2008 
 Thomas said...
"what is it that Gad said that you do not agree with?"
How about, "the god of the bible is the definition of good i.e. he defines what is good, if one believes in god then by definition everything he does is good," or "God, not you, defines what is good and bad."
"thomas may just be a raving bible thumper"
That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about Gad!
"His blog does have some German comics that would prompt me to ask if he is crazy or what?"
Now please explain this leap of thought to me!
"In any case it looks like Thomas' comment was just a hit and run."
What, just because I didn't respond instantly?
You seem to make some pretty bold assumptions about people you know nothing about!
Fri Aug 01, 11:28:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
I'll take a guess based on later comments, that gad was giving a fair description of what the believers were gonna say (and the comments here have have amply confirmed it)
As for those comics on your blog, I understand German but stabbing a girls eye out, don't really get the joke ;-)
Anyway, seems like we're all on the same side so: Welcome Thomas ;-)
Fri Aug 01, 01:33:00 PM 2008 
 GAD said...
How about, "the god of the bible is the definition of good i.e. he defines what is good, if one believes in god then by definition everything he does is good," or "God, not you, defines what is good and bad."
As Hugo rightly stated I was answering for believers, not my self.
What, just because I didn't respond instantly?
Well, it was your only post on this thread and it was a day old.

You seem to make some pretty bold assumptions about people you know nothing about!
That was bold? OooooK. How about this, your seem awful touchy.... ;)
Fri Aug 01, 04:34:00 PM 2008 
 Thomas said...
"As for those comics on your blog, I understand German but stabbing a girls eye out, don't really get the joke ;-)"
First of all, I didn't make the comics.
They are just translations, as I state on the blog, and each comic has link to the original underneath it.
The comic you are referring to is a sequel to an earlier comic.
"As Hugo rightly stated I was answering for believers, not my self."
That's a shame. It was great material for Fundies say the Darndest Things.
"Well, it was your only post on this thread and it was a day old."
Ooh, so I only made one post that day. Big deal.
"That was bold? OooooK. How about this, your seem awful touchy.... ;)"
Yes, it's not the least bit bold to call someone a crazy, raving bible thumper, based on virtually nothing.
Sat Aug 02, 12:21:00 PM 2008 
 GAD said...
Yes, it's not the least bit bold to call someone a crazy, raving bible thumper, based on virtually nothing.
"a crazy, raving bible thumper" LOL! OK, show where I said or even implied such a thing about you.
Lets see;
- You couldn't follow the context of my statements on this thread.
- Instead of asking me to clarify my statements directly you post it as statement.
- From the above you are implying that I am "a crazy, raving bible thumper".
- You imply that I implied that you were a "a crazy, raving bible thumper" based on nothing.
- And your overly sensitive about simple things.
I'm seeing a pattern here, and it's not a very flattering one..... Best we stop here.
Sat Aug 02, 01:44:00 PM 2008 
 apomate said...
First let me say I'm not sane, but rather a fool. Otherwise I wouldn't step in where many people seem to enjoy tearing each other apart. But I'll share some thoughts, and if my words are offensive to anyone, I will not bother you again.
I would propose that it is a logical error to judge god as a man. You would not bring a lion to court and judge him as a man, say for the murder of an unfortunate child who became his prey. If you wish to judge the god of the bible then you logically must judge him as the bible describes him, with all the attributes the bible gives to him -- holiness, goodness, righteousness, power, wisdom, creator of all things, etc. Thus, you cannot accuse the god of the bible of evil, because by definition in the bible, the god of the bible is incapable of evil. Would you argue that the bible teaches that god is evil? Debating whether the god of the bible is good or evil is like debating whether "red" is a color. The best thing for you to do if you don't like the concept of god being good is to simply deny that he exists at all rather than trying to argue that he is evil.
What do you think, then? Is the god of the bible good? But if there is no god then there is neither good nor evil. After all, how would you decide what is good or evil, and WHO would be allowed to make this decision? At best you would use a majority vote? In a tribe of cannibals, roasting and eating people would be voted as "very good." Do YOU consider "roasting and eating people" good? No? Why not? What possible rationale could you give for saying it is "evil"? Your only basis for a decision (other than the legality of eating people in the country where you are located) is a system of values you pretty much received from others, much of it as a child (and probably modified to a degree). And whether you like it or not, I'm willing to suggest that at least some of your current moral values have signifcant roots in the holy writings that you attack. My conclusion: the concept of good and evil cannot even exist outside the framework of the bible and the god of this bible. (or similarly in some other holy book and its god).
Let me venture one question to Steve, who so desperately is looking for a sane Christian to attack. (I'm not he, by the way, remember, I said I'm a fool.) Is it wrong for a person to douse himself with gasoline and set fire to himself and burn himself to death? The answer for one who has no god is clearly, "no." So that answers one of your questions --"Is it always wrong to burn someone to death?" No, it is not --- if you don't believe in god. Both YOU and the CHRISTIAN will be obligated to qualify this question before you can adequately answer it. You need to design your questions more carefully. (Why do I think of such a sordid thing, you ask? I witnessed it, unfortunately. It was not a pretty sight, nor a pretty sound, but this person did what he considered good and right, as a protest against an immoral situation at that time. And a number of his contemporaries felt he did a good thing as well. I don't think you would accuse him of an immoral act.)
OWL
Sat Aug 09, 07:52:00 PM 2008 
 GAD said...
can not judge god, check
god can not do wrong, check
no good or evil without god, check
mans moral relativism bad, check
gods moral relativism good, check
and finally, drum roll please,
someone burning themselves to death justifies god burning people to death!
Because we all know there is no difference between doing something to yourself and somebody else doing it to you.
Christian logic at its best.
If there are no gods, then all the gods and their bibles were invented by the human mind, in which case the ideas of good and evil exist in humans and are not contingent on a god.
Sun Aug 10, 09:37:00 AM 2008 
 apomate said...
Hmmmm, ... well Gad's first 5 paragraphs replying to Apomate neither refute anyone's reasoning, nor do they give any reasoning of his own for anyone to refute - so there is nothing to reply to.
Last paragraph, .... absolutely correct, .... IFFFFF there are no gods.
To rephrase it to see if I understand Gad correctly: If there are no gods, the very fact that people can talk about good and evil, as we are doing here, proves that these concepts can exist outside the framework of god and the bible.
But, if god DOES exist, then Gad's declaration "in which case the ideas of good and evil exist in humans and are not contingent on a god" cannot be proved, and remains only an opinion, as yet with no reasons supporting it. Neither can I prove the counter declaration. I'm expressing an opinion, and giving reasons for my opinion: a meaningful concept of good and evil will be difficult if not impossible outside the framework of god and his bible (some proposed initial reasons in third paragraph of my previous post).
...and I would be interested in other opinions with reasons regarding where the concept of "good" and "evil" could originate if there were no god. Thanks for your consideration, and may you see and enjoy many good blessings each day.
Wed Aug 13, 10:58:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
apomate, you start by saying that it is illogical to judge your god as a man
by apomate:I would propose that it is a logical error to judge god as a man.
but then you say this:
by apomate:If you wish to judge the god of the bible then you logically must judge him as the bible describes him, with all the attributes the bible gives to him -- holiness, goodness, righteousness, power, wisdom, creator of all things, etc.
Those are all human values (except holiness, what does that mean anyway?)
Why did you leave out all the embarrassing stuff? Jealous, murdered (see original post), deceitful, evil etc.
Yes, among all things he(?) created according to the bible is evil, you can twist and turn words and do your bible apologetic gymnastic to say that that evil is not really meant as such and that it meant something else like calamity which still sounds pretty evil to me but even if you consider it something less then how are you able to square it with the supposed all goodness?
by apomate:
My conclusion: the concept of good and evil cannot even exist outside the framework of the bible and the god of this bible. (or similarly in some other holy book and its god).
Please tell me you do not consider burning people a good thing because the bible says that your god considered it a good punishment, I really don't wanna go down that road again.
Wed Aug 13, 02:31:00 PM 2008 
 apomate said...
By judging god as a man, I mean one is treating god as if he were a man (which is illogical becaue he is not a man), and then judging him using a set of standards (laws) designed only for man. I suggested that this might be like judging a lion for killing a child -- which is certainly first-degree, premeditated murder, since lions hardly kill little children by accident or in self-defense. Judging a lion as guilty of murder and thus declaring it evil in this way by applying laws to the lion that were designed for man is illogical because lions are not logically subject to man's laws. Similarly, god is not subject to man's laws either. If he were we could judge him of trespassing (since he is everywhere), violation of privacy (he knows your thoughts, and knows every spot on your entire body, and taps all telephones), of being an accomplice to all crimes (since he is present at the scene of all crimes and does not make any effort to stop or later report them), of failure to pay property taxes (he owns all properties), of murder (all men die as a result of god's decree), of speeding (most certainly he moves faster than 100mph down the highway - smile - I had to drop in that one!), well, seriously, we might be able to judge god guilty of breaking most of man's laws. But can we truly, and logically hold god responsible and subject to man's laws? I suspect that many of Steve's attacks depend very heavily upon using laws designed for man, to judge god.
(By the way, returning for a moment to the lion: We could confuse ourselves even more by debating whether it is good or evil that the lion killed the child. Who would argue that it is good? But, ... will you then argue that it is evil or wrong? The problem comes from trying to judge the lion as if he were a man, making it subject to man's laws. I believe we have to consider doing such a thing as, ... illogical.)
----
Now when you say, "Those are all human values (except holiness, what does that mean anyway?)" are you intending to say that "Man is good" in the same sense that the bible says "God is good"? Goodness is a defining attribute of god, and it essentially says "god equals good" (like: god=good). But would you say that man=good?
You are quite right about my limited list of god's attributes - trying to make a long list wasn't needed, and I naturally named some "favorites." Perhaps this is indeed in error on my part -- I should be more grateful that god is a jealous god (god himself says, "I am a jealous god."), for if he weren't perhaps he would not have made such an effort to provide for my restoration to fellowship with him. Now about anger and wrath, in a quick search I found many references to god's wrath and anger, but none that use "IS" to say anything like "god is anger" or "god is wrath," so at this point it doesn't look to me like the bible intends to assign anger or wrath as a defining attribute of god -- only that he expresses these emotions at times. As for murder and deceit, I doubt there is really anyplace in the bible where these terms are applied to god at all. I think those accusations are the result of someone trying to apply man's laws to judge god.
As far as god creating evil, I might consider that he created evil in the same sense that he created darkness, ... but this post is too long now, so let's return to that next time if you wish. You raised a couple other questions, but likewise, if you want me to continue, I'll address them next time.
May you discover the blessings of life, and the strength to face the challenges.
Sat Aug 16, 07:13:00 AM 2008 
 apomate said...
Opps, sorry, the first line of my just-made post got cut off somehow. It started off with:
"Thanks for your comments Hugo.
By judging god as a man, ...."
------------
Sat Aug 16, 07:16:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Similarly, god is not subject to man's laws either. If he were we could judge him of ....
No we couldn't because he/she/it does not exist!
you have quite an obsession with lions killing babies, why do you need god to tell you what is right and wrong, if god declared it good you'll consider it good, what's your take on Jephthah's story, no "oopsies just kidding, didn't really mean it" in that story like with Abraham...
Good for you to avoid any of my points, you still didn't explain why you only mentioned the good bits of your god's character as described in the bible and left out the embarassing parts...
Hope you discover the real world before you have to leave it.
Sat Aug 16, 10:20:00 AM 2008 
 GAD said...
If a loin killing a child is not evil, then god killing children can not be deemed evil.
If a man burns himself to death, then it is OK for god to burn people to death.
Is that an argument for god or stupidity?
Sat Aug 16, 11:09:00 AM 2008 
 apomate said...
Thanks for your replies, both Gad and Hugo.
But neither of you refuted my reasons. You made many statements, and Gad paraphrased rather badly a few of my words back to me. But you did not give reasons, so they are only opinions without reasons. There is nothing for me to reply to. You are entitled to those opinions, but my opinions differ from yours.
One exception - Hugo says we can't judge god because he doesn't exist. But if we accept Hugo's declaration, then Steve cannot judge god either and everything said on this website about god is nonsense. If you wish to accuse god, then you must assume that god exists for the purpose of the discussion.
No, I did not avoid a single issue Hugo brought up. I either addressed it in detail, or said I would do so in my next post if he wanted. (But now that is impossible since Hugo launched another basketfull of issues, and he will now accuse me of avoiding either the previous ones, or the new ones.) Pick out the issue you want to throw at me and tell me which one it is, please. If you had invented baseball, you'd have put three pitchers in the infield, all pitching simultaneously! :)
Tue Aug 19, 05:29:00 PM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Indeed, all talk about god is pointless THAT IS WHY we talk about what the believers think about their god, when questions are asked they are about what you think about your god. We know that we do not have to wait for answers from god, since it does not exist, you are the one who claim that it exists and you even claim to know that it has written certain books and you claim to know what it wants you to do so in this post we (atheists) ask if you consider good anything you imagine your god wants you to do and it becomes ever more clearly the answer is "yes" (from answers here and there are also plenty of historic and recent events that show that people will follow very destructive thoughts when they think that their god wants it so, a recent example: god wants babies to say "amen" before dinner so the parent considered it right to withhold food from the baby)
We are not judging god we are judging your (believer's) beliefs (stories) and actions that you say come from your god.
Nobody's putting time constraints on your answers so go ahead and start addressing the points I raised, I won't accuse you of missing or avoiding parts if you address at least something ...
Wed Aug 20, 12:34:00 AM 2008 
 GAD said...
"But neither of you refuted my reasons."
What reasons?
Wed Aug 20, 08:25:00 AM 2008 
 apomate said...
Thank-you Hugo. Good post.
I don't agree that it is pointless for an atheist to talk about god. Similarly I don't think it is pointless for a christian to talk about atheism. Both the christian and the atheist need to be able to give good, sound reasons for the position they take, and those reasons should include why they choose to reject the OTHER position. Is this reasonable?
About the BIG question (anything god asking me to do being good), I have a problem with the way you word it, because god isn't like a director providing me specific orders to follow. But if you ask me, "Can god ever do evil?" I will say, "absolutely not." And if you ask me, "Is everything that god does good?" I will say "absolutely yes." God has revealed himself and his desires through the writers of the bible, and this done in such a way that this revelation is completely trustworthy. I go to the bible to know this god and his desires. If I interpret the bible correctly and act accordingly, then the bible (and god as well) will never lead me to do evil. (Nevertheless, at times I do evil because I reject or fail to heed some part of the bible!)
With the qualifying remarks I've made above I basically agree with the general content of your first paragraph.
Your conclusion about judging christians rather than judging god, does indeed make sense to me. You are indeed free to judge the actions of those who really are christians to see how consistent they are with the teaching of the bible. You will find bad examples even among true christians, but I'm certain you will also find admirable examples if you are willing to admit that. However, there is a strong tendancy here on this website to search for the "extreme" cases and to use them to construct your perception of god and the bible, and then to criticize this perception that you have created. There are multitudes of false christians out there, and the bible declares this as well, saying you will know them by their fruit. I don't think you will find the truth about god and the bible by studying false christians.
I'll throw in a comment here about Jephtha, since I think I can do it very briefly.
I assume you are referring to Jephtha's carrying out his vow, and I assume you want to use this to discredit god. But, in fact, this is only a history narration of his actions, and neither god nor the bible gives any opinion or comment on Jephtha's vow-action. God may disapprove of Jephtha's vow-actions just as much as you, (and I) do -- but we aren't told.
My personal take: I would say Jephthah made two bad decisions, and that any human sacrifice is evil, because it is against biblical teaching.
Now, the other issues from previous posts that I said I'd do later include the matter of god creating evil, the matter of burning people (which you said you wanted to avoid), why I need god telling me right from wrong, ... Is that about it? There were some other things you mentioned, but perhaps these are not really "issues," but just a tossing about of some thoughts. Unless you move the conversation to something else in your next post, I'll look at the idea of god creating evil in my next post.
Sorry for the delay. Had some connection problems over the weekend, and also some other matters pressing for attention.
Take joy in the good that is around you.
Mon Aug 25, 06:42:00 PM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Thank-you Hugo. Good post.
Well I'm happy you at least read it.
I don't agree that it is pointless for an atheist to talk about god. Similarly I don't think it is pointless for a christian to talk about atheism. Both the christian and the atheist need to be able to give good, sound reasons for the position they take, and those reasons should include why they choose to reject the OTHER position. Is this reasonable?
Oh I never said that it was pointless to talk about god, that is just the point, I talk about the god that you claim exist, with another believer I talk about the one that she thinks exists, there are so many gods as there are believers and I enjoy talking about the hypotheses that those believers construct about their particular god that they think exist. I don't reject anything, I just do not believe it based on the evidence presented, it is possible that I will immediately claim non-belief to a certain god without even listening to the believer because I have already heard about that believer's god and even though that believer may have a slightly different view I have already heard the overall concept and have deemed the evidence insufficient or down right false, no need to waste time. Here with your type of christian god I have already heard a lot of the different versions and arguments and none of them have ever presented something that I could believe, I'm engaging in the conversation with you to see how a person who at least on the surface seems like a good person integrates that kind of a god claim, it is an interesting phenomenon, some construct elaborate workarounds for the "bad stuff", others ignore it, you seem to be of the first persuasion.
About the BIG question (anything god asking me to do being good), I have a problem with the way you word it, because god isn't like a director providing me specific orders to follow. But if you ask me, "Can god ever do evil?" I will say, "absolutely not." And if you ask me, "Is everything that god does good?" I will say "absolutely yes." God has revealed himself and his desires through the writers of the bible, and this done in such a way that this revelation is completely trustworthy. I go to the bible to know this god and his desires. If I interpret the bible correctly and act accordingly, then the bible (and god as well) will never lead me to do evil. (Nevertheless, at times I do evil because I reject or fail to heed some part of the bible!)
So you think the burning people, human sacrifice, slavery, ... in the trustworthy bible are good things. You do some word gymnastic to read "god did good because the people deserved it and had it coming" or "the writers of the bible didn't mean to write that, it was a message, god would not really do that" instead of "And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense", is that not a little dishonest, can you not see that it is the same as reading "Mein Kampf" and saying that the Jews had it coming or that Hitler didn't really mean what he wrote, his generals misinterpreted the "great Furher"'s message and his message was good if interpreted correctly and acted upon accordingly (I am not praising Hitler!, he full well knew what he did and wanted to do, I do believe that he was at least a deist but he also used (several particular christian) religions as a tool to facilitate the distribution of his message and the fact is that many faithful German believers took it without questioning, I'm not elaborating on this, it is a whole discussion on it's own)
Really think about this, why do you say "the revelation is completely trustworthy" but still change the words or meanings when YOU disagree with them, should something from (your) god that is COMPLETELY trustworthy not be taken as literal as possible?
With the qualifying remarks I've made above I basically agree with the general content of your first paragraph.
With qualifying remarks you mean, "anyone who interprets the bible differently from me is a false christian" and "what I consider evil (and what my god considers evil) is not in the bible and if you think it is you are not reading or interpreting it correctly"
Your conclusion about judging christians rather than judging god, does indeed make sense to me. You are indeed free to judge the actions of those who really are christians to see how consistent they are with the teaching of the bible. You will find bad examples even among true christians, but I'm certain you will also find admirable examples if you are willing to admit that. However, there is a strong tendancy here on this website to search for the "extreme" cases and to use them to construct your perception of god and the bible, and then to criticize this perception that you have created. There are multitudes of false christians out there, and the bible declares this as well, saying you will know them by their fruit. I don't think you will find the truth about god and the bible by studying false christians.
The thing is that I look further and also look at what drove a person to do something, how a mind can get to do things that are considered evil, and in many cases I can see direct links to religion and the indoctrinations. Like when a mother goes against her most natural instinct and lets her baby die of hunger, yes, it is an extreme case but do you not see that they have the same bible as you, that the actions came directly from a devout and sincere belief in the very real existence of a deity (that expects worship)?
You last line, the bible also declares that "their fruit" means nothing, in some verses it says that you just have to believe, and that is the problem, the bible can justify just about any position you want, you want to kill your neighbor, there's verses for that, you want to love him, ... have a look at the inconsistencies list on http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Please define for me a TRUE CHRISTIAN (or a false one and why), from what I see every christian (indeed every believer) defines himself as such, everyone else is a "false christian" in one way or another.
The decisions YOU make to pick and choose the chapters you want to live by or to interpret the particularly bad parts in a way that stroke with your good side do not come from the bible, they come from the environment and society that you grew up in and most of those values are quite secular and have in many cases been built up by going against religious dogma.
I'll throw in a comment here about Jephtha, since I think I can do it very briefly.
I assume you are referring to Jephtha's carrying out his vow, and I assume you want to use this to discredit god. But, in fact, this is only a history narration of his actions, and neither god nor the bible gives any opinion or comment on Jephtha's vow-action. God may disapprove of Jephtha's vow-actions just as much as you, (and I) do -- but we aren't told.
My personal take: I would say Jephthah made two bad decisions, and that any human sacrifice is evil, because it is against biblical teaching.
I want to do this to discredit the bible as a "special book" and to show you that you are accepting horrible stories as "good".
Again if the writers of the bible were "completely trustworthy" then why are you adding words? If god disapproved why did he not do an "oopsie" like with Abraham? Here you have already spinned it, what a strange thing to say that something in the bible can be against biblical teaching?
Are you not putting words in your god's mouth (if it has one) by saying that human sacrifice is evil, if god disapproved why does the trustworthy bible not say so, it talks about god's disapproval in in many other cases that are a lot less troublesome (picking up sticks on the sabbath for ex.)
Now, the other issues from previous posts that I said I'd do later include the matter of god creating evil, the matter of burning people (which you said you wanted to avoid), why I need god telling me right from wrong, ... Is that about it? There were some other things you mentioned, but perhaps these are not really "issues," but just a tossing about of some thoughts. Unless you move the conversation to something else in your next post, I'll look at the idea of god creating evil in my next post.
I wanted to avoid it because it has been dealt with in another post, go ahead tell us why you think god was fibbing or did not really mean what he said (or the writers of the bible didn't really understand or mean what they were writing) when god says in the bible that he created evil.
Sorry for the delay. Had some connection problems over the weekend, and also some other matters pressing for attention.
No problem take your time, I do too.
Live life to it's fullest, it is the only one you get!
Tue Aug 26, 05:21:00 AM 2008 
 GAD said...
"there is a strong tendancy here on this website to search for the "extreme" cases and to use them to construct your perception of god and the bible, and then to criticize this perception that you have created."
Extreme? Just read your bible sometime, that's all it takes to show that god is not all-loving or all-good.
I suggest Numbers 31. Based on population statics I have seen numbers as high 90,000+ women, pregnant women, baby boys and boys killed (not in battle, but defenseless afterward) by order of god. Then the virgins were divided up for the men with the cattle. Hum, now why virgins? Not to mention the argument that 32 virgins may have been sacrificed to god by order of god.
Extreme, The only thing extreme is believing that this BS comes from a god and that that god is all-loving and all-good.
Tue Aug 26, 08:12:00 AM 2008 
 wmute said...
You cant have faith if there is proof.
So, Adam, Moses, Mary, Job, Lot, Abraham, Paul and pretty much everyone else mentioned in the Bible did not have faith? If salvation is by faith, then it seems like kind of a dick move my God to have deliberately made it impossible for these people to have faith by proving that he exists.
that any human sacrifice is evil, because it is against biblical teaching.
So, that whole "Jesus" thing (you know, where God had his son tortured and sacrificed so that He could end all death and suffering) was evil? What about when God hardened the pharaoh's heart, so that he'd have an excuse to kill all the little babies in Egypt, that was evil, too? It's in Exodus 10:1-2, so we know God did it, right?
Fri Aug 29, 05:52:00 AM 2008 
 Hugo said...
good one wmute, I wanted to add in the Jesus human sacrifice too but couldn't quite fit it in my response.
Fri Aug 29, 06:00:00 AM 2008 
 apomate said...
Hi Hugo,
I won't paste your text in here, or my post will turn into a book :).
Your paragraph, "Oh I never..." is fine and defines your position quite well. Why do you throw out "elaborate workarounds" even though they may be valid arguments that explain difficult situations? These kinds of arguments exist not only in the bible, but in science (theory of relativity was pretty "elaborate"), evolution, archeology (especially regarding dates), geology, and history (there are apparent contradictions in history books that historians explain using "elaborate workarounds").
In your paragraph, "So you think..." you appear to assume what I believe. Please hear my comment here: there is nothing in your paragraph that represents my position. Please reread my paragraph and let my own words state my position. If you wish to question what I said I will reply to it. Indeed, in many things in your paragraph I might have a position very similar to your own.
Again, in your paragraph, "With qualifying..." you declared things that I do not believe.
Your next paragraphs begin with, "The thing is..." and here I present again what I said before: if you wish to examine true Christianity, then you must do so by examining true Christians. Absolutely in no way am I free to interpret the bible any way I wish. The bible itself severely speaks against anyone who does. Nor do I pick and choose from the bible.
How can you claim to know me so well?
A "true Christian" is well defined (in a reverse way by telling what a christian is not) by this passage in Matthew 7:21 where Jesus Christ says, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' " (NIV translation)
So you see there will be people who say, "Lord, Lord" who are not christians. They may have uttered prophesies, and done miracles, and yet they are not christians. In verse 23 is the short definition (again, in reverse form): The true Christian is the one to whom Jesus Christ will say, "I know you." So you will be able to find plenty of people who declare they accept the bible but to whom Jesus Christ may well say in the future, "I never knew you."
I agree with you that, unfortunately, people have tried to use the bible to justify horrible sins. The fault falls on the individual person, not upon the bible, nor upon god. It is your job to fairly and accurately determine which people are which so that you can make a truthful analysis.
Your paragraph about Jephtha. The bible records much history. No scholarly historian, christian or not, will interpret the bible as you are trying to do. The account of Jephtha is clearly history - not an editorial.
Well, you brought up dozens of issues, and I'm aware we will disagree over some, but I hope I've made clear that many if not all of your assumptions about me are not true. Until we clear this up, I do not want to proceed into other matters.
Thanks for hearing me through.
Sat Aug 30, 06:46:00 PM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Workaround may have been a bad choice of words, word gymnastics was better, nowhere does relativity say "this theory is correct because these bodies do not attract each other but they actually want to attract each other because this book says they want to"
Your definition of a "true christian" so all that stuff about knowing them by the fruit is moot?
It is possible that there actually are no real Christians?
Jesus Christ may just not know anyone?
Or do you actually claim to know what Jesus Christ is going to say in the future?
The bible records much history. No scholarly historian, christian or not, will interpret the bible as you are trying to do. The account of Jephtha is clearly history - not an editorial.
So if it is history then god approves of human sacrifice.
God gave Jephtha what he wanted and accepted his daughter's sacrifice for it.
imho you'd better say it is not history that is a story about keeping vows, still wrong but at least your god did not (according to you) actually let a young girl be killed by her father!
Now I know that you find human sacrifice (probably any sacrifice) utterly bad so you cannot defend that paragraph but, and this is completely strange to us atheists, you must find some way to accept it anyway and defend it in its entirety, why?
Sat Aug 30, 11:36:00 PM 2008 
 apomate said...
Hi Hugo,
True, my "definition" is not strictly speaking a definition. What I described is the only way we will ultimately know for certain who is a true christian and who is not. There are many definitions, some even opposed to others, (see wikipedia - though it does not cite references, the section under "Christian" entitled "Who is a christian" is reasonably correct and gives examples).
I'm trying to define the term as god and the bible would do it, rather than just taking a definition from the dictionary, or from one of many churches. Perhaps a better "classical" definition would come from John 1:11-12 (NASB) "11 He [Jesus Christ] came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--"
So that a christian is one who "receives him, ...[and] believes in his name."
But of course, "receive" and "believe" must be clearly understood. I do not think simply saying, "I believe you and I receive you" in a mechanical way is what John is saying. The "receiving and believing" must be clearly evidenced by changes that occur in the persons attitudes, and values as a result. "Receive" means a lot more than receiving a letter in the mail. It might be more like "received" as used in a sentence like: "They received the child into their home for adoption." THIS kind of receiving implies a commitment - a lifetime commitment. Does this (verse 12 of John 1) seem like a possible "definition?"
---
Your comment that "god approves of human sacrifice" is based on assumptions that are not stated in the passage. We do not know that the vow moved god to give Jephtha a victory. (I rather suspect Jephtha would have been victorious even without having made any vow - but that also is just a guess - the passage does not say.) We also do not know God's opinion of Jephtha's action. Nothing is said, so we cannot make a conclusion one way or the other. All we know is what happened, and we are not told anything about the morality of what Jephtha did.
But your words say something to the effect that god either lets or does not let the young girl be killed. Are you saying that because god does not prevent some bad thing from happening that he therefore must approve of that bad thing? And do you intend to blame god for all things that happen by giving the argument that god "let" these things happen, so he's to blame?
To put it in different words let me just ask, "If a thief intentionally kills a person because this person refused to hand over his wallet, then would you say that god approves of this crime, or that god is to blame?"
Wed Sep 03, 05:13:00 PM 2008 
 Hugo said...
So nobody knows what makes a real christian there are oodles of often conflicting definitions so anybody can just arbitrarily decide that so and so is not a christian.
How convenient.
---
you're again assuming that I believe in your god, I only go by what you, others and your books tell me what your or their god does. For me we are discussing an almost completely fictional book (with a few real historical references does not make the bible true, Spiderman books also speak of New York and sometimes even real events, it does not make Spiderman real! I can discuss things about Spiderman too, that is how you should see my discussions about the stories in the Bible)
Dragging my words into the real world do you no good, for me your god does not exists, it is you who claim that he also exists outside of the book and has the same powers in the real world as in the book.
Now, does the story of Jephtha not say that he made a vow with god and that the promise was delivered by god and that the conditions for the vow were executed for god?
That is all that we have, and indeed, the story does not say that god approved, however god did not act against and in other stories god did act against so the god in that book does not appear unable to act and other stories suggest that nothing happens without his knowledge so yes it seems your god approves or does not care about human sacrifice done in his name and if you accept that he exists outside of the fantasy world then yes it appears that he approves or does not care about human (or animal) suffering.
You are also adding a lot meaning and are making a lot of claims to and about this story.
On what grounds are you making your claims?
On what evidence are you adding words and meaning to your trustworthy book?
As for your last line, I'd say the thief was an evil person and I'd hope he gets arrested and punished (which does not always happen)
You however could even accept that he goes to your heaven if you think he honestly repents....
Thu Sep 04, 12:07:00 AM 2008 
 apomate said...
Well, you are again paraphrasing my words to say things that I have not said nor desire to say.
I suggested a definition and asked your opinion, and you only say, "how convenient."
Surely you must understand that I know you don't believe in god! I have never suggested you believe in god. I DO assume you are willing to talk about the concept of god without believing in god.
You ask for my grounds -- they are clearly stated. That which is my opinion is identified as such and does not come from the bible. That which is not opinion is based obviously on the bible content, or upon scholarly methods used in all universities in the US for proper understanding of all literature.
I have added no words to the bible. If you can show me the words you are thinking about I will gladly clear it up for you.
Now, based on your paragraph about the biblical account of Jephtha, it appears to me that your position is this: If god does not take action to stop some event, then that proves that god approves of that event.
Is THIS an accurate understanding of your position?
Sat Sep 13, 02:45:00 PM 2008 
 1c028b70-b4f6-11e3-ada4-000bcdca4d7a said...
fussing and concern trolling over "murderous bastards in history"
says "people who believe in God are mentally unstable....broken and irrational."

A N D T H E N

contends that the time is fast approaching when he and his comrades will be "entitled to lock [us] up if [our] thoughts or actions are considered by the majority to be a danger to society"
.....the mental and moral deficit here is stark.


Wed Mar 26, 07:51:00 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
    
 30 August 2008Bible-based Platforms for Republicans and Democrats
Since both parties are trying so hard to satisfy Bible-believing Christians, I thought I'd suggest a few bible verses to inspire them.
[I know I'm a little late, since the platforms are already available online (Republican, Democratic), but what the heck.]
Economic Policies
R: For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Matthew 13:12
The wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous. Proverbs 13:22 (Thomas Muthee translation)

D: Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy. Proverbs 31:8-9 (NIV)
The Environment
R: The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3:10
(So Sarah Palin is right: Global warming isn't man-made; it's God-made.)
D: And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp... Deuteronomy 23:13-14
(Clean up your own shit. You don't want God to step in it, do you?)
Health Care
R: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
(See Faith-based medicine for Republicans)
D: But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. ... Then said Jesus ... Go, and do thou likewise. Luke 10:33-37
Homosexuality
R: 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
D: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone... John 8:7
Abortion
R: Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. Hosea 9:16
D: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. Exodus 21:22
National Defense and Security
R: Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruninghooks into spears. Joel 3:10
D: ...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Micah 4:3
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/30/2008 01:43:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
9 comments:
 Anon said...
"So Sarah Palin is right: Global warming isn't man-made; it's God-made."
I wonder if some people take global warming as (yet another) sign that this is the end of days. No need then to stop global warming, in fact that might be against God's will!
Sun Sep 14, 05:46:00 PM 2008 
 A Voice of Sanity said...
R: 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
Search for (lyings of a woman) for more. Here are some comments.
Overview of Leviticus 18:22
This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn homosexual behavior in general.
In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: “V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.”
The first part of this verse is literally translated as “And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman.”
Now if it said “And with a male you shall not lay” that would be clear, but “lyings of a woman”? It seems no one knows what that means in this context. Also note that 'toeyvah' does not mean 'abomination', it does mean unclean, like having sex with a menstruating woman (or eating ham on buttered bread).
D: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone... John 8:7
This is generally believed to be a later addition and not the words of Jesus.
Abortion
D: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. Exodus 21:22
Note that there is no punishment or penalty until 30 days after birth.
Tue Sep 16, 04:54:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
A voice of sanity said “And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman.” Now if it said “And with a male you shall not lay” that would be clear, but “lyings of a woman”? It seems no one knows what that means in this context.
The Bible often isn't clear, but this one seems fairly clear to me. According to http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm, "Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. "
A couple other websites I looked at quickly seem to share this view. So saying "no one knows what that means" is a little misleading. Not knowing ancient Hebrew I can't say for sure, but from the words as you translated the, it sounds like to me that it would be a verse against at least some form of male homosexuality.
It's saying, don't lay with a man the way you lay with a woman. Yes that's vague, but it's a moral judgment from God against homosexuals. Why can't gays sleep with gays however they want to? Why would that be so offensive to God?
A voice of sanity said "D: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone... John 8:7" This is generally believed to be a later addition and not the words of Jesus.
I've heard that as well. But it fits for Steve's original post. Steve was taking Biblical quotes for political platforms, and that is a quote from the Bible. Whether it was really what Jesus said or not it is represented as such in the Bible.
A voice of sanity said Note that there is no punishment or penalty until 30 days after birth. I'm not sure why you point this out, can you please explain?
Thu Sep 18, 05:54:00 PM 2008 
 A Voice of Sanity said...
Re: "Lyings of a man".
No matter what people may 'agree' there is no definitive translation. For all we know it means "while wearing a copper helmet and pink feathers". It is one thing to try to puzzle out a meaning for discussion; it is quite another to whip up hatred against a group of fellow citizens based on guesses like this from a book which condemns many things we don't condemn and which is generally rejected in every other rule it offers.
You would think there was an 11th commandment against gays in the bible. To find that the real source is something like this should shame the homophobic and drive them from society. "Pray away the gay" Mrs Palin? Try praying away the hatred.
------
Re: "Note that there is no punishment or penalty until 30 days after birth".
This is posted under abortion. I am pointing out that under Jewish law (OT), not only is there no penalty for causing a miscarriage BEFORE birth, there is no penalty for the death of the child until after 30 days have elapsed FROM birth.
Thu Sep 18, 06:32:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Thanks for the reply. I think I misunderstood the purpose of your post, if so I'm sorry.
I thought you were trying to defend the Bible because you thought it didn't explicitly come out against homosexuality. I don't agree that the passage could mean almost anything in this case, but as I said I'm not an expert. The fact that the reference here is not straightforward (like you said, there's no 11th commandment saying "Thou shalt hate gays.") could be used to try to convince people to stop using the Bible as "proof" of why their hatred of gays is justified.
For the 30 days after birth reference, thanks for the clarification. It seems that the OT's God was a lot less pro-life than many of his followers are nowadays.
Fri Sep 19, 05:45:00 AM 2008 
 A Voice of Sanity said...
We haven't even gotten to the Centurion's servant yet. See Homosexuality & Christianity for a rundown. It seems Jesus was OK with
Slavery
Homosexuality
Pedophilia
which will annoy many I'm sure!
Fri Sep 19, 08:33:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Very interesting reading, thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of this interpretation of the Centurion story.
If that site's translation of pais is correct in this context, you're right that it would apparently also imply that Jesus was okay with slavery and pedophilia/pederasty. This other site admits as much:
"To our modern minds, the idea of buying a teen lover seems repugnant. But we have to place this in the context of ancient cultural norms. "
Normally I would just stop reading at that point, but I was curious what warped sense of reasoning was going behind this.
"In ancient times, commercial transactions were the predominant means of forming relationships. Under the law, the wife was viewed as the property of the husband, with a status just above that of slave."
Couldn't Jesus have fought against this status quo? e.g., "I shall make a new commandment, thou shalt not buy your lover." Or was he too busy condemning fig trees to death?
The web site continues "It was not uncommon for boys and girls to marry at age 14 or 15."
Just because it was common doesn't make it right. Robbing the cradle may have common due to the fact that people used to have such short life spans at that time. And whose fault was that? Jesus' dad, according to Genesis. If these children were more developed mentally or physically than teenagers are nowadays, it might be different I suppose.
"Jesus’ words are simple, clear, and liberating for all who have worried about what God thinks of gay relationships. 'I will come and heal him'.”
So what is simple, clear, and liberating about this story? The Bible doesn't clearly state the relationship between the two people. The argument is then, that Jesus may or may not have knowingly healed a teenage sex slave, without saying one word about whether he was for or against homosexuality, for or against servitude, and for or against pedophilia. His act would appear to support all three, IF we accept that's what the situation really was.
I will clearly state that am against slavery, against contracts recognizing a master-like dominance of one person (spouse, lover, or otherwise) over another person, and against adults having sex with children.
I don't pretend to heal people or have a father up in the sky though, so my much clearer words will probably not go down in history.
Sat Sep 20, 10:40:00 AM 2008 
 A Voice of Sanity said...
Anon said... Couldn't Jesus have fought against this status quo? e.g., "I shall make a new commandment, thou shalt not buy your lover." Or was he too busy condemning fig trees to death?
If you read the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus fundamental message is that to reinforce the pact between God and the Jews it is not enough to just do the minimum that the laws require - you have to do as much as you can. "Walk the extra mile, turn the other cheek". Thus you should not look to Jesus to change the laws, he is wanting to reinforce them, and will not reject them.
Sat Sep 20, 10:45:00 PM 2008 
 D said...
What an excellent post! I particularly like the Joel v. Micah bit.
But go easy on Jesus; he was, after all, only human. :)
Wed Sep 24, 11:22:00 AM 2008 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 29 August 2008Would it be wrong to pray for diarrhea?
Well, not according to the Bible, anyway. Here, for example, is a prayer from the Psalms.
Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart. As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones. Psalm 109:16-18
But the Bible-god not only curses bowels, he also, on occasion, messes with them so much that they completely fall out.
Thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out. 2 Chronicles 21:15
So praying for diarrhea has a solid Biblical basis. And though the following video is just making fun of Focus on the Family's (failed) prayer for rain on Obama's acceptance speech, it might be worth a try.


Posted by Steve Wells at 8/29/2008 08:56:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
4 comments:
 v_quixotic said...
Given that the bloke in the Focus on Family video already has a bad case verbal diarrhea, I think the object of prayer needs to be more carefully stated... the Lord moves in mysterious ways after all!
Fri Aug 29, 09:01:00 PM 2008 
 . said...
I can't tell what's funnier, the video or the comment that the Lord moves in mysterious ways! Love it.
Sat Aug 30, 07:04:00 AM 2008 
 afungus amongus said...
Psalm quote is out of context (it describes a wicked man) but 2 Chronicles is spot-on. +1 horrible thing God did in the bible!
Sat Aug 30, 09:09:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Afungus,
So it's OK to pray for bad things to happen to bad people? Isn't that what this passage is doing in context?
Sat Aug 30, 09:19:00 AM 2008 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 29 August 2008Focus on the Family proves again that nothing fails like prayer
So Samuel called unto the LORD; and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day. 1 Samuel 12:18
And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. Matthew 21:22
Jesus said that believers will get whatever they ask for in prayer. And the Old Testament prophet, Samuel, made it rain just by praying. So why were the prayers of thousands of believers unanswered? Why didn't it rain on Obama's acceptance speech?
Because, as everyone who has ever tried it knows, nothing fails like prayer.


Posted by Steve Wells at 8/29/2008 08:33:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
9 comments:
 GAD said...
Why was the Jesus camp scene spliced on the end of that?
Fri Aug 29, 09:18:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
I have no idea, Gad. I'll see if I can find one without the Jesus Camp thing.
Fri Aug 29, 09:45:00 AM 2008 
 GAD said...
Hum, seems like someone had an agenda.
I watched the diarrhea one first and thought, OK whatever, then I watched this one and then it all made much more sense.
Fri Aug 29, 09:55:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
I've put up the original "Stop Light" video, which Focus on the Family retracted after much criticism. It probably won't last long, though, since FOF will ask youtube to remove all copies.
Fri Aug 29, 10:00:00 AM 2008 
 GAD said...
That's good! The diarrhea guy did a good mock of this!
Fri Aug 29, 10:09:00 AM 2008 
 geniusofevil said...
Why rain? God's all powerful, so why give him something easy? Don't they think God has an imagination or would like a challenge?
I would have prayed for slime. Much more Nickelodeon.
Fri Aug 29, 12:22:00 PM 2008 
 busterggi said...
Don't these people know that if you choose the wrong sky god you get the wrong weather?
Shoulda prayed to Zeus or thor!
Fri Aug 29, 05:35:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
No rain. I guess even God doesn't like Focus on the Family.
Sat Aug 30, 09:26:00 AM 2008 
 questionsaboutfaithetc said...
The video was quite absurd. Praying for rain, quite primitive thought patterns.
Tue Sep 16, 07:32:00 PM 2008 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 20 August 2008Quranet -- Let's pretend the Quran is a good book
(Hey, it works for the Bible, doesn't it?)
One of the 60 projects selected by the Israeli Presidential Conference to honor Israel's 60th year of independence is called Quranet, from which (according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs) "every person in the world can find a Quranic answer to his/her educational question."
Here's how it will work. The user will ask a question (or select one from a list) and Quranet will show the answer from the Quran. Here is the question and answer from their SWF demonstration.
Question: What happens when we repay evil with good?
Answer: . . . the one who used to be your enemy, may become your best friend. (Sura Fussilat ayat 34
Well, it worked well for that question, didn't it? See what a great book the Quran is?
But what if someone asks these "educational questions"?
Question: What does the Quran say about Jews?
Answer: They are wretched, selfish, greedy, hateful, evil, treacherous, losers, blind, deaf, perverse, ugly, and have devils for friends. (But other than that they're OK.)
(Quran 2:61, 96; 5:12-13, 53, 59, 70-71; 7:27, 30; 9:30; 62:5)
Question: What will happen to Jews that refuse to convert to Islam?
Answer: They will be cursed by Allah, their faces will be disfigured, their hearts hardened, they will be turned into apes and pigs, and burn forever in hell.
(Quran 2:65-66; 4:47, 160-1; 5:12, 53, 60; 7:166-7; 9:34)
Question: Should Muslims be friends with Jews?
Answer: Absolutely not. If you have any Jewish friends, Allah will consider you one of them. (And you know what happens to them!)
(Quran 3:28, 118; 4:89, 144; 5:51, 55, 57, 80; 9:23; 58:14-15, 22; 60:1, 9)
Question: How should Jews be treated?
Answer: They should be fought and terrorized until they either are killed (with their heads and fingers chopped off) or forced to into submission.
(Quran 2:191-2; 4:89; 8:12-13; 9:5)
But questions like these will not be asked or answered at Quranet, which was designed to hide, rather than reveal, the true nature of the Quran. By selecting only from the good stuff in the Quran, Quranet will try (as the demo says) to "transform the Quran into a modern and useful educational tool" that "creates a bridge between the Islamic world and the West" while revealing "the beauty of the Quran and its respect for human dignity."
It's dishonest, of course. But then it's hard to honest when you're just pretending.
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/20/2008 09:05:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
6 comments:
 GAD said...
It's the Quran in a magic 8 ball!
Wed Aug 20, 11:09:00 AM 2008 
 watercat said...
Better, let's put it in Lolspeak.
Iz heer:
http://lolkoran.blogspot.com/
Wed Aug 20, 04:38:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Good one, gad. I'm sure the people who created it think it's so cool (this'll get those youngsters to love the Quran!).
I am a lot less familiar with Quran apologists than I am with Bible apologists. There are all sorts of ways of interpreting, mangling, or excusing Biblical verses to get them to mean what you want.
Is there anyone that claims that these verses aren't what they appear: a call for disgusting, xenophobic hatred towards Jews?
Wed Aug 20, 10:28:00 PM 2008 
 Eme said...
The big problem with Quran and Islam in comparison with the bible and christianity, is that while the last has been challenge since long ago (just remember Galileo), islam hasn´t. Bible doesn´t have political force today, quran does. We can also compare, Jesus with Mohammed, the last one wasn´t just a religious leader, he was Head of State; and in that historical point, the quran start becoming less and less "tolerant". That´s why quranic apologysts prefere to show the meccan quran, than the medina one.
Sorry for my english.
Fri Aug 29, 08:51:00 AM 2008 
 Password Problems said...
When you look to find hatred that is all you will find. When a sentence is taken out of context it can be used for anything. I can find a list of verses that tell the opposite.
Most people will forward this link without confirming it from the actual Quran, and confirming what was said in what context.
I do not agree with Dr.Zakir naik in ... Read Moreeverything, but this is a good attempt of his in dealing with ( out of context issues). Listen to this video from 7min and 20 sec onwards. ( followed by others)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoGo07fiSkA&feature=PlayList&p=9B80CF509AF9A0BA&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=29
Sun May 31, 08:39:00 AM 2009 
 Mahmoud Elshafiey said...
I just saw quranet, it does exactly as u did, it's weird how Israel would produce such a site or project, and I found out that many info is false in this project!.
U took verses out of context, I just can't quote something from a whole system.
As an example, I can't quote from your blog: "Quran is a good book" from the title of this post... So ignorant, right?
Thu Feb 09, 11:04:00 AM 2012 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 08 August 2008Things on which the Bible and Quran agree
In previous posts I've mentioned a few things that the Bible and Quran agree on. But I thought it might be useful to make a list and include them all here. I'll start with ones that I've previously mentioned and go from there. Let me know what I've missed and I'll add them to the list. (To keep it short, I'll just include links to previous posts and to the verses from the Bible and Quran.)
A woman is worth half as much as a man.
Bible Leviticus 27:3-7
Quran 4:11, 4:176, 2:282

Stay away from menstruating women.
Bible Ezekiel 18:5, Leviticus 15:19-30, 18:19, 20:18
Quran 2:222

Women must cover their heads and dress modestly.
Bible 1 Corinthians 11:3-10, Deuteronomy 22:5
Quran 24:31, 33:59

Insects have four legs.
Bible Leviticus 11:22-23
Quran 24:45

God and Satan force non-believers to disbelieve.
Bible 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, John 12:40, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4
Quran 2:6-7, 6:25, 15:39-43, 7:16-18, 17:97-98, 18:57

Disbelievers should be killed.
Bible Deuteronomy 13:6-15
Quran 2:191, 4:89, 4:91, 9:5

Disbelievers will burn forever in hell.
Bible John 3:18, 36, Mark 9:43-8, Matthew 25:41, Luke 16:22-24, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9, Revelation 14:10-11, 20:10
Quran 9:73, 66:9

Don't make friends with disbelievers.
Bible 2 Corinthians 6:14-17
Quran 3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 5:51, 60:1, 13

Lot was a just and righteous man.
Bible 2 Peter 2:7-8
Quran 7:80-3, 21:71-5, 27:54-7, 29:26-7, 66:10

God is the creator of evil.
Bible Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6
Quran 113:1-2
Posted by Steve Wells at 8/08/2008 11:00:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
4 comments:
 sconnor said...
As sung to the theme, from the Patty Duke Show
But they're cousins,
Identical cousins all the way.
One pair of matching bookends,
Different as night and day.
Where bible adores Jesus,
The trinity, and crepe suzette,
Our Qur'an loves to praise Allah,
Mohamed makes her lose control — What a wild duet!
Still, they're cousins,
Identical cousins and you'll find,
They kill alike, they preach alike,
At times they even talk alike —
You can lose your mind,
When cousins are two of a kind — What a crazy pair!
--S.
Fri Aug 15, 03:52:00 PM 2008 
 gltirebiter said...
I bothered to check two of your citations, and found both of them to be skewed beyond reason. No. 6, f'risntance: you INTERPRETED the Deuteronomy verse completely out of context; the subject being discussed is not an unbeliever, but a PROSELYTIZER who is advocating unbelief. The injunction seems to be against people who do not mind their own business, and certainly does not support any position of intolerance.
Mon Dec 14, 04:49:00 PM 2009 
 toadnuke1 said...
@gltirebiter
How is it not supporting any position on intolerance if it's telling you to kill someone who is spreading a different religion?
Should everyone who isn't "minding their own business" be murdered?
Sat Oct 16, 06:24:00 PM 2010 
 Ken Fryer said...
Deut 22.5 is not telling women to cover their heads and be modest. It says the habiliments of a man are not on a woman nor doth a man put on the garment of a woman. This is a prohibition on cross dressing, if anything. Please read more carefully before lumping these things together.
@Toadnuke1.
"Should everyone who isn't minding their own business be murdered?"
Put a stop to nosey parkers wouldn't it.
Thu Jun 02, 06:59:00 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
    
 22 September 2008Sarah Palin's Bible-based rape kit
Poor Sarah is in trouble again. This time for charging rape victims up to $1000 for rape kits while she was mayor of Wasilla.
But people should just leave Sarah Palin alone. She was only trying to faithfully apply the Bible's laws on rape. And that's not easy to do in a small town like Wasilla.
You see, the Bible has two laws on rape: one for city rape
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24
and one for country rape.
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. ... For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. -- Deuteronomy 22:25-27
But which law applies in Wasilla, which is neither city nor country? What do you do with a rape victim in a small town with small town values? Stone her to death for not crying out loudly enough or force her to marry her rapist?
In either case, Sarah Palin's Bible-based rape kit is more likely to include stones or wedding certificates than free medical examinations.
Posted by Steve Wells at 9/22/2008 11:58:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
5 comments:
 gorunnova said...
I think this is a little misdirected... That stupidity was probably fiscal in nature - more a case of 'cheap-arse government' than inspiration from the good old misogynistic Bible.
"Whaa! We're too cheap to cover rape kits, so if they want justice they've got to pay for it!"
The police don't charge a murder victim's estate for the costs of investigating the murder case. They don't drop off a bill at the house of a man who was mugged for the costs of investigating the thief. Why, then, should they charge a rape victim for the costs of discovering who the rapist was? The state should cover rape kits unless there's a conviction... whereupon the offender should pay for it, if they really need to recoup the money.
This issue does underline Sarah Palin's leadership qualities, though. Did she agree with charging for rape kits? Did she not care whether they charged or not at the time? Was she unaware that the police were charging for those rape kits? Being exploitive, apathetic, or ignorant... none of those qualities seem especially good for a high office candidate, imho.
Wed Sep 24, 11:45:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
I think mostly agree with you here, gorunnova.
Still, I think Palin's attitude toward rape victims is influenced by the Bible. Did the victim encourage the rapist by dressing immodestly? Did she resist her attacker and cry out loudly enough? And if an examination showed the victim to be pregnant, might she decide to have an abortion?
If it wasn't for the story in John 8:3-7, I suspect that Sarah Palin would favor stoning to death rape victims who didn't cry out loudly enough. As it it, she just charged rape victims for rape kits.
Wed Sep 24, 12:03:00 PM 2008 
 A Voice of Sanity said...
I have heard that this was a policy of the chief of police and that Palin denies knowledge - although many find that hard to believe. In any case the state rejects the policy (although they downloaded the costs to the cities).
Wed Sep 24, 02:37:00 PM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
...well, that's what happens when democracy is reduced to a popularity contest. When candidates can select running-mates to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the populace...
I'm glad the Queen is still nominally our head-of-state... [sigh]
Wed Sep 24, 11:54:00 PM 2008 
 Freidenker85 said...
You know, that first law from Deuteronomy isn't about rape, it's about burning the sheets with a foreign soldier - willingly. It doesn't actually addresses forced copulation. At any rate, stoning a girl to death simply because she got naughty with a foreign soldier is still barbaric and disgusting.
Fri Oct 24, 02:17:00 AM 2008 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 18 September 2008The Bible and Islam agree: God hates mice (That includes you, Mickey!)
You've probably heard the news about Mickey Mouse: He's a soldier of Satan that should be killed on sight. Or so said Sheikh Muhammad Munajid, and he should know. I'll let him tell you about it.


So I couldn't help myself. I had to look in the Quran to see what it had to say about mice.
And do you know what I found? Nothing. Nada. The Quran doesn't mention mice. (Although the Hadith does. See here and here.)
But the Bible does. And it agrees with the Sheikh about them.
First of all mice are unclean to God (so they should be to you, too).
These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse.... Leviticus 11:29
It's true, of course, that many animals are unclean to God. But God is especially disgusted by mice. Here's what he said about them in Isaiah.
For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD. Isaiah 66:15-17
So mice and pigs are just about the most disgusting things God can think of. And he's got quite an imagination.
You remember the story about the five golden hemorrhoids, don't you? Well the same story includes five golden mice. No kidding.
What shall be the trespass offering which we shall return to him? They answered, Five golden emerods, and five golden mice ... Wherefore ye shall make images of your emerods, and images of your mice.
...
And they laid the ark of the LORD upon the cart, and the coffer with the mice of gold and the images of their emerods.
...
And these are the golden emerods which the Philistines returned for a trespass offering unto the LORD ... And the golden mice.... 1 Samuel 6:4-18
God told the Philistines to make golden images of his least favorite things: hemorrhoids and mice. You see it was kind of a divine joke. It was really funny to God. (Laugh or he'll give you a disease that will make your bowels fall out.)
Clearly then, God hates mice just as much as Allah, Muhammad, and the Sheikh do.
So you Bible believers should stop laughing at the Muslims and proudly join the Fatwah against Mickey. (Or God may have to give you hemorrhoids in your secret parts.)
Posted by Steve Wells at 9/18/2008 08:54:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
11 comments:
 Anon said...
Well Reverend Billy, from the Church of Stop Shopping, did call Mickey Mouse the Antichrist.
And so it came to pass that in 1999 the Rev Billy walked into the Disney Store in Times Square, holding up a large plush toy and proclaiming Mickey Mouse to be the Antichrist.
So it doesn't surprise me that the Bible and Hadith take an anti-mouse stance, too. I guess the answer to "What Would Jesus Do?", is stock up on rat poison. Muhammad would apparently chip in, too.
Thu Sep 18, 06:09:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
anon, thanks for that. I didn't know about Reverend Billy. He's a funny guy!
Of course he, unlike the Sheik, isn't entirely serous about Mickey Mouse.
Fri Sep 19, 10:51:00 AM 2008 
 E. D. Malone said...
I've read that Islam has a problem with dogs, also. Now, pigs and mice I can kinda see, but dogs? Porky and Mickey, fine, but when they start going after Goofy, that's where I draw the line.
I don't have too many hopes for the human race, that's what helps keep all this in perspective for me.
Fri Sep 19, 11:13:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
E. D. Malone, Yeah, Muhammad didn't much like dogs (though there isn't much about them in the Quran). He thought they were dirty and evil (black ones especially) and said that angels refuse to enter a house if there's dog a inside, and that whatever good deeds a person might do are undone by owning a dog. That's why, if I ever get another one, I'm going to name it Muhammad.
Fri Sep 19, 12:08:00 PM 2008 
 busterggi said...
I ask the believers - if god finds mice, shrimp, pigs, dogs, etc to be abominations then why did he make them and call them good?
Sat Sep 20, 06:32:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Steve, glad you liked the Rev. Billy reference (and thanks for the YouTube link, hadn't seen that one). You're right, I don't think he really thinks Mickey Mouse is the antichrist. But this Sheik can't possibly be crazy enough to think Islam law commands people to kill a fictional rodent??
Then again, those Muhammad cartoons did get people all up in arms (but they are no match for the Muhammad dog!).
e. d. malone, I think Goofy's safe: fortunately he could disguise himself well enough that they wouldn't realize he's actually a dog. Pluto on the other hand may soon be dead meat.
In any case, I'm steering clear of Disneyland and the Disney Store in my mall till this thing blows over...
Sat Sep 20, 08:59:00 AM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
Busterggi said:
"...if god finds mice, shrimp, pigs, dogs, etc to be abominations then why did he make them and call them good?"
And why did he make the pigs and shrimp so tasty too?
Sat Sep 20, 11:58:00 PM 2008 
 Thomas said...
Geez, is there anything god doesn't hate?
Thu Sep 25, 03:24:00 PM 2008 
 Uzza said...
God likes camels. The Koran say this in several places...
...this she-camel of God is a token for you. So leave her alone to graze on God's earth, and do not molest her
Wed Oct 01, 07:31:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
I didn't know that, uzza, about camels and Islam. Muhammad apparently thought camels were so good that he said camel pee was a good thing to drink.
If camels are so good, I wonder what Allah thinks of Joe Camel then. Is he better or worse than Mickey Mouse?
Sat Oct 04, 10:59:00 AM 2008 
 radagasst86 said...
Everybody stop eating disney characters!
Sun Nov 10, 07:14:00 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
    
 07 September 2008Sarah Palin: A modern day Esther gone wild
Soon after becoming the governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin asked her former pastor (Paul Riley of the Wasilla Assembly of God) to suggest a woman from the Bible that she should emulate. Pastor Riley suggested Esther, and the governor took his advice and hasn't looked back since.
Of course there aren't many good examples for women in the Bible. Women are seldom mentioned, and when they are they are seldom named, and when they're named they seldom do anything except have men come in unto them, after which they get pregnant and deliver baby boys, unless God has closed up their wombs for one reason or another.
But the good pastor chose Esther and it's spooky how much Palin resembles her.    

(OK, the hair is a little different and Esther didn't wear glasses, but otherwise it's a match.)
And the similarity goes way beyond looks. Here's the story of the biblical Esther.
King Ahasuerus throws a party and encourages his guests to drink to excess. Then, when they are all drunk, he orders Queen Vashti to show her stuff before him and his guests. Esther 1:7-11
Vashti refuses to entertain the king's drunken guests by dancing before them. For this she is no longer to be queen, to be replaced by someone better (prettier). 1:12-19
Because of Vashti's disobedience, the king decrees that "all the wives shall give to their husbands honor, both the great and the small" and "that every man should bear rule over his own house." 1:20-22
So "all the fair young virgins" throughout the kingdom are brought before the king, and the one that "pleaseth" the king the most will replace Vashti. 2:2-4
When it was Esther turn to "go in unto the king," she pleases him the most. So, having won the sex contest, she is made queen in Vashti's place. 2:8-17
Now I ask you, what does that story remind you of? Of course! The Republican National Convention in St. Paul.
John McCain was king and Sarah Palin was Esther. But who was Vashti, the real heroine of the story?
Rudy Giuliani, perhaps?

Nah, Rudy would have gladly danced naked if John McCain had just asked. (He was certainly willing to lie for him.)
For a more serious and thorough analysis of the Palin/Esther connection, see here.
Posted by Steve Wells at 9/07/2008 12:40:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
5 comments:
 Anon said...
This election cycle just gets stranger in terms of religion. You would think Palin would get insulted at being compared to Esther, given the story you posted, Steve. But if she reads a spinned version of Esther's story such as this one, she apparently would think it was about some fun Extreme Makeover, Biblical edition.
This article asks us, "Are you allowing God to give you beauty treatment?" and tells us that the 12-month beauty treatment Esther went under before she was allowed to have sex with the King "was a physical treatment carried out with oils. Oil in the old testament represented the Holy Spirit."
And of course, "A carnal Christian maybe able to manifest the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but it takes a person who has dedicated herself willingly to the Lord to manifest the fruit of the spirit."
Most importantly, perhaps, your "background does not hinder your future with God". And your lack of political background does not hinder your future as vice president, apparently.
Here's some of the fun stuff Palin and/or her true religion (before she wimped out from officially being in the Assemblies of God) preach. I like the fact that she prayed for a pipeline and that her pastor thinks that Alaska will be "one of the refuge states in the last days". Did you know that "hundreds and thousands of people are gonna come to the state to seek refuge?". (YouTube pt 1, pt 2
Maybe the perfect ticket would have been Romney-Palin. The Garden of Eden in Jackson County, Missouri, and the end times in Alaska. God bless America!
Mon Sep 08, 04:58:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Thanks for that, Anon. I need to look into Palin's religious views a bit more.
Sarah Palin actually makes George Bush look like a fairly reasonable guy.
Mon Sep 08, 08:22:00 AM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
It's a pity Palin isn't a Catholic, because if she was, her priest could have suggested a character from the Apocrypha: Judith -
[10:3] And [she] pulled off the sackcloth which she had on, and put off the garments of her widowhood, and washed her body all over with water, and anointed herself with precious ointment, and braided the hair of her head, and put on a tire upon it, and put on her garments of gladness, wherewith she was clad during the life of Manasses her husband...
The story so far is that Holofernes and his Assyrian henchmen are running roughshod over the Hebrews who in this instance are a bunch of wooses.
[10:10-13] so, Judith went out, she, and her maid with her; and the men of the city looked after her, until she was gone down the mountain, and till she had passed the valley, and could see her no more. Thus they went straight forth in the valley: and the first watch of the Assyrians met her, and took her, and asked her, Of what people art thou? and whence comest thou? and whither goest thou? And she said, I am a woman of the Hebrews, and am fled from them: for they shall be given you to be consumed: And I am coming before Holofernes the chief captain of your army, to declare words of truth; and I will shew him a way, whereby he shall go, and win all the hill country, without losing the body or life of any one of his men.
Later, back at the fort...
[12:17-20] Then said Holofernes unto her, Drink now, and be merry with us. So Judith said, I will drink now, my lord, because my life is magnified in me this day more than all the days since I was born. Then she took and ate and drank before him what her maid had prepared. And Holofernes took great delight in her, and drank more wine than he had drunk at any time in one day since he was born...
Things seem to be progressing nicely...
[13:4-10] ...Then Judith, standing by his bed, said in her heart, O Lord God of all power, look at this present upon the works of mine hands for the exaltation of Jerusalem. For now is the time to help thine inheritance, and to execute thine enterprizes to the destruction of the enemies which are risen against us. Then she came to the pillar of the bed, which was at Holofernes' head, and took down his sword from thence, And approached to his bed, and took hold of the hair of his head, and said, Strengthen me, O Lord God of Israel, this day. And she smote twice upon his neck with all her might, and she took away his head from him . And tumbled his body down from the bed, and pulled down the canopy from the pillars; and anon after she went forth, and gave Holofernes his head to her maid; And she put it in her bag of meat...
Now that's vice presidential material!
Wed Sep 10, 01:58:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Yeah, Judith would be a great example for Sarah Palin to follow.
But maybe Jael would work as well. Her story is a lot like Judith's, except Jael drives a tent stake through a man's head while he was sleeping.
And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle. And he said unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him. ... Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died. And, behold, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him, and said unto him, Come, and I will shew thee the man whom thou seekest. And when he came into her tent, behold, Sisera lay dead, and the nail was in his temples. Judges 4:18-22
Now that sounds like something Sarah could get into! It's even got Barak in the same scene playing a somewhat subordinate role.
Another cool thing about this story is the little ditty they sing in the next chapter.
Blessed above women shall Jael ... be, blessed shall she be above women... She put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workmen's hammer; and with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken through his temples. Judges 5:24-26
I think Pastor Reilly should talk to her about this.
Wed Sep 10, 02:54:00 PM 2008 
 Anon said...
Wow, v_quixotic and Steve. Just when I think the Bible can't surprise me anymore...Those are some pretty sick stories.
It is a funny coincidence (if the word "funny" can be applied to stories like this) that there's a Barak in Jael's story. I'm sure that can be twisted into a fulfilled prophesy somehow (any takers?).
It looks like there's still a lot to discover about Palin. Who knows what other skeletons (or decapitated heads) might be lurking in her closet...
Wed Sep 10, 06:40:00 PM 2008 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 23 October 2008What the Bible says about Sarah Palin's new clothes
Everyone's talking about Sarah's new clothes. But what does the Bible say about them?
Well, here is what the Old Testament says:
"Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. Deuteronomy 22:11
I will punish ... all such as are clothed with strange apparel. Zephaniah 1:8
I don't know whether Sarah's clothes were made of blended fabrics or if God considers them strange. Someone should check into that.
But the big problem comes from the New Testament. Here's what it has to say:
Women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array. 1 Timothy 2:9
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel. 1 Peter 3:3
So costly apparel is out -- for women, anyway. I think even God might consider $150,000 costly.
And lastly we should ask, what would Jesus wear?
And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. ... Therefore take no thought, saying, ... Wherewithal shall we be clothed? Matthew 6:28-32
So if Sarah cares about what Jesus said, she should either wear anything -- or nothing at all. Just like the lilies.
Posted by Steve Wells at 10/23/2008 09:43:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
8 comments:
 busterggi said...
But all 'real' Christians know that Jesus exempts them from the rules.
Thu Oct 23, 03:56:00 PM 2008 
 GAD said...
Jesus may exempt form the OT but not the NT. In the NT the husband is the head and the women must be obedient to him. That makes Sarah's husband the real VP.
Fri Oct 24, 09:05:00 AM 2008 
 busterggi said...
Nah, it just proves that Jesus wasn't married or he'd have known who the real boss in a marriage is.
Fri Oct 24, 10:28:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
I think it's unfair that people are picking on her for illegally getting fancy, expensive clothes for her and her family, or for paying her stylist more than they pay McCain's foreign policy advisor.
McCain, Obama, and Biden have all those fancy words and ideas they can use to talk about politics. What does Palin have? She's shown on the few interviews that she's given (Couric, etc.) that she's not knowledge about politics or the world. All she has is God and good looks.
You've got to play to your strengths. If you can't be the most qualified, or most intelligent VP candidate, why hold press conferences? You might as well go on Christian radio and talk about God, and make sure you'll be the best dressed VP candidate ever!
She's actually kinda like Jesus. Jesus showed his ignorance of the world (thinking for example that mustard grew on trees and had the smallest seeds) and spoke in crazy parables that even his followers didn't get half the time. Public speaking was apparently not his strong suit. Plus, had his feet rubbed with expensive oil while the poor went hungry because he wouldn't be around for long. After another couple weeks, Palin will (hopefully) not be around on the national scene for long. She'll be waiting up in Alaska for the second coming of Jesus. So she might as well live it up while she can.
Palin has God and clothes, Jesus had God and oil. When Jesus comes back, maybe they can talk nonsense, rub oil and play dress up together!
Sat Oct 25, 09:00:00 AM 2008 
 RR said...
I thought of the jesus quote right off - a good one.
These people are as far away from "godly" as it gets... charlatan -- I think that's a more appropriate description.
Sun Oct 26, 08:23:00 AM 2008 
 Jolly Roger said...
You aren't getting the point.
Caribou Barbie uses Chimpy's Bible, the New Jesusistan Version. The passages in it are a bit different...
Blessed are the Rich, for they shall own your ass.
Thous shalt not kill, unless who thou slays doesn't subscribe to your point of view.
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than it is for a poor man to get representation in Congress.
Sun Oct 26, 11:07:00 AM 2008 
 Voices of Separated Korean Families said...
busterggi, you are NOT exempt. he just fulfilled them, not abolished. So go beat your son/daughter if he/she talks back to you.
Tue Nov 04, 03:10:00 PM 2008 
 Georgecats said...
So where does Jesus' biggest supporter, Jan Crouch of TBN, with her cotton candy hair, collegen lips and butterfly eyebrows fit in to this picture?
Sat Oct 03, 07:44:00 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
    
 22 October 2008Why should you pray for Sarah Palin?
All you prayer warriors out there want to know, I betcha.
Well, PrayForSarahPalin.com has the answer for ya.
In Ephesians 6:14-18, the apostle Paul warns: A final word: Be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on all of God's armor so you will be able to stand firm against all strategies of the devil. For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against might powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places. Therefore, put on every piece of God's armor so you will be able to resist the enemy in the time of evil. Then after the battle you will be standing firm.
OK, now you should understand. (Even though they got the verse numbers wrong. It's Ephesians 6:10-13).
You should pray because you are fighting on God's side and God is on Sarah Palin's side. Barck Obama is "of the devil". He and Joe Biden are not "flesh-and-blood enemies" but rather "evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world" and "mighty powers" of the "dark (black) world." They are allied with "evil spirits" in high places (like Washington and New York). This is the final battle "in the time of evil." You must "stand firm" by voting for Sarah Palin (and old what's his name).
Posted by Steve Wells at 10/22/2008 12:17:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
4 comments:
 Anon said...
Thanks for the post Steve. Now after reading Ephesians 6, I see the reason prayer doesn't work is that people aren't following God's advice.
People who want to "be strong in the Lord" (6:10) should be wearing God's armor, including a belt of truth, a breastplate of righteousness, peace footwear, a shield of faith, a helmet of salvation, and a sword of the Spirit.
Palin supporters missed a perfect fundraising opportunity: selling God's armor to people wanting God to put Palin in office. Even with Halloween around the corner, I wouldn't know where to start to find such a costume.
Not to mention that Palin could have worn all this and avoided the clothesgate scandal.
Sat Oct 25, 09:19:00 AM 2008 
 Timothy said...
Actually, someone beat you to that. I can't remember the exact details, but a mother reading to her daughter every night from the Bible thought to make a pajama set that was the entire "Armor of God", and went about sewing them up and has a site devoted to selling them. It's absolutely hilarious, with a twinge of depression that this stuff is taken slightly seriously...
Sun Oct 26, 06:28:00 AM 2008 
 goat said...
just found your website and wanted to say thank you for your wonderful insight. keep up the good work
Sun Oct 26, 10:40:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Thanks Timothy for letting us know. I just looked and found the site you're talking about.
I guess no matter how ridiculous you think an idea is, apparently someone else has already thought of it. This is even more hilarious and/or pathetic than my idea though. Armor pajamas?!?
But it gets even worse. The mother didn't think of the idea on her own. Apparently, the idea for these PJs comes from the Almighty himself! From the site:
"At that moment, God gave me the idea how wonderful it would be if all children could have the opportunity to put on a pair of pajamas that symbolized the Armor of God...As they dress in the mornings, they should replace them with the spiritual Armor of God..."
I really wish this site was a parody and not the real deal...
Mon Oct 27, 07:57:00 PM 2008 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 22 October 2008Sarah feels the power of the prayer warriors
I can feel the power of prayer, and that strength that is provided through our prayer warriors across this nation.
That was Sarah Palin in a Focus on the Family interview with James Dobson. You can listen to it here.
If you want to be one of Sarah Palin's prayer warriors, you can go to PrayForSarahPalin.com and sign up. They are tying to get at least one Palin prayer warrior in each zipcode. (So far they have 3665! Yipee! But since there are a total of about 43,000, they still have a way to go. God will need more than 8.5% of the zip codes represented for him to intervene by rigging the election.)
You'd think that Focus on the Family would have learned by now. Remember when they prayed for God to send rain on Obama's acceptance speech?
Nothing fails like prayer.
Posted by Steve Wells at 10/22/2008 11:00:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
No comments:
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
    
 21 October 2008The Bible's guide to abortion
I don't know how I missed this before, but I did. There is a biblical way of having an abortion. A method that is not only approved by God, it was invented by him. He describes it himself in the book of Numbers (5:11-31).
It's a bit long and complicated, so I'll break it up for you.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ... If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner; Numbers 5:11-13
The first thing to notice is the context. This procedure is only intended for married couples, specifically for any man that suspects that his wife has been messing around. No proof is necessary; suspicion alone is sufficient to God.
Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon ... And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water ... And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD ... and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse.... (5:15-18)
OK, I am leaving some of the details out here, so if you're going to try this at home, make sure to follow God's instructions exactly. There's no guarantee any of this will work otherwise.
And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband: Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell; And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. 5:19-22
This is the part that fooled me. I get the idea that if the woman has been unfaithful, then the magic bitter water will do something awful to her. But I wasn't sure just what. What does it mean to have your belly swell and your thigh rot? But then I saw the footnote in the NIV that said it meant this: "cause you to be barren and have a miscarrying womb."
So if the woman is guilty (had sex with someone besides her husband), then the bitter water will make her unable to have children in the future. And if she is pregnant at the time, it will abort the pregnancy.
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled; Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law. Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.5:27-31
It's all part of God's wondrous Law of Jealousies. God's magical abortion procedure. A priest, some bitter water, and a wife that you think might have been unfaithful. Priceless. So if God has his own abortion procedure, abortion can't be wrong, right?
Posted by Steve Wells at 10/21/2008 09:05:00 AM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
28 comments:
 geniusofevil said...
Wow, I think you've really hit on something here that's sure to provoke some thought. And I though your God vs Devil death tally was interesting.
Tue Oct 21, 12:34:00 PM 2008 
 busterggi said...
Well that explains what we're doing wrong.
Priests are supposed to perform abortions, not doctors!
Tue Oct 21, 02:56:00 PM 2008 
 Primus said...
Wait a minute.
In Deuteronomy 22:22 'If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.'
You're wife and her lover are to be put death if she is sleeping around, not given bitter / curse / abortion water. Maybe you let the priest give her the curse water, let her bear her iniquity and THEN start killing or at least find someone to kill them.
OR does it matter if she is in the city or in the field? Then you have to go it alone and stone them.
Why is the infallible word of god so confusing?
Tue Oct 21, 05:01:00 PM 2008 
 lolkoran said...
So if you drink mud, you have an abortion? Does Planned Parenthood have a position on this?
Tue Oct 21, 05:48:00 PM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
geniusofevil,
Yeah this story seems to be a God-approved abortion procedure. But notice that it is the man, not the woman that decides. It's a forced abortion that is done against the will of the woman.
busterggi,
Good point. I hadn't thought of that! Priests perform biblical abortions, not doctors. Maybe Catholic hospitals can start doing abortions now.
primus,
You're right. It is hard to follow the Bible's instructions. But in this case no one knows whether anyone even had sex. The husband just suspects that his wife might have. So there's no man involved, at least no one knows if there is or who he might be. so I guess we can't kill him.
But what about the woman? What if her belly swells and her thigh rots? That would take care of the fetus, but what do we do with her? The test shows that she's guilty, then shouldn't she be killed according to Deuteronomy 22:22?
Lolkoran,
I don't think Planned Parenthood would approve of this abortion procedure. The woman has no choice, but gets all the blame and punishment.
Tue Oct 21, 09:50:00 PM 2008 
 v_quixotic said...
I wonder how those NIV bozos decided that to have your belly swell and your thigh rot meant you to be made barren and have a miscarrying womb?
Wed Oct 22, 03:42:00 AM 2008 
 geniusofevil said...
I can't wait to talk to my one-issue-voter friend.
Wed Oct 22, 11:54:00 AM 2008 
 William said...
Let us remember that this was old testament, and that the people of israel did not view God as a God of grace (yahway), but reffered to him as that of a God of covenants and contracts (El Oheem). While He is still a God of covenant, there is room for grace in the new covenant. So the whole idea of the ritual surrounding Numbers 5 is that we as a people cannot follow His instruction without grace, and it gives us no right to perform curses on other people who are just as imperfect as those of us who call ourselves "Christians." To follow Christ is to follow a path of love towards everyone regardless of iniquities or imperfections. Please do forgive my misspelling of the Hebrew names of God earlier in the comment.
William F. Sparks
Fri Apr 23, 06:12:00 AM 2010 
 the mysterious said...
You're wrong. An Ephah of Barley is not an abortificient like you claim it is. And your scriptural exegesis is very sloppy at best.
Mon Feb 28, 03:20:00 PM 2011 
 swamijie said...
@the_mysterious: ohrly?!? How how so? please explain it to the heathens...
@William: are you saying people wrote the Old Testament? Meaning, the bible is not the inerrant word of God? Also are you telling me that the Bible is wrong when it says that God told Moses he was YHWH (Yahweh) because according to you, "the people of israel did not view God as a God of grace (yahway), but reffered to him as that of a God of covenants and contracts (El Oheem)". If the ancient Isrealites didn't "view God as a God of grace (yahway)" then why was Moses, the original Isrealite, instructed that God was YHWH and that is referenced throughout the Torah? I also call you out on your use of "grace". Why give instructions if God knows we can't follow them? Even the Jesus described in the Bible would have called for strict application of Mosaic Law.
Sat Mar 19, 03:00:00 AM 2011 
 laura said...
I am always astonished at the ignorance of some people that will write a blog or even an entire book and not have the first clue that the first five books of the Old Testament are obsolete. See the New Testament.
Sun Apr 17, 03:33:00 PM 2011 
 Steve Wells said...
laura,
The first five books of the Old Testament are obsolete.
I didn't know that. I guess I really am ignorant.
So the ten commandments are obsolete? (See Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.)
Sun Apr 17, 04:18:00 PM 2011 
 Keri said...
Laura is somewhat correct and needed to expand her comment for your understanding. The old testament is obsolete in that the covenant made in the old testament is no longer valid. God made a new covenant in the new testament. Things from the old testament, if they are to be followed, were re-iterated in the New Testament, like the ten commandments. You might find some explanation in the following website. http://www.bibleword.com/tincoman.htm
Tue Jun 07, 08:35:00 AM 2011 
 Mat Noir said...
Oh That is probably why the barley water no longer makes he belly swell and the thigh rot. Cancel the books, change the chemistry. Smart. Now I believe!
Fri Jul 29, 10:43:00 AM 2011 
 Heidi said...
Hey, it's not magic water, it's ergot poisoning from the fungus growing on the grains on the floor. It's the same thing that caused the Salem Witch Trials.
Thu Jun 21, 11:14:00 AM 2012 
 applefritter2715 said...
Wow, I read that chapter over and over again....and in more than one translation. Not once did I see anything even hinting about a pregnancy. I do know that when my father-in-law died of Cirrhosis (liver disease) from heavy alcohol abuse, he had a hugely swollen belly and died from it. I have a friend who was Vietnam and was affected by Agent Orange and is suffering from liver ailments and he looks like he's pregnant. My conclusion is that this passage doesn't talk about pregnancy, and thus not abortion either.
Sat Feb 02, 10:56:00 PM 2013 
 11freelyb said...
Did any of you read this carefully? It says nothing of the woman being with child. Yes, this is just as bad as the Salem Witch trials and trial by water but let's be fair, it isn't an abortion manual.
Wed Apr 10, 10:39:00 AM 2013 
 Wegita said...
Many people vehemently quote a passage in Leviticus about homosexuality. But, Leviticus is in the old testament. So, if, as you say, there is a new covenant and we should not be bound by the rules of the old testament, then why is that Leviticus passage so touted?
Sun Apr 28, 06:44:00 AM 2013 
 Eric P said...
11freelyb
Ahh your right! There was no mention of the woman being pregnant (in this particular translation). So where are the instructions on what to do with a woman who is pregnant? Oh wait, there are none? God gives instructions on how to poison your wifes womb, these instructions apply whether she is pregnant or not. We can only assume that in some instances the wife became pregnant from cheating and thus the poison womb killed the baby. Unless you know of a exemption clause that gives specific instructions on what to do if your wife gets pregnant, then we have to assume that God killed some pregnant cheating wives.
Mon May 06, 01:51:00 PM 2013 
 Excruciating Headache said...
A covenant can never be broken.
The god of israel broke plenty.
Therefore, he is a fraud.
The Old Testament spoke of abortions because they have been necessary since the beginning of time.
I'm glad your lives are so small and perfect that an unwanted pregnancy has never impacted you.
Mon May 13, 12:40:00 PM 2013 
 christophales said...
If the Old Testament is obsolete? Why are the two "Greatest" commandments, according to Jesus, found there? See Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18
Meanwhile, God seems to not like the unborn up to one month old. It seems God is very much a forced abortion provider. Exodus 21:22-23, Leviticus 27:6, Numbers 3:15-17, Hosea 9:14-16, Hosea 13:16, 2 Samuel 12:14, Genesis 38:24.
God seems to not like fetus or even young babies, nor think they are worth anything, unless they are part of Ancient Jewish genealogy, which is pretty much what the Law is about, preserving the heritage of Jewish progeny.
Thu May 16, 10:58:00 PM 2013 
 James Gilliam said...
Biblical definition of a histerectomy. Acid rips out the uterus...the key word is barren in the NIV footnote.
The choice was always abort ironically.
Its not your body...its a GIRL!
Even if its not a girl but a boy at some point it is a seperate human life.
In cases of infidelity just killing the baby to determine whether it was just jealousy seems tame as compared to.killing both the woman and her male bed buddy.


Wed Jun 26, 12:43:00 AM 2013 
 sunshine jo said...
It's funny how apologetics try to say that the Torah/ Old Testament / book of the Law is obsolete or no longer relevant. What nonsense, they don't even know their own religion. Jesus himself said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matt 5:17. Jesus came to FULFILL the Law, the dreadful law of Moses and the Prophets.
Thu Sep 12, 07:19:00 PM 2013 
 sunshine jo said...
Remember that God also called for the stoning of rape victims, which would have led to an abortion in some cases. He clearly was not a fan of illegitimate children.
Deut 22:23-24
Thu Sep 12, 07:22:00 PM 2013 
 Ray said...
http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/thebible.html
There are many passages that indicate that the 'Old Testament' god is anti abortion.
Perhaps, the message is this, abortions for the masses but a select few are special.
Sun Jan 26, 10:21:00 AM 2014 
 Ana said...
Hi everyone. This passage does not talk about abortion. It points to the Jewish belief in courses. The bible talks a lot about the importance of blessing people or cursing people. And how speaking over a person can change a person. its actually very interesting and there are many scientific studies today that show its true that words can chage molecules, see the study done to molecules of water by Masaru Emoto. In this passage God is placing a curse on the woman only if she has been unfaithful. it reads The priest will then put the woman under oath and say to her, ‘If no other man has had sex with you, and you have not gone astray and defiled yourself while under your husband’s authority, may you be immune from the effects of this bitter water that brings on the curse." aLso notice that the priest is feeding her muddy water to bring on the curse. much like Jesus put mud on blind people's eyes to make them see. Try putting mud on their eyes today and see if that works. the mud is symbolic and through faith the curse is real. BY faith the woman would become sickly and she would go on to be barren since in those days that was a terrible horrible thing to happen to any women. since women depended on their husbands and male children to be provided for them. You will see many women in the bible talking about being blessed with children and being cursed with a barren womb.
Sat Mar 22, 07:58:00 PM 2014 
 Leviticus 1:12 said...
You truly believe that a priest waving his hands over a poisonous drink and uttering incantations can turn it into a non-poisonous substance? The bible says a believer may drink any deadly thing and suffer no harm. Why not demonstrate your belief by drinking a deadly glass of Drano? Please don't. It would kill you. By the standards set forth in the bible itself, you are not a believer.
Tue Mar 25, 09:37:00 PM 2014 
 Silver Phoenyx said...
"Excruciating Headache said...
I'm glad your lives are so small and perfect that an unwanted pregnancy has never impacted you."
Coming from someone who has miscarried five times, I would say that if you don't want to RAISE a child, you could always put them up for adoption. If you don't want to GIVE BIRTH to a child, keep your legs closed.
Sun Mar 30, 04:27:00 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 October 2008Hey Sarah: God hates winkers

Don't you just hate it when Sarah Palin winks? Me too.
And so does the God of the Bible.
(Every time Sarah Palin winks, God kills a kitten. -- Lola-Cola)
Here's what the Bible says about it:
A naughty person, a wicked man [or woman], walketh with a froward mouth. He winketh with his eyes ... he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord. Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy. Proverbs 6:12-15
He [or she] that winketh with the eye causeth sorrow: but a prating fool shall fall. Proverbs 10:10
Is that a prophecy? You Betcha! Sarah Palin is a winking fool that causes sorrow and discord wherever she goes.
So hopefully, she and McCain will fall on November 4 -- in fulfillment of the Bible's prophecy.
Posted by Steve Wells at 10/05/2008 06:22:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
6 comments:
 busterggi said...
Jezebel!
Mon Oct 06, 05:18:00 PM 2008 
 Christopher said...
Thanks for sharing, that's hilarious! Her winking was creeping me out!
Mon Oct 06, 06:31:00 PM 2008 
 Muhamad Lodhi said...
Yep, that's a prophecy.
She's playing havoc with the head (if you know what I mean).
Tue Oct 07, 03:54:00 PM 2008 
 Rune said...
Maybe the stupid bitch has put the lipstick in her eye.
Sun Oct 12, 08:06:00 AM 2008 
 FrodoSaves said...
I think part of me just died inside when I saw that photo
Sat Oct 18, 06:57:00 PM 2008 
 Jeffrey said...
>So hopefully, she and McCain will fall on November 4 -- in fulfillment of the Bible's prophecy.
You were right! Praise the Lord!
Mon Nov 10, 05:22:00 PM 2008 
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home 
 New Audiobook
New Audiobook
 Subscribe to our mailing list
 

 
   International SAB order

 
 
  
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction


  Subscribe To
  Posts


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


 
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.







Dwindling In Unbelief



This Blog Linked From Here

This Blog
     
Linked From Here
    
 10 November 2008God on Trial: The Rabbi Speaks
Rabbi Akiba: Who led us out of Egypt?
Judge: God led us out of Egypt.
Rabbi: I have a question. Why were we in Egypt to start with?
Judge: There was a famine, so we took shelter.
Rabbi: Who sent the famine?
Judge: Well we don't know much about the famine...
Rabbi: God sent the famine. So God sent us to Egypt and God took us out of Egypt.
Judge: And later he sent us out of Babylon in order that we might...
Rabbi: And when he brought us out of Egypt, how did he do it? By words, vision, miracle?
Judge: Moses asked Pharaoh...
Rabbi: And when Pharaoh said no?
Inmate: The plagues.
Rabbi: First Moses turned the Egyptians' water to blood. Then God sent the plague of frogs; next a plague of mosquitoes; then a plague of flies. Then he slew their livestock. Next a plague of boils. Next came the hail, which battered down the crops and even the trees and structures everywhere, except in Goshen where the Israelites lived.
Judge: But still Pharaoh did not agree.
Rabbi: And so a plague of locusts, and then the days of darkness, and finally what?
Judge: God slew the firstborn of Egypt and led us out of Egypt.
Rabbi: He struck down the firstborn, from the firstborn and heir of Pharaoh to the firstborn of the slave at the mill. He slew them all. Did he slay Pharaoh?
Judge: No, I don't think so. It was later.
Rabbi: It was Pharaoh that said no, but God let him live. And slew his children instead. All the children. And then the people made their escape taking with them the gold and silver and jewelry and garments of the Egyptians. And then God drowned the soldiers who pursued them. He did not close the waters up so that the soldier could not follow. He waited until they were following and then he closed the waters. And then what?
Judge: And then the desert and ultimately the promised land.
Rabbi: No. The promised land was empty and a new place, uncultivated.
Judge: No. There were...
Rabbi: When the Lord thy God shall bring you into the promised land you shall cast out many nations before you, nations much greater and mightier than you are. You shall smite them and utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them.
Inmate: It shows us his favor. We are his people.
Rabbi: And he gave us a king in Saul. Now when the people of Amalek fought Saul's people, what did the Lord God command? I'll ask the scholar.
Scholar: Crush Amalek and put him under the curse of destruction.
Rabbi: Was Saul to show any mercy to spare anyone?
Scholar: Do not spare...
Rabbi: Do not spare him, but kill. Kill man, woman, babe, and suckling, ox, and sheep, cattle and donkey. So Saul set out to do this and on the way he met some Kenites. Now these were not Amalek's people, he had no quarrel with them. He urged them to flee. And the Lord our God was he pleased by the mercy of Saul, by the justice of Saul?
Scholar: No. No he wasn't.
Rabbi: And when Saul decided not to slaughter all the livestock and to take it to feed his people, was God pleased with his prudence, his charity?
Scholar: No.
Rabbi: No, he was not. He said, you have rejected the word of Adonai, therefore he has rejected you as king. And then to please the Lord our God, Samuel brought forth the king Agar and hacked him to pieces before the Lord at Gilgar.
After Saul there came David who took Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite to himself after arranging to have Uriah killed -- against the wishes of God. Did God strike David for this?
Scholar: In a manner of speaking...
Rabbi: Did he strike Bathsheba?
Scholar: In the sense that when they had...
Rabbi: Adonai said, since you have sinned against me, the child will die. (Turning to the judge) You asked earlier, who would punish a child? God does.
Rabbi: Now did the child die suddenly, mercifully, without pain?
Scholar: In a...
Rabbi: Seven days. Seven days that child spent dying in pain while David wrapped himself in sack and ashes and fasted and sought to show his sorrow to God. Did God listen?
Scholar: The child died.
Rabbi: Did that child find that God was just?
Did the Amalekites think that Adonai was just?
Did the mothers of Egypt -- the mothers -- did they think that Adonai was just?
Scholar: But Adonai is our God, surely...
Rabbi: Oh, what? Did God not make the Egyptians? Did he not make their rivers and make their crops grow? If not him, then who? What? Some other God? But what did he make them for? To punish them? To starve, to frighten, to slaughter them? The people of Amalek, the people of Egypt, what was it like for them when Adonai turned against them? It was like this.
Today there was a selection, yes? When David defeated the Moabites, what did he do?
Judge: He made them lie on the ground in lines and he chose one to live and two to die.
Rabbi: We have become the Moabites. We are learning how it was for the Amalekites. They faced extinction at the hand of Adonai. They died for his purpose. They fell as we are falling. They were afraid as we are afraid. And what did they learn? They learned that Adonai, the Lord our God, our God, is not good. He is not good. He was not ever good. He was only on our side.
God is not good. At the beginning when he repented that he had made human beings and flooded the earth. Why? What had they done to deserve annihilation? What could they have done to deserve such wholesale slaughter? What could they have done that was so bad? God is not good.
When he asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham should have said no. We should have taught our God the justice that was in our hearts. We should have stood up to him. He is not good. He has simply been strong. He has simply been on our side.
When we were brought here, we were brought by train. A guard slapped my face. On their belts they had written "Got mit uns" -- God is with us. Who is to say that he is not? Perhaps he is. Is there any other explanation? What we see here: his power, his majesty, his might, all these things that turned against us. He is still God, but not our God. He has become our enemy.
That is what's happened to our covenant. He has made a new covenant with someone else.
Posted by Steve Wells at 11/10/2008 09:12:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
15 comments:
 Mandrellian said...
Outstanding. Thank you for sharing this.
Tue Nov 11, 04:26:00 PM 2008 
 randomblink said...
LOL! OMFG!
That is hilarious... now if only the xtians could figure this out as well? sigh... Religion... The bane of our existence.
Wed Nov 12, 07:10:00 AM 2008 
 நேச குமார் said...
Thanks. What started as a trickle in judaism evolved into the present day monster called islamist violence.
As long as the theological base remains intact, we can't prevent the jihadis from playing havoc in the society.
Thanks for sharing this.
Thu Nov 13, 09:48:00 PM 2008 
 Kamacharya said...
That was fantastic.
I agree with Randomblink: If only Christians would read their Bible, and I mean really read it, they too would come to the conclusion that God really is a sh!thead! But no. Jesus died so that they're free to pick and choose to suit themselves!
Sat Nov 15, 10:13:00 PM 2008 
 GAD said...
This one part really does not convey the ideas of the movie as a whole. You should really watch it in context. In my opinion you are doing yourself and the movie a great disservice if you only watch this part.
Sun Nov 16, 09:27:00 AM 2008 
 Steve Wells said...
Gad,
I agree that you should watch the entire film and I strongly encourage everyone to do so, but I wonder about the "grave disservice" part. Context is important here, but it is also pretty obvious, isn't it? Or am I missing something?
Sun Nov 16, 10:06:00 AM 2008 
 GAD said...
This part talks about god did this god did that, "god is not good just powerful and was on our side", great fun for atheists but the film is much deeper then a few good shots at god. In the end faith is all they had and it was a moving ending even for a hard atheist like me. High fives based just on just this part, in my opinion, is a dis service to film. I was really moved by this film, so maybe I'm just being sappy...
Sun Nov 16, 11:16:00 AM 2008 
 Rhadiel said...
Precisely this issue about innocent children being punished for their fathers and forefathers actions is what literally forced me into atheism. Nobody should punish innocent children, no matter what their parents have done. Not man, not god. No demigod, no angel, no devil and no demon. Picking on children because they are defenseless is the lowest thing anybody or anything can do.
Thu Nov 20, 06:45:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Thanks for sharing this. I watched the whole thing online and it's pretty powerful. I'm surprised they showed this on PBS (was it shown across the country or just certain markets?). I bet wherever it was shown they got plenty of letters.
Gad, I personally thought this clip gives you a pretty good idea what the movie's about. I watched the clip first, was impressed, and then watched the film in its entirety and was more impressed. So no this clip doesn't tell you everything about the film, and you should definitely so the whole film if you can, but I think it's a good snapshot.
Wed Nov 26, 12:16:00 PM 2008 
 GAD said...
Anon, from the clip I think people might get the idea that this is a film about atheism, when it has nothing to do with atheism, it is all about faith.
Thu Nov 27, 11:30:00 AM 2008 
 paul said...
For those who missed it and live in the country with sucky internet it will be on Netflix Jan 13, 2009
Mon Dec 01, 07:51:00 PM 2008 
 Matthew said...
So the message of the movie is even though the god of Abraham is such an awful deity, have faith and worship him anyway?
Fri Jun 26, 01:46:00 PM 2009 
 kaza said...
How long did these people live and not repent? Do you blame a judge when he sentence a murderer to death? You are viewing history from today's perspective. You are getting a summary of events and judging the whole thing. God lets people continue in sin for only so long. Remember the Caananites worshiped Baal. One of the practices of Baal worship was sacrificing your first born to Baal. I think God only allow a people to exist for so long who get so depraved, then he wipes out the whole group. Its like cancer surgery for the whole human race. The ones who need to be blamed were the Amalakites not God. They chose to continue in their evil practices. The moral of the story is how much evil will we continue to do and how long will God grant us mercy in hoping we will turn around and repent? Lets not live like the Amalakites or others like them, but live a life that loves justice and merciful, and walk humbly in the site of God.
Fri Oct 02, 09:40:00 AM 2009 
 Michael said...
I have not studied theology, I know little of the Jewish religion I went to a Catholic school and I am Greek Orthodox but cannot speak Greek so understand little of my religion but believe in the Christian faith but do not practice. That said, I agree this movie must be watched in its entirety I have watched it many times and it moves me both in disliking God (in support of the Jewish faith at the time of the Holecost) to having a stronger belief in a God and back and forward throughout the movie - it is done very well. In context it and the comments left do not examine the social and political movements/times in Europe/Germany for perhaps a century before Nazi Germany - you have to watch "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" for one understanding, put simply the hatred of "the Jew" because of their intellectual stronghold and superior position in society. Since WWII it has been the conflict over land given/returned/lost (from whos point of viw) in the 'Arab world". There has been a strong feeling that the time prior to WWII is revisited and this is better explored in the movie "The Believer" another insight into "the persecution of the Jew". I admire the discipline of faith, and devotion but this is subjective for one could say it is fanatacism; throughout history religion has been devisive and destructive on all sides. Then there is the issue are we really alone in the universe - in this movie there is also a scene covering this viewpoint. In the end if you are born into faith then you are a believer anyone who denies they ask God for help when the shi# hits the fan they are deluding themselves. No religion truely understands the other.
Mon Oct 26, 07:59:00 AM 2009 
 Spharion said...
I think the part of Akiba's diatribe that's easy to miss, and essential to get it in context is:
"When he asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham should have said no. We should have taught our God the justice that was in our hearts. We should have stood up to him."
That's *precisely* what Akiba is doing. His stance is very significantly different from that of Moche, the original accusator. So different that when Moche sees his condemnation has brought him no peace, he turns to Akiba, pleading "now God is guilty. now what do we do?", and then we have Akiba's last words in the play, the only ones not reproduced in this transcript: "now we pray".
Actually, those are not his last words, for he starts praying along with all the other Jews, and they are praying Psalm 90. Psalm 90 is the actual closing words for him. He, who had been introduced as one of the 36 righteous ones on behalf of whom God wouldn't destroy the world, and had remained in an almost catatonic state mumbling the Torah, fulfilled his righteousness in his condemnation of God's unfairness, just as Abraham himself had done when trying to prevent God from nuking Sodom and Gomorra. With that done, he simply *resumes* praying. Akiba experiences no real rupture. He's all along been acting as he believes a pious Jew should.
Sun Jun 26, 03:52:00 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
    
 23 December 2008The Green Bible: An excerise in dishonesty
Have you seen "The Green Bible"? Well if not, you really should take a look. You won't find a more dishonest book anywhere. 
It was published a few months ago and I recently found a copy in the public library. Its approach is simple: highlight in green all passages that provide God's instructions about caring for the environment.
I don't have time to go through all of the passages that are marked green in the Green Bible (there are over 1,000), so I thought I'd just pick one of the Bible's books and go through that. I chose Revelation.
There are 41 "green" passages in Revelation. Here they are.
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood. Revelation 1:5-7
(Protect the environment by washing it in Jesus's blood.)
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. 2:7
(This was marked green since it has the word "tree" in it.)
Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. 3:10
(God is going to tempt every living thing on earth -- except for Christians, of course. God likes Christians.)
And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever. 4:9
(Beasts give glory, honor, and thanks to a God that sits around on a throne in heaven. But the beasts here are kind of special (see the preceding verse 4:8). They have six wings and are covered with eyes, and they sing continuously day and night: "Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.")
Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. 4:11
(God created guinea worms, bot flies and parasitic wasps for his own pleasure. He likes to watch things suffer.)
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. 5:6
(There are 4 beasts and a dead lamb with 7 horns and 7 eyes which are really the 7 spirits of God that were sent down to earth for some reason. I'm sure there's an important environmental message from God here somewhere.)
And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. 5:12-13
(Animals spend all their time praying out loud in Hebrew, saying stuff like: "God you are so big...")
And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword. 6:4
(God will send an all-powerful red horse with a big sword to take peace from the earth by forcing people to kill each other.)
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. 6:8
(God will send an all-powerful pale horse that will kill one fourth of the human population with war, starvation, and predatory animals. Note: The Green Bible says it will be a "pale green horse." That's why this verse is marked green.)
And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 6:14
(God rolled up the sky and moved islands and mountains around. Just for the heck of it, I guess.)
I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth ... And I saw another angel ... and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. 7:1-3
(God assigned four angels to hurt the earth and the sea, but he tells them to wait until he has marked 144,000 male virgins. When he's done with the marking job, though, the angels can go ahead and hurt the earth and sea.

This verse is one that Christians like to use to show God's loving concern for the environment. But the previous verse (7:2) makes it clear that it was the angels' God-given job to "hurt the earth and the sea" just as soon as they finished their forehead marking job.
A friend of the family gave us a coffee cup that features this verse and the cute illustration shown below.)

And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen. 7:11-12
(The angels, elders, and beasts all hang around the throne saying "Oh God, you are so big. So absolutely huge. Gosh, we're all really impressed up here, I can assure you..." for ever and ever.)
They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. The Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes. 7:16-17
(The 144,000 male virgins will be fed by a lamb, drink living water, and have their tears washed away by God.)
And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake. 8:5
(An angel took some fire from the altar in heaven and threw it down to earth which caused loud voices, thunder, lightening and an earthquake.)
The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up. And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters. 8:7-10
(The 1st angel causes hail, fire mixed with blood, and burned down 1/3 of the earth's trees. The 2nd angel burns up a mountain and casts it into the sea, making 1/3 of the sea blood and killing 1/3 of sea life. And the 3rd angel made a star fall from heaven that burned up 1/3 of the rivers.)
And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit ... And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. 9:1-4
(The 5th angel causes a star to fall from heaven and is given the key to a bottomless pit with locusts and scorpions. But God tells the scorpions not to hurt trees or grass -- only people that don't have the proper seals on their foreheads.)
And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer. 10:5-6
(An angel stands on sea and land and says there will be no more time. Could this be God's way of warning us that time is running out for us to save the planet? Of course it could. This is the Bible; anything could mean anything or nothing at all.)
These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. 11:4
(There were these two olive trees and two candlesticks and they walked into a bar and said to the bartender...)
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. 11:15
(The 7th angel sounded, there were some voices in heaven, and Jesus will reign forever and ever. I wonder what environmental message God is trying to convey in this passage.)
And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. 11:18
Is God going to "destroy them which destroy the earth." But I thought God told the angels to hurt the earth? Is God going to destroy himself?
Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. 12:12
(The devil is going to hurt the inhabitants of the earth and sea. And God is going to ls going to just sit back and watch. God likes to watch.)
And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. 13:3
(The whole world wondered after the wounded beast. You know, the one that came out of the sea with ten horns and seven heads that looked like a leopard but with feet like a bear and a mouth like a lion. Yeah that one.)
And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people. 14:6
(A flying angel preaches to the folks on earth, writing in smoke the words, "Surrender Dorothy.")
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. 14:14
(Jesus sits in a white cloud with a gold crown and a sharp sickle. Everyone that sees him wonders what the fuck is he doing with that sickle.)
And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God. 15:1
(A marvelous sign of God's wrath and concern for the environment: 7 angels with 7 plagues filled with the wrath of God.)
And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy. 15:3-4
(Everybody in heaven sings the "song of the lamb" and says cool things like, "Oh God, you are so strong, and well, just so super...")
And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth. 16:1
(God tells the angels to destroy the environment by pouring out the wrath of God on the earth.)
And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent. 16:20-21
(God destroyed the islands and mountains and huge hail fell from heaven that killed many people. He did this because he loves islands, mountains, and people so much!)
And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. 19:1-2
(God judged the great whore that corrupted the earth with her fornication.)
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 20:12
(Dead people will be judged by God.)
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. 20:14-15
(God will throw most dead people into a lake of fire.)
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 21:1-3
(God will soon destroy the earth, both land and sea. He doesn't value them and neither should you.)
And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 21:5
(God is going to make all things new -- right after he gets done destroying everything!)
The fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. 21:6-8
(God will burn some dead people forever.)
And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. 21:10-11
(An angel carried the author of Revelation to a high mountain to show him Jerusalem. It had really cool lights.)
And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 21:23-24
(The new Jerusalem won't need the sun or moon, so you can trash the whole solar system if you feel like it.)
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. 21:27
(Only people whose names are written in the book of life will get into the heavenly city.)
And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 22:1-2
(In heaven there will be a tree that has 12 kinds of fruit with leaves that will heal nations. And there will be horses of different colors, singing munchkins, and a great and powerful wizard.)
And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. 22:5
(There will be no sun, night, or candles in heaven. Just God. All God, all the time.)
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 22:14
(The "tree of life" is not a real tree. Real trees will all be destroyed by God along with everything else on earth.)
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. 22:17
(The spirit and the bride and everyone that hears says, "Come".)
Okay. That's it. That's all the verses in Revelation that are marked green in the Green Bible. The question is why. Why were any of these verses marked green?
Revelation, like the rest of the Bible, is clear: God doesn't give a damn about the environment. He gave power to angels to damage earth and sea (Revelation 7:2-3); sent angels to burn earth, trees and grass (8:7); burned mountains and threw them into the sea (8:8); turned one third of the sea into blood, killing one third of its wildlife (8:8-9); threw down a star from heaven to destroy one third of the rivers (8:10); killed "every living soul in the sea" (16:3); dried up the Euphrates river (16:12); destroyed islands and mountains (16:20); ; and he plans to soon destroy the entire earth and every living thing on it. (21:1).
You'd have to be dishonest to mark anything green in the Bible. But that didn't stop the creators of the Green Bible.
Posted by Steve Wells at 12/23/2008 05:35:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
9 comments:
 Michael said...
Like all other "Holy Books", I hope they print it on soft paper... so that when I use it to wipe my ass, it doesn't scratch!!
Wed Dec 31, 07:00:00 AM 2008 
 Michael said...
If I want to read a "Fairy Tale" I'd choose a Philip Pullman book, Like the GOLDEN COMPASS. It's much better reading than some silly 'bible'.
Wed Dec 31, 07:02:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
I was laughing out loud at your comments, Steve. I think The Wizard of Oz is funnier, more realistic, and undoubtedly more eco-friendly than The God of Israel. (The Wizard lives in the Emerald City after all, and there's green everywhere there!!)
I can't believe how dishonest the authors/editors of the Green Bible are being. My guess is they figure that most people won't actually read the Green Bible, just like most people don't actually read the regular Bible. So they can just mark as green whatever verses they want and people will just glance and say "Look at all the green in there! I guess God was the first environmentalist!"
I don't know about the other books, but a large portion of verses they chose for Revelation are actually about death and destruction and very un-eco-friendly. The other verses just seem to be highlighted because they mention plants or animals. The few that comes close to being "green" only do so when taken out of context.
Assuming the other books are similar, I have a subtitle to suggest for this version of the Bible. The Green Bible: The Greatest Greenwash Ever Told
Wed Dec 31, 07:32:00 AM 2008 
 Michael said...
You say you want a revelation??? The 'bible' in all its versions, is BULLSHIT!!!
Wed Dec 31, 07:34:00 AM 2008 
 Errancy said...
Shameful. Silly exegesis like this really doesn't help make the case for Christianity and environmentalism going together.
Mon Jan 05, 08:30:00 AM 2009 
 RR said...
They don't go together.
The bible "gives" man dominion over the things of the earth... It teaches that everything is here for god's glory.
Christianity isn't concerned with environmentalism: it is concerned with promulgating its set of myths that give power to a class of people who claim to know the will of an all-powerful god. That is Christianity in its entirety...
Tue Jan 13, 03:10:00 PM 2009 
 Brucker said...
>>>Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees<<<
Sheesh, talk about taking a verse out of context! This is a goofy idea. As a Christian and an environmentalist (to some degree, far more of the former, obviously), I'd like to say that if I'd made the "Green Bible" (which I wouldn't have) there might have been at most something like twenty verses in green, and that's probably pushing it. This is obviously a marketing scheme to either get environmentalists to become Christians, or vice versa.
Thu Jan 15, 07:41:00 AM 2009 
 Misty said...
My favorite "green" passage in the Bible comes from Mark 11:12-14, 20:1. Jesus comes to a fig tree that has no figs on it because "the time of figs was not yet." It's just not fig season. What does he do? He curses the tree, and kills it so that "No man may eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever." Well, the next day ol' Jesus and his disciples come upon the tree again, and his disciples think it's just great that the tree is withered at the roots and dead. What a great moral and environmentally peaceful story I think that is. Angrily kill the tree with magic because you can't wait for the appropriate season, and make sure that no people or animals can ever have the benefits that the tree offers. He didn't even use the wood for anything. There isn't a corporate polluter on earth today that I can think of that would act so illogically as the illustrious messiah did.
Wed Apr 22, 08:19:00 AM 2009 
 Unknown said...
Oh that was funny. my favorite had to be how apparently, the horseman of the Apocalypse DEATH himself, is sent onto the earth to slaughter mankind in various nasty ways, because god loves the environment! Or he's mad that we ruined the environment? Sounds fair!
Wed Dec 04, 09:20:00 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
    
 03 December 2008Richard Dawkins: The God of the Old Testament
(Repost with Bible verses that support Richard Dawkins' description of the Old Testament God. Let me know if I've left out some good verses -- I started to poop out toward the end.)


The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:
jealous and proud of it
How jealous and proud is he? Well, his name is Jealous. And he named himself!
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Exodus 34:14
Here are some more verses where God brags about his jealousy.
I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. Exodus 20:5
For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. Deuteronomy 4:24
I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. Deuteronomy 5:9
(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth. Deuteronomy 6:15
The LORD will not spare him, but then the anger of the LORD and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the LORD shall blot out his name from under heaven. Deuteronomy 29:20
They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. Deuteronomy 32:16
They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. Deuteronomy 32:21
He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. Joshua 24:19
And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins. 1 Kings 14:22
And he put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head; and the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the door of the inner gate that looketh toward the north; where was the seat of the image of jealousy, which provoketh to jealousy. Ezekiel 8:3
Then said he unto me, Son of man, lift up thine eyes now the way toward the north. So I lifted up mine eyes the way toward the north, and behold northward at the gate of the altar this image of jealousy in the entry. Ezekiel 8:5
I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy. Ezekiel 16:38
So will I make my fury toward thee to rest, and my jealousy shall depart from thee, and I will be quiet, and will be no more angry. Ezekiel 16:42
And I will set my jealousy against thee, and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears; and thy remnant shall fall by the sword: they shall take thy sons and thy daughters; and thy residue shall be devoured by the fire. Ezekiel 23:25
Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen. Ezekiel 36:5
For in my jealousy and in the fire of my wrath have I spoken, Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel. Ezekiel 38:19
God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; Nahum 1:2
Thus saith the LORD of hosts; I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy. Zechariah 1:14
Thus saith the LORD of hosts; I was jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I was jealous for her with great fury. Zechariah 8:2
All the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. Zephaniah 3:8
a petty,
A golden bell and a pomegranate ... shall be upon Aaron to minister: and his sound shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before the LORD, and when he cometh out, that he die not. Exodus 28:34-35
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. Leviticus 19:19
Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 17:1
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. Deuteronomy 22:11
Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself. Deuteronomy 22:12
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
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation. Deuteronomy 23:2
unjust,
If thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. Exodus 4:23
The LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast. Exodus 13:15
I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. Exodus 20:5
Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers. Isaiah 14:21
See here for a list of Old Testament injustices.
unforgiving
He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. Joshua 24:19
Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up a cry or prayer for them: for I will not hear them in the time that they cry unto me for their trouble. Jeremiah 11:14
When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence. Jeremiah 14:12
Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them. Ezekiel 8:18
control-freak;
But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: ... The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods (hemorrhoids), and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart: ... Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: ... 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. ... And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters ... The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter, And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them. Deuteronomy 28:15-68
a vindictive,
I kill .. I wound ... I will render vengeance to mine enemies ... I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh. Deuteronomy 32:39-42
He will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries. Deuteronomy 32:43
To me belongeth vengeance and recompence ... for the day of their calamity is at hand. Deuteronomy 32:35
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. Nunbers 11:1
Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, Behold, I will punish them: the young men shall die by the sword; their sons and their daughters shall die by famine: Jeremiah 11:22
For this is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood. Jeremiah 46:10
And I will execute vengeance in anger and fury upon the heathen, such as they have not heard. Micah 5:15
bloodthirsty
And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD. Leviticus 4:17
And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. Leviticus 26:29
I kill .. I wound ... I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh. Deuteronomy 32:39-42
But God shall wound the head of his enemies ... That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same. Psalm 68:21-23
For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter. Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. Isaiah 34:2-3
For my sword shall be bathed in heaven. Isaiah 34:5
The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, ... their land shall be soaked with blood, ... For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance. Isaiah 34:7-8
And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine. Isaiah 49:26
I will ... trample them in my fury; and their blood ... will stain all my raiment. Isaiah 63:2-6
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 this is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood. Jeremiah 46:10
Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood. Jeremiah 48:10
Thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood. Ezekiel 39:17
Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth. Ezekiel 39:18
And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you. Ezekiel 39:19
And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung. Zephaniah 1:17
See here for a list of Old Testament cruelties.
ethnic cleanser;
Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:15
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
a misogynistic,
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, an do ye to them as is good in your eyes. Genesis 19:8
Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife. 1 Samuel 18:27
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged. Leviticus 19:20
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. Leviticus 21:9
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. Nunbers 31:15-19
And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women ... shalt thou take unto thyself. Deuteronomy 20:13-14
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her .... Thou shalt go in unto her. Deuteronomy 21:11-13
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated .... Deuteronomy 21:15
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... Deuteronomy 22:13
I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid. Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city. But if ... 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 22:14-21
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
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
Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30
Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife. 1 Samuel 18:27
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 2 Samuel 12:11
And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the LORD Ezekiel 26:6
homophobic,
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22
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
racist,
One of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses ... 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. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. Numbers 25:6-8
The LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. Deuteronomy 7:6
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever. Deuteronomy 23:3
infanticidal,
At midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon. Exodus 12:29
Ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. Leviticus 26:16
I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children. Leviticus 26:22
And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. Leviticus 26:29
Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. ... And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick... on the seventh day, that the child died. 2 Samuel 12:14-18
Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers. Ezekiel 5:10
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
genocidal,
Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:5
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17
So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40
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
filicidal,
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and ... offer him there for a burnt offering. Genesis 22:2
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death. Leviticus 20:9
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. Leviticus 21:9
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 ... hou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalm 137:9
pestilential,
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. Nunbers 11:33
And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Nunbers 21:6
The hand of the LORD was against the city ... and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts. 1 Samuel 5:9
So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? ... So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel ... and there died of the people ... seventy thousand men. 2 Samuel 24:13
So will I send upon you famine and evil beasts, and they shall bereave thee: and pestilence and blood shall pass through thee; and I will bring the sword upon thee. I the LORD have spoken it. Ezekiel 5:17
megalomaniacal,
Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth. There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness was under his feet. And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly. 2 Samuel 22:8-11
Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the LORD. Ezekiel 38:23
sadomasochistic,
Thou shalt even drink it and suck it out, and thou shalt break the sherds thereof, and pluck off thine own breasts: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD. Ezekiel 23:34
capriciously malevolent
Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark ... fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city. Ezekiel 9:4-7
Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them. Ezekiel 8:18
And the cities that are inhabited shall be laid waste, and the land shall be desolate; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. Ezekiel 12:20
bully.
And I will appoint over them four kinds, saith the LORD: the sword to slay, and the dogs to tear, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the earth, to devour and destroy. Jeremiah 15:3
And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord GOD: every man's sword shall be against his brother. And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone. Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the LORD. Ezekiel 38:21-23
Posted by Steve Wells at 12/03/2008 07:57:00 PM   Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:  
41 comments:
 Hugo said...
That Is Awesome!
I've been waiting for someone to put that quote next to the actual scripture.
Thanks
Thu Dec 04, 07:02:00 AM 2008 
 Aquaria said...
It was learning that the reason we had to believe in god was because he was a jealous god that I got on my path to atheism. Before then I hadn't been too concerned about religion, but learning god had such a flaw made me think the whole god thing was a bunch of bs.
Thanks, Lutheran school 5th grade religious education!
Verification word: Evagica. The mis-spelled female hygiene product.
Tue Dec 09, 12:02:00 AM 2008 
 lockharts said...
wow dawkins lol gotta love him. Oh and can we please stop putting verses out of context....
Jealousy in God is not a flaw... If God was not jealous he would have left and forsaken us with our idols long ago. He definatly would not have sent his son.
Why is jealousy for us a sin? Because everything we have is from God and we don't deserve it. If we are jealous of something we are being materialistic and therefore not appreciative of what God gives us aka we are idol worshiping.
Jealousy in God must be seen as what God deserves... Therefore if it is not givin to Him he is naturally jealous of what he deserves not what he wants.
Overall I agree with dawkins, if He was a man, I really wouldn't like Him too much. Why would we listen to a guy that goes around saying He is better than us...
But He's not, therefore there is a lot more grace to all of this. If God was being "Just" we would have been smited and wiped from the Earth a long time ago. Yet God decided to perserver with His people (Israel) slowly restoring them.
Question: If God had not been so harsh on His people and had not told them to stay away from the other nations for corruptions sake, would there be the Church today or Christianity at all???
This is meant for debate, I would not try to convert people over the internet, thats not my point. So argue it with intellegence please...
Wed Dec 10, 02:52:00 PM 2008 
 Hugo said...
Okay lockhearts, I'll bite a little.
So a concept that means something to us means something else when applied to your god concept?
Then if it is black your brain will find a way to make it white when applied to your god.
I suggest you look up the special pleading argument.
Also what does it mean when you say: "would there be the Church today or Christianity at all"
just because it is believed by (many) people does not make it true (argument from popularity), have a look at hinduism if that is important for you.
And why did you just pick that attribute, there's still all these:
petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully
Maybe a bit harder even for your brain but I'd love to see you give it a try.

Did everyone see the new t-shirts on http://richarddawkins.net/ guess he read your mind Steve or was it a joint effort ;-)
Thu Dec 11, 12:25:00 AM 2008 
 Kamacharya said...
Question: If God had not been so harsh on His people and had not told them to stay away from the other nations for corruptions sake, would there be the Church today or Christianity at all???
My answer:
Probably not. Nor would there have been the advent of Islam either. Nor would the Dark Ages have happened, and we humans might be a thousand years ahead in technology than we are now.
I could be wearing rocket-boots and being served cocktails by sexy android waitresses right now if it wasn't for the theocracy that ruled over - and dumbed down - Europe after the fall of Rome!
Thu Dec 11, 01:21:00 AM 2008 
 Anon said...
Great (re)post. I'm just finishing listening to The God Delusion on audiobook, and I recognize this excerpt from the beginning. It's very interesting to see how well Dawkin's words match up with the Bible.
I would hate to be Aaron. I could see myself forgetting to put the bell on some day and being killed on the spot for it. I bet pastors are happy this one still isn't in effect.
Aquaria said:It was learning that the reason we had to believe in god was because he was a jealous god that I got on my path to atheism
For me, it was mostly the fact that God made/let people suffer, both in life and in the afterlife. But if I had known about all these jealousy verses earlier, it might have had a bigger impact.
lockharts said:Jealousy in God is not a flaw... If God was not jealous he would have left and forsaken us with our idols long ago. He definatly would not have sent his son.
You're saying that God sent his son to get crucified here on Earth because he was jealous. Couldn't God have thought of a better way than killing his son to convince us that we should worship him?
Jealousy in God must be seen as what God deserves...
I don't see how killing off Jesus gives God his due. I can understand the idea of God not wanting us to worship other gods, but Jesus dying on the cross didn't solve this since other religions still exist. If God really wants us to believe in him, couldn't Jesus come back down for a press conference and perform a few miracles for a global audience? I'm being completely serious. If God is there, why doesn't he just tell us? A lot more people would believe in him and be saved from hell.
If God was being "Just" we would have been smited and wiped from the Earth a long time ago.
If God was being just, would he still be punishing the human race for what Adam and Eve did thousands of year ago? He tried to smite everyone before to make things better (the flood), but it didn't work and he said he was sorry he did it.
If God had not been so harsh on His people and had not told them to stay away from the other nations for corruptions sake, would there be the Church today or Christianity at all???
This is an interesting way of thinking of it. I agree with Kamacharya, we'd probably be better off if it weren't for Christianity, as long as people weren't duped into some other religion, which I'm afraid probably would have happened though...Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, though.
Sun Dec 14, 09:25:00 AM 2008 
 james said...
Great post. And it's still going on! There are a few cartoons on god's actions at
this blog - hope they make you guys laugh! http://macleodcartoons.blogspot.com/2008/12/so-thats-where-it-came-from.html
http://macleodcartoons.blogspot.com/2008/12/mysterious-ways.html
http://macleodcartoons.blogspot.com/2008/12/vengeful-god.html
Sun Dec 21, 06:27:00 PM 2008 
 fenm said...
lockharts said:
"Why is jealousy for us a sin? Because everything we have is from God and we don't deserve it"
You mean like disease, and children with birth defects, and tsunamis that kill thousands of people? I agree that we don't deserve that.
Oh, wait, you probably meant just the good stuff God gives us, huh?
"Question: If God had not been so harsh on His people and had not told them to stay away from the other nations for corruptions sake, would there be the Church today or Christianity at all???"
You're operating under the assumption that lack of a Church and Christianity would be a bad thing...
Thu Jan 01, 05:06:00 PM 2009 
 kinzu-kiwi said...
Sometimes I wonder if God just acts tough to show His fans how "hard" He is.
What if He's a big sissy who's so scared of loosing his friends he has to do all this barbaric stuff or else he'll "loose his edge"?
Afterall, his books wouldn't have sold half as well if people knew what a goody-two-shoes he is.
Even the "apologetics" who go on about God's love don't think Jesus or Yahweh is all-forgiving; they believe Heaven comes at a price.
He definetely seems to be laying it on a bit thick in the bible, he's all "I'm badass and awesome and stuff", but for all we know he could be some wimp who decorates his house with pictures of Unicorns and loves the Care Bears. Hmm... this seems to remind me of something.
Can anyone guess what I am reminded of? :3
Thu Mar 19, 07:45:00 PM 2009 
 bencyjohn said...
i have my own views on god and i am trying to express it in my blog
www.bencyjohn.blogspot.com
pls feel free to come and comment
Fri Mar 20, 07:14:00 AM 2009 
 Luke said...
Awesome.
Sat Mar 28, 03:35:00 PM 2009 
 jacobwright said...
This is ignoral and unreasonable. You guys think you are really smart, but it is very childish reasoning. Check out this essay I did on this very subject:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=19042384&blogId=479452159
Sun Mar 29, 07:16:00 PM 2009 
 Nev said...
Nice work! I have Dawkin's quote on a T-Shirt, which I've translated so my girlfriend knows what it says. Maybe a native speaker can improve on it. (In Latin America < 1%, according to figures I've seen, class themselves as atheist).
El Dios del Antiguo Testamento es, podría ser dicho, el personaje más desagradable en toda ficción: celoso y orgulloso de ello; un controlador mezquino, injusto, y implacable; un vengativo limpiador étnico sediento de sangre; un matón misógino, homófobo, racista, infanticida, genocida, filicida, pestilente, megalómano, sadomasoquista, y caprichosamente malévolo.
Wed Aug 26, 01:33:00 PM 2009 
 Brucker said...
Why "The God of the Old Testament"? It's the same God through the whole Bible.
Wed Sep 02, 11:15:00 AM 2009 
 Ricardo Tavares Dias said...
What a bunch of ignorant comments.
If any of you wants to know who God is, you'll have to remove prejudice from your minds and get educated enough to read the Word of God as it should be read. Understand the story and the history. Understand the context and the text. You'll have to read the whole Bible and you'll se that both testaments speak of one and only God. A God of Love...and a God of Justice.
Fri Oct 16, 03:43:00 PM 2009 
 geraldo21 said...
Yes, perhaps Ricardo, I agree there is no sense god-bashing until pain is at stake.
Fortunately, however, a lot of people, myself included, have found sufficient meaning in their lives already without this delusion. To my people, there is no sense spending countless months reading a story, and further years studying or preaching it. It is, after all, just that: a story. If a person believes that this book is actually "the word of god from thousands of years ago," then it's quite clear that they have inherent delusional tendencies, and can probably be convinced that climate change is hoax of massive proportions by all of the politicians of the world, too.
Alas, we Atheists have decided to spend the months & years spared from reading this story actually accomplishing something with our time on Earth. Something senseful, something good for Life on Earth. Something real. Not preaching this non-sense, where the only good that comes from it, is that joyful period following the end of the war... the war that religion started in the first place.
The world will be in a natural state of peace only when there is no religion, or no human beings.
Wed Feb 10, 12:38:00 PM 2010 
 kadie said...
Geraldo21, if those of us how studie the Bible are wasting our time then aren't also Atheiste who spend their time telling us that we are wrong and trying to prove so also wasting their time?
War comes form human kind who is not perfect, we are all greed and and can never to prefect. It is true the we use religion to start wars, but that is not the purpose of religion. It is because of our greed that we try to religion to justify war. Really though I don't see myself in a believer of religion but in Christ who came to end religion.
Wed Mar 24, 11:40:00 AM 2010 
 Mary said...
Yes kadie Christ did come to put an end to religion. It's why he was killed. If you truly study Christ teachings, and what he was saying. You would come to know that the true GOD is Spirit, and the Kingdom of Heaven is with in us all.If you take a close look. The GOD of the Old Testament is a whole lot different from the GOD of the New Testament. I think that the teaching of Christ were taken some 300 years after he was killed and made to fit in with the Old Testament teaching to try and bring the followers, and control of the people they were losing back under their thumbs. To me they were losing to much money, from the loss, and control of the people. So out of greed, lust for power, and pettiness they invented a new religion to compliment the old one, and it worked. For a long time it has worked. Until man was able to read the written word for themselves that is.
Sat Jul 31, 11:47:00 PM 2010 
 Gary said...
This is Gary DeVaney of "The God Murders" website. Richard Dawkins has awakened Human awareness to the insane and murderous God of the Bible. I put God on Trial. Thinkers appreciate Bible C&V documentation that proves that Richard Dawkins in 100% on target. If any are truly interested:
www.thegodmurders.com
Thank you so much, Richard!
Regards, Gary DeVaney
Mon Sep 13, 11:43:00 PM 2010 
 pkgs said...
Should I thank who - ''god" --
If these lies were not fed to our ancestors - there would have been no Christianity and the Christians would not have killed Millions and Millions of people in the name of religion and till this day this slaughter is going on.
The stories which are taught to us as facts in the so called Holy books - a kid will laugh at it and he/she can make up better and more believable stories.
Wed Apr 13, 11:37:00 AM 2011 
 The Simple Scientist said...
@lockharts: When you butcher words like "definatly," you lose any and all credibility. Most English-speakers who were not home-schooled spell that word "definitely."
Thank you, Richard Dawkins, for giving the world your books, your knowledge and a path to overcome the ignorance of the past (and the present).
Tue Jul 12, 10:33:00 AM 2011 
 A Disciple of Christ said...
fenm: "You're operating under the assumption that lack of a Church and Christianity would be a bad thing..."

For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness. Psalms 84:10
Tue Jul 12, 01:23:00 PM 2011 
 Paul Arenas said...
You could repent. Moreover, you could ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you will ever make. “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
- Romans 10:9-10
Fri Nov 11, 10:41:00 AM 2011 
 Leonardo de la Paor said...
Picture the scene!
Darwin & Dawkins as bacteria on top of a giant lump of Elephant shit debating evolution.
Dawkins says to Darwin, "I believe in the Big Bang"!
"How come"? says Darwin.
"I heard it a few seconds ago & here we are"!
"Elementary, my dear Darwin"!
Fri Nov 11, 11:08:00 AM 2011 
 Leonardo de la Paor said...
Exodus 32:7-10
Is Moses schizophrenic & hearing voices in his head or is God talking to him?
If Moses is schizophrenic then the whole Chosen People & the Promised Land is a Lark in the Park, but if God is talking to him, then God is the FIRST anti-Semitic. He wanted to wipe the Israelites off the face of the earth & start again, but Moses pleaded with God not to & to give them another chance.
Moloch worship (the Golden Calf) offered human victims as sacrifices. The FIRST Jewish Holocaust happened in the Wilderness, right after Passover.Ask your local Jew why the Israelites had to spend 40 years in the Wilderness & he will either LIE or is ignorant of what happened.
See Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 64a to see how to offer human sacrifices & not be guilty!
Fri Nov 11, 11:18:00 AM 2011 
 The Simple Scientist said...
Few things are more ridiculous than trying to prove the truth of ancient scripture by quoting from that very scripture. That's a bit like saying "I'm right because I say I am" or "The Book of Mormon is clearly correct because it says it is correct." Expand your worldviews. Free yourselves.
How could tribes of ancient herdsmen know more about history, cosmology and theology than we could in 2011? The only honest answer is "They couldn't."
Fri Nov 11, 11:36:00 AM 2011 
 hoosierpastor said...
I respectfully disagree with the fundamental assertion of Dawkins and the original post. . . that anger is somehow ignoble or reprehensible in God. Anger is not the opposite of love, indifference is. When I read in the papers not long ago of a man who wrapped his infant son in cellophane and watched him slowly suffocate I became angry, very angry. I wanted something to be done about that kind of evil. I wanted justice. I believe that is the only moral response to that kind of evil. What would you say to a villager in Africa who has just watched his village being burned and his family brutalized. . . that it's immoral for him to become angry??? I submit that our anger at such evil is the natural and appropriate reflection of how God feels about such evil. That is what the anger of God is ultimately about. It is his righteous response to the evil which destroys the goodness, beauty and peace of his creation. Personally I could not believe in a "god" who is not angry about evil.
Fri Dec 09, 12:24:00 PM 2011 
 Leonardo de la Paor said...
Is it fair that 100,000,000 to 300,000,000 sperm are ejaculated by men & only ONE fertilizes the egg?
Some people would have you believe that all the sperm should the egg, even the ones with 2 heads & the ones with no tails.
I think God has people like Richard Dawkins play the "Devils Advocate"! This is a very important role & keeps believers on their toes. Good health to you, Richard & if you have any money left after being screwed by ATHEISTS, you could send us a few bob! Ho, ho, ho.
Fri Dec 09, 12:49:00 PM 2011 
 havocwing said...
The greatest madman to have ever lived.
Sat Feb 18, 10:06:00 AM 2012 
 havocwing said...
The greatest madman to have ever lived.
Sat Feb 18, 10:07:00 AM 2012 
 Leonardo de la Paor said...
"How could tribes of ancient herdsmen know more about history, cosmology and theology than we could in 2011? The only honest answer is "They couldn't."
Its quiet clear that the Hygiene Laws they had in the Wilderness were thousands of years before their time. The medium was religious ritual, the effect was hygiene among a couple million.
Deuteronomy 23:12-14. This one instruction saved them from contacted all kinds of airborne diseases. In parts of the world, even in the 21st century, people don't understand the importance of this instruction.
Wed Feb 22, 01:37:00 PM 2012 
 un servidor said...
The Hebrew word represented by the English word "jealous" is "qannah" which could more accurately be rendered, "possessing sensitive and deep feelings."
I want to testify that as well as I comprehend that I exist, I know that God lives, that He loves His children, and that He does all He does for their eternal welfare. I know this.
"For behold, this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and Eternal life of man."
I invite each of you to seek Him in humility, and I promise "if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul." (Deuteronomy 4:29)
"...weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning." (Psalm 30:5)
Sat Jun 23, 10:55:00 AM 2012 
 larry said...
After further study & reading Spinoza, I now understand the problem in the Old Testament. The priest/scribe Ezra, the Babylonian diaspora Jew, on his return to Jerusalem REWROTE, ADDED TO the Jewish manuscript (s) & left them for the Pharisees to collate & canonize.
They created their god in THEIR image; in the image of a racist, blood thirsty Jew, they created him.
Marcion was right!
The god of the Jews is a MONSTER, who has been used to dupe Christians & Muslims.
Sat Jun 23, 11:48:00 AM 2012 
 jessica said...
Waye, hell's gonna be really crowded. Hey look at the bright side, you all can look at each other at the same time and say: WE WERE WRONG!
Thu Jul 19, 11:41:00 AM 2012 
 A Família Internacional de Embu das Artes said...
Well, Mr. Dawkins & following, after such a description of a God you unfortunately don't know much about, if that's the way He really is, you should be on your knees every day, praying He doesn't exist or making sure you don't offend Him!
Tue Apr 02, 08:05:00 AM 2013 
 Brett Kitt said...
The word "jealous" in the orginal translation, from what I understand, means "passionate". So what is God passionate about? How does passion work in our own human relationships? When is it good and when is it bad? The passion a Mother has for her child is the same passion God has for us. A good mother will try not to spoil her children and only hopes that they won't go out and run in traffic, however.. that's not something she can fully control. She wants real love. She wants a child who freely chooses to love her. She can only hope she has taught them well, and that they trust her teaching. The consequence is there, but it's not because a mother hates or doesn't love her son. It's because when a car hits you, you get hurt. I don't think anyone would deny that. She will still love her son after he gets hit by a car... she will love him if He doesn't... tho she might be more proud and less stresssed. haha. this is the love of our Father God. It's not because we can earn it or deserve it, IT JUST IS! God is LOVE. HE is IT. The understanding of this comes from God, it is a gift. However gifts must be recieved, opened, and accepted. Everything is relative folks. And once God reveals this to you through seeking, everything will start to make a lot more sense. Everything. It takes time though, as any human earthly relationship takes time. God will never let you down though. He will always pull through. I pray that anyone who reads this can understand what I'm saying, and the truth I have found, and the joy of conversation with God, and the relationship. It's amazing.
Wed May 29, 03:41:00 PM 2013 
 The Simple Scientist said...
Brett, when you talk about God, do you mean Yahweh? Or Allah? Zeus? Or maybe Hanuman the monkey god? There are so many gods out there to choose from, how do you know which one to worship? Perhaps you mean a passionate Poseidon? You really owe it to yourself to read more than 1 ancient holybook and attend more than 1 kind of religious service. Amen for a passionate Venus, the goddess of love!
Wed May 29, 08:04:00 PM 2013 
 beinghuman123 said...
It's funny how religions say that God is loving and forgiving when he is anything but.
I hate how every religion claims to be right and says that the others are wrong. Jesus never intended to start another religion like some people claim. He hated the Pharisees and over turned tables in the temples.
Thu Jul 25, 08:03:00 PM 2013 
 Bill Graham said...
My mother has an illustrated Book of Genesis. I can't even make it through a dozen pages before wishing that the Galactic Child Protective Services would swoop in and take custody of the planet.
Change the scene and the names and is there ANYONE ANYWHERE who could condone such behavior?
And sadly there have been countless millions of souls since forced into all manner of mental/emotional/philosophical gyrations trying to 'spin' such abject horror into something positive or instructive.
Christianity lost me at age 5 with the Noah's Ark story when I didn't see Kangaroos. Reading about this particular version of God's sociopathic behavior isn't likely to win me back from a generally Daoist perspective.


Wed Oct 30, 03:58:00 PM 2013 
 larry said...
Yo to all of true, sincere, seekers of truth!
MISHNAH. HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 437
Following the Mishnah is a discussion among the sages. One of the Talmud Sages, Rabbi Ashi, comments as follows:
GEMARA. R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through, (3) or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death … And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given of his seed unto Molech. Why is this stated? — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son's son or daughter's son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him off.]
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 439
Aaron offered Human Sacrifices to Moloch aka The Golden Calf on Mount Sinai (Exodus 32; Amos 5; Acts 7:42-43) & all through the Jewish Bible you will see that they continued to do it. The Babylonian Talmud teaches them how to do it TODAY!
NOW THAT IS WORRYING.

Thu Oct 31, 02:13:00 PM 2013 
 larry said...
Jesus prayed:
“I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will.”
I DESIRE MERCY, NOT SACRIFICE
Have you never questioned the idea of killing a man to appease God?
Jesus says:
MATTHEW 9
[13] Go and learn what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.
MATTHEW 12
[7] And if you had known what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless.
The prophet says:
Hos.6
[6] For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings. . ..
The above are true witnesses. Now, here are some examples of the many false witnesses:
The likes of Billy Graham and Co state:
In ancient Judaism the shedding of blood was to make atonement for sin. The word "blood" in the Old and the New Testaments symbolized a life that was given. Jesus Christ became the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world for the sins of the world.
Another witness testifies as follows:
By His death on the cross, the Lord Jesus made a perfect atonement for sin, by which the wrath of God against sinners is appeased and a ground furnished upon which God can deal in mercy with sinners. He redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse in our place. He Who Himself was absolutely without sin was made sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
And yet another testifies:
Jesus—We believe that Jesus is the Son of God, was born of a virgin, was wholly God and wholly man, lived a sinless life, died in our place as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, was buried, arose bodily from the grave, and ascended into Heaven.
Of the many false doctrines of Christendom, none can be more heinous to the Father than this -- that He required His innocent Son, Jesus of Nazareth, to atone for the sins of humans by suffering the horrible death of crucifixion, thus becoming a vicarious, sacrificial atonement. It is heinous because it renders men --
1. Blind to the true message of the Old Testament scriptures,
2. Deaf to the voice of Jesus,
3. Utterly ignorant as to the merciful nature of God and
4. Seals their condemnation who might otherwise have found salvation.

Fri Feb 21, 11:59:00 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.